High Treason

 

 High Treason

by Robert Thompson

 

OpEdNews.Com

 

It is sometimes hard to forget one's youth, which can be the source of much nostalgia, happy and painful.   Fifty years ago, I was an Undergraduate at Oxford University, reading Jurisprudence, and I can still remember much of what I was then taught.

 

One item which comes readily to mind in the present world situation  was the definition of High Treason, a crime which was still until recently in England and Wales punishable by the death penalty, as also was Arson in a Naval Dockyard (and for all that I know this may still be true).   When the death penalty was abolished for Murder, the legislators overlooked (in other words, forgot about) these other capital crimes.

 

One of the more unusual actions which constituted High Treason was adultery with the King's Consort, which offence included the Queen concerned.   This was notoriously applied by the ruthless Henry VIII to dispose of certain of those whom he had previously claimed to be his wives.

 

Much more serious in our modern times remains the giving of "succour to the enemies of the kingdom", and I have to presume that similar provisions obtain in the U.S.A. with the substitution of the "United States of America" for the word "kingdom".   I invite any lawyer who might read this to correct me if I am wrong.   This makes me wonder why two notable persons in the U.S.A. have not been indicted for High Treason under this heading, since they appear clearly to have committed this heinous crime.

 

First, one must examine the declaration by Mr George W. Bush following the attrocities of 11th September 2001 that he was going to start a "Crusade" (i.e., by definition, a war ostensibly to free the Holy Places in Palestine from Muslim rule).   By so doing he anihilated much of the world-wide support and sympathy which these events had caused.   This extraordinary announcement was exactly what Mr Oussama bin Laden and his fellow Islamist terrorists had been hoping and praying for.   It is unlikely that they could have believed their luck and have expected such a massive helping hand in their recruitment of volunteers to carry out their murderous aims.   They must really have thought that their evil mission was blessed from on high when the most powerful man in the world confirmed everything that they had claimed against the "western" world.   They had no doubt been spreading the word around among the impressionable in the Muslim world that they were threatened by the "West", but they could probably never have imagined that the President of the U.S.A. would publicly confirm what they were saying.   If that is not giving succour to the enemies of the U.S.A., I wonder what is. It was a much more serious offence than merely fighting against our joint allied invasion of Afghanistan.

 

Secondly, there have been several declarations by Mr John Ashcroft in and by which, to the great puzzlement and annoyance of many leading Muslim scholars and teachers, he gave his absolute support to the same Mr Oussama bin Laden when the latter claimed that he was pursuing a jihad against the powers, especially the U.S.A., which had declared war on the Muslim world.   Mr Ashcroft (like also Mr Bush) must have had (no doubt highly paid) advisers who could have explained to him in simple words the difference between a jihad (a struggle) and a harb (a war).   These declarations by Mr Ashcroft were, as had been the declaration of a "Crusade" by Mr Bush, immediately used by Mr bin Laden and his like as valuable aids to recruitment.   These statements proved that what these terrorists had claimed was confirmed by the highest authorities in the U.S.A.

 

Taking together these specific acts of treason by these two persons, we can see how they gave massive support to these Islamist terrorists, by enabling them to "justify" (in the minds of those under their influence) any action, however evil in itself, which they might undertake against the "West" and more specifically against the U.S.A.

 

These actions have no direct connection with the decision of the Bush administration to invade Iraq in direct contradiction with the Nuremberg Principles, and without the backing of the United Nations.   I say this confidently because there has never been any evidence that Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime in Iraq was willing even to tolerate such Wahabi terrorists on its soil, never mind give them any support.   While he was still in power, Saddam Hussein was attacked by Mr bin Laden for being a "godless socialist", and only attracted the latter's support after Mr Bush's "Crusaders" had invaded what Mr bin Laden considered to be a Muslim country.

 

If any lawyer disagrees with the above analysis, I would ask him or her to explain what form of defence is open in law in the U.S.A. to Mr Bush and Mr Ashcroft since they have committed such terrible acts against the interests of their own country, and, of course, against the world at large.   Before I retired in December 2000, I spent many years defending persons accused of serious criminal offences in Courts at all levels, but I find it impossible even to imagine the slightest grounds for pleas in mitigation in the cases of these two persons.