E. Scott Cracraft

To the editor,

Jack Stephenson should be careful about his use of the word “traitor” which he recently applied to Barrack Obama. A traitor is one who commits “treason", a rather odious offense that involves actual acts to betray one’s homeland. This is a very serious charge. So serious that it has historically been considered on the lowest crimes. For example, Dante consigned traitors to the lowest circle of hell.

If Mr. Stephenson had done more research, he would have found that “treason” is not disagreement with one’s government. Nor is it disagreement with political policy or is it dissent. Instead it is a specific CRIME under Federal Law that is narrowly defined to actual betrayals and imposes a heavy burden of proof on the accuser.

Nevertheless, throughout history, it has been common for people who disagree with each other over political and social issues to use the term rather loosely. People who disagree with their government or other people who happen to disagree with them are frequently called traitors. If these people are given power to do so, they often use such a serious charge to silence those who dissent.

Our Constitutional Founders were aware of this tendency. After all, had they lost the American Revolution, they would have certainly been tried for treason under British law. So, they wrote into the new Constitution important restrictions on what could be considered “treason” so that any treason law passed by Congress could never be used to stifle free speech and discussion.

Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” The Federal Statues similarly define treason.

In addition, the Constitution requires that to be legally considered a traitor, one has to commit an overt act and such acts must be actually seen by two witnesses.

Dissent is not treason. Dislike of the country’s domestic and foreign policy not treason. Even criticism of the Constitution is not treason. In other words, to be a traitor you have to actually DO something, concretely and with intent, to betray the country to an actual, declared enemy.

As a result of this narrow definition and heavy burden of proof on the part of the accuser, very few Americans have been indicted, much less convicted, of this serious offense. Instead, even people who have actually “done” something, such as spies, are tried for espionage, not treason.

So, Mr. Stephenson, “treason” is an actual crime, not a political ideology. You may disagree with Senator Obama. You may say that you dislike him. You can even call him “un-American. You have the choice and the right to do so since that is your opinion. False accusations of criminal behavior, however, do not constitute protected “opinion” speech because charging someone with such a serious felony requires actual proof.

When and where did Senator Obama commit this crime of treason, Mr. Stephenson? Do you have a time and date that you care to share with a jury?

When has he made war against the United States or helped an enemy? If you have such evidence, I am sure you know something that no one else seems to know including the F.B.I. or the leadership of the Republican Party.

Or did he just disagree with you? Are all the people who support Senator Obama also traitors to their country? I find it hard to believe that General Powell, a highly respected officer who actually served in the Bush administration could be a traitor.

You should be careful about what you accuse people of, Mr. Stephenson. If you were to call a private citizen a “traitor” without actual proof of criminal behavior, he or she might well consider it defamation of character. Treason is such a horrible thing to unjustly accuse someone of that in the “old days” such an affront to someone’s honor was grounds for gentlemen to challenge each other to duels. Fortunately, today you might just get yourself sued.

E. Scott Cracraft

Gilford