Treason vs. patriotic dissent

treason
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence

dissent
1. To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree.
2. To withhold assent or approval.
n.
1. Difference of opinion or feeling; disagreement.
2. The refusal to conform to the authority or doctrine of an established church; nonconformity.
3. Law A justice's refusal to concur with the opinion of a majority, as on a higher court. Also called dissenting opinion.

--The American Heritage Dictionary

There is a rather large difference between treason and dissent, a difference that has been ignored for the past forty years or so; basically, since the conflict in Vietnam, the two have been treated the same. Neither dissent, which must not be punished, nor treason which should be, has been punished since World War II.

Granted, war has not been formally declared since WWII; however, treason is not just aiding and abetting enemies during a time of war. Treason is also aiding and abetting enemies during any time, because we never know when a relatively quiet tension will erupt into full fledged war.

So, what is the difference?

Dissent is when patriotic, conscientious objectors hold peaceful demonstrations to protest the actions of the government. Dissent is when artists, singers, actors, and directors use their craft to demonstrate why they think the actions of the government are wrong. We see this all the time in the United States, and while some wish these protestors would shut up, we all agree that (and are thankful for) these people have the right to express their opinions.

A notable example of dissent through art is the war protest songs of the 1960s. Dylan and others built careers on their disagreement with the government regarding Vietnam. Another notable example, one that’s less acceptable since the opinion was expressed overseas, was the Dixie Chicks’ statement that they were ashamed of being from the same state as the sitting president with whom they disagreed.

The right to dissent without fear of official reprisal is one of the foundations that the United States was built on. Dissent isn’t, should not be, and must never be punished by law…individual choices not to purchase the goods produced by dissenters, however, is its own form of dissent, and should never be forced (as in, the Dixie Chicks’ complaints about their listeners getting so upset that they’ve quit buying albums).

Treason, on the other hand, is something far different. Where dissent is disagreement, treason is betrayal. Betrayal of nation, betrayal of Commander in Chief. Betrayal must be punished, both to prevent the individual from committing treason again, and to deter others from treasonous acts.

There are several notable acts of treason that have been committed, both during Vietnam and during the intervening years. One of the more famous acts of treason that was committed during Vietnam is the photo op with Jane Fonda sitting on a Viet Cong anti-aircraft gun. Or Fonda visiting POW camps, and handing letters home the soldiers passed to her to their Viet Cong jailors—which, by the way, brought about more beatings and torture.

Fonda has never been punished, despite the fact that she clearly gave aid and comfort to the enemy killing our soldiers.

During the Cold War, certain members of our United States senate approached the Soviet Union and offered to sell them intelligence.

More recently, Sean Penn visited Hussein’s Iraq, following in Fonda’s footsteps with regards to spreading enemy propaganda and helping to put our troops in harm’s way.

While actors and senators aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States is bad, actively putting soldiers and civilians alike in harm’s way, the above treasonous acts put the individuals committing them into the category of “useful idiots.” While they have committed the crime, it is, with the exception of Fonda’s involvement with the Viet Cong, on the misdemeanor level. There have been far more serious instances, even more recently, of treasonous acts—the undermining of a sitting president’s international negotiations—committed by a presidential candidate.

Earlier this month, news stories detailing a meeting between one of the presidential candidates and the Iraqi foreign minister alleged that the candidate urged the foreign minister to put off making any sort of deal until the next administration took over.

On the surface, this seems like fairly sound advice: after all, no one knows yet who is going to head the next administration, or what their policies will entail. However, if one reads between the lines, the candidate was implying that he would definitely be the next president, and that his administration would not honor any deals or treaties negotiated by the sitting president.

Clearly, this is an attempt to undermine the sitting Commander in Chief. Clearly, this falls under both definitions of “treason.” This should not—must not—be tolerated.

And that man, Barack Hussein Obama, should be disbarred from the presidential race, removed from the senate, and punished for his crime to the fullest extent of the law.

However, it’s certain that he will not be held accountable for his treasonous act.