Speaking of Treason…

Via InstaPundit, I see that Tom Bell of the Cato Institute has written an interesting TechCentralStation column on the murky legalities of prosecuting treason cases against webloggers who could be seen as ?independent propagandists? for al-Qaida. Like when Alan Dershowitz started contemplating the legal possibilities of jamming needles under fingernails, the exercise leaves me better informed, but creeped out.

Comments

[Hal E.]

Yes, by all means, the way to win the war against terrorists who hate democracies like ours is to start cracking down on free speech. That'll teach those bastards.

[hey]

it was fun to see alan d., noted aclu member and notorious mad dog defence attorney, advocating getting medieval on dark age revivalists.

but we have seen that the us army/spec ops/cia has been listening.

"uday, qsai (sp???? can i buy a vowel please pat?), come out with your hands up! this is the us army!"

"die american scum"

"sarge, use the rpgs and 50 cal, and tell the apaches to fire the hellfire missiles"

"sir, what about the airforce, can't they just drop a daisy cutter?"

"yeah but then they get the credit, and we'd have to back up by a mile or two"

and people around here think the DEA uses aggressive tactics when conducting raids and arrests!

I'm surprised that there were intact bodies...

[Kevin Carson]

If the government had the balls to meet the Constitutional definition and burden of proof in a treason prosecution, they wouldn't have military tribunals.

Anyway, even without resort to "disappearing" somebody via Star Chamber, they have access to alternatives a lot more convenient than due process of law. All the FBI has to do is unofficially lean on a "subversive" website's ISP, and drop a few hints about the use of RICO to seize the assets of those aiding terrorists, and they'll shut down the site themselves. It happened to IRA Radio in late 2001 (they had archived radio interviews with Bobby Sands and other Irish terrorists).