POTUS says "Theisman should be jailed!"

cthia wrote:

The E wrote:Speaking of curiousity, I am still really curious what you think or thought the Harison quote was meant to express.

My apology for the time passed, but I'm really rather busy with travel and other "stuff" these days that my H'verse homework is getting backed up.


I have always found it rather interesting how several different people will assimilate the same poetic passage several different ways. I think it has the potential to speak volumes about a person. Who is to say which is right if one remains true to thineself. Which is why I put the question out there. I was hoping I'd get more bites. I suppose no one is confident in their assimilation. Or I can take it that no one else agrees with your assimilation since my question asks if anyone else concurs with your assimilation. Well except one other, who did concur with you. Having said that...

Jonathan_S wrote:For what's its worth I agreed with Silverwall that The E gave the correct meaning of John Harington's quote.

And because he correctly said that that was the standard English language interpretation I didn't feel the need to chime in. Didn't realize you were counting silence as a vote against that standard interpretation.


The cynicism (in my view) is the observation that, historically, those who win freedom or carry off a successful coup aren't called (or at least aren't prosecuted as) traitors. Success effectively exonerates them -- or at least places them beyond effective prosecution or punishment.

There's a slight similarity to how attempted (failed) suicide is a crime but (most places at least) successful suicide isn't. What would be the point?

Thanks for your candor. Your assimilation has been noted. Yet it is incorrect.


As was the E's who totally mangled it...

The E wrote:Remember the old quote: Treason can never prosper, for if it prospers, it isn't treason.

That is not what the quote is saying!

It is treason!

It is just that none dare call it treason from the fear of hearing... "Off with his head!"

Fear of calling a duck a duck because the owner of the duck has one's head in a guillotine, neck under a pendulum or family jewels in a vice -- all which may conspire to make one say what the owner wants them to say is besides the point.


IT'S NOT A DUCK! IT'S NOT A DUCK! OH MY GOD IT IS NOT A DUCK!!!!!!!!

"Quack! Quack! Quack!"

Yet the phucking pheasant is still quacking!

I showed you mine. Now show me yours. As in one formal support of your interpretation.

Show me one source whose interpretation denies that it is treason - is the standard interpretation.

Interpretation under duress is NOT inherently truthful nor can be acceptable. Nor does it pluck a single feather off of the duck nor does it impede the lie from running off of the duck's back.

But you still haven't answered the question why treason is immoral, illegal and wrong regardless of the government being betrayed. Why is it wrong to resist a tyrannical government? Why is it wrong to work towards its destruction or abolition?

Most of the commenters in this thread seem to agree that the US' founding father's treason against the UK was justified, or that the various assassination attempts against Hitler from within the german military were. In modern times, people like Edward Snowden are not universally vilified (as they would be if your interpretation of his acts were commonplace), but are receiving a not inconsiderable amount of public support and acclaim for their actions. Similarly, people who leak evidence of corporate malfeasance, while also traitors, are generally hailed as heroes for being unwilling to compromise their morals in the service of what- or whoever they're working for.

Why is this wrong, in your estimation?

EDIT:
Consider this: The concept of a "loyal opposition", i.e. a political faction that is allowed to exist despite its public opposition to whatever the current government is doing, is a concept that can only exist if treason is subject to some form of moral relativity. Under true autocratic regimes, a substantial opposition cannot be allowed to exist; the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for citizens to disagree on the way the country is run forms the bedrock of modern democracy. Using your absolute declaration that treason is always and immutably wrong, how do you justify the existence of opposition parties? At what point does a refusal to support the government or the expression of disagreement with it cross over into being treason?

One can better understand Harrington's quote if one studies his history.

Read the wikipedia article on John Harrington. He lived in 16th century England. An era where one's words can get one beheaded at the Queen's behest.

The work for which he is best known today, A New Discourse of a Stale Subject, called the Metamorphosis of Ajax (1596) is a political allegory and a coded attack on the monarchy. His New Discourse described a forerunner to the modern flush toilet that was installed at his house at Kelston.

John Harrington couldn't even call a political forerunner a piece of shit -- a toilet. He had to hide it in allegory.

He was a lawyer, by the way.

cthia wrote:At any rate, it has always amazed me how people mangle its inherent meaning. As if John Harrington is condoning treason. It is an "opportunistic" and convenient crime that shouldn't be. I suppose it is also an opportunistic and convenient quote, that shouldn't be. John Harrington is rolling over in his grave.

You are, I hope, aware of the concept of the death of the author. Most works the quote shows up in in popular culture use it as an explicit reference to treason, successfully executed, not staying treason for long, i.e. using its literal meaning as opposed to whatever meaning Harington was perhaps envisioning as he wrote the phrase.

Yes, this is a cynical quote (because, just as treason by a just and moral person against an unjust and immoral system is a good and necessary act, treason by an unjust and immoral person against a just and moral system is evil). History is written by the victors, after all (a saying that overlaps in meaning with the Harington quote to an extent), and if the victors are tyrants, well, that's just what happens.

This does go back to you not yet having explained your absolutist stance on these matters though. You've still just postulated that treason is immoral, you haven't yet laid out your case for why that is.

The E wrote:But you still haven't answered the question why treason is immoral, illegal and wrong regardless of the government being betrayed. Why is it wrong to resist a tyrannical government? Why is it wrong to work towards its destruction or abolition?

Most of the commenters in this thread seem to agree that the US' founding father's treason against the UK was justified, or that the various assassination attempts against Hitler from within the german military were. In modern times, people like Edward Snowden are not universally vilified (as they would be if your interpretation of his acts were commonplace), but are receiving a not inconsiderable amount of public support and acclaim for their actions. Similarly, people who leak evidence of corporate malfeasance, while also traitors, are generally hailed as heroes for being unwilling to compromise their morals in the service of what- or whoever they're working for.

Why is this wrong, in your estimation?

EDIT:
Consider this: The concept of a "loyal opposition", i.e. a political faction that is allowed to exist despite its public opposition to whatever the current government is doing, is a concept that can only exist if treason is subject to some form of moral relativity. Under true autocratic regimes, a substantial opposition cannot be allowed to exist; the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for citizens to disagree on the way the country is run forms the bedrock of modern democracy. Using your absolute declaration that treason is always and immutably wrong, how do you justify the existence of opposition parties? At what point does a refusal to support the government or the expression of disagreement with it cross over into being treason?

I never follow a crowd off of a cliff simply because it is the biggest crowd. I'd rather be in the minority watching them plummet to their doom wishing they had listened. LOL

Do pardon the punny.

Really, I understand everyone's sentiment. And I agree, just not wholly. We differ on a very salient point.

Asking me why a government lists a crime as a crime is a rhetorical question, I'd hope.

It has to be that way. And I did answer it already. Failing to set limits is to accept anarchy. I do understand the disconnect and the reason for it. The main difference in your and my stance is that I recognize that treason, murder... cannot be treated as arbitrary and or convenient crimes.

When does it cross the line? Every time it is committed. We cannot allow Garp the right to assimilate the law and then take the law in his own hands according to Garp's interpretation of said law.

The E wrote:Why is it wrong to resist a tyrannical government?

Because tyrannical represents many things to many people. I am certain that we can find many who consider Donald Trump and his actions to be tyrannical. I even remember seeing it somewhere in his first few weeks! Donald Trump and the New Dawn of Tyranny.

Is it okay to extinguish the man's life under the guise of a coup? Vigilante justice cannot be allowed!

The E wrote:Why is it wrong to work towards its destruction or abolition?

I do not think it is wrong, per se, E. I think it is wrong to allow an individual or group to take up arms with it as a shield.

Again, I perfectly agree that there may be times it is warranted. As is the case stated by Annachie. Even a few others. Even yours here now. Even Theisman's.

However, it should be subject to adjudication by the courts. Theisman should have turned himself in. It is simply a matter of formality. But one that MUST be followed. It will show everyone else that it IS indeed a crime and must be considered further.

Remember the point about O.J. Simpson in the Godwin's Law thread?...

... Which completely ignores the :case in which the weight of truth of the specific comparison becomes the most important piece of evidence to the defense, and also becomes much bigger than the original argument, e.g., when Johnnie Cochrane's assertions regarding the incendiary recordings of the DA's lead detective, Mark Fuhrman, in perjuring himself - made privy and exacerbated by the inexcusable and quite shockingly horrendous revelations of LA police officers' sentiments, brutalities and atrocities against African Americans - became bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial itself and may have been the final straw that broke the prosecution's back and irrevocably turned the tide against the prosecuting team, which should have convicted (a guilty - in my book) O.J. Simpson.

Likewise...

Which completely ignores the :case in which the weight of truth of the specific crime in question (Saint-Just's) becomes the most important piece of evidence to the defense, and also becomes much bigger than the present crime (Theisman's) e.g., when Johnnie Cochrane's assertions regarding the incendiary recordings of the DA's lead detective, Mark Fuhrman, in perjuring himself - made privy and exacerbated by the inexcusable and quite shockingly horrendous revelations of LA police officers' sentiments, brutalities and atrocities against African Americans - became bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial itself and may have been the final straw that broke the prosecution's back and irrevocably turned the tide against the prosecuting team, which should serve to exonerate (an innocent - in my book) Thomas Theisman.

All of that was determined in a court of law. Not vigilante justice. Overthrow a tyrant. Sure. Save lives. Sure. But do the right thing afterwards and place yourself at the mercy of the court. Because the final determination of one's illegal (questionable) actions SIMPLY MUST be adjudicated by it which was founded to do so -- the legal system. Or anarchy will reign supreme and the courts will become a mockery and we shall hearken back to a time of guillotines, hangings and vigilante justice. Do you really want to hearken back to that era?

Let the courts render justice and punish him... for wasting their time if they will.

But they must remain the final arbiters that make that determination. For not even Theisman has the right to judge -- but a judge.

Unless Theisman is afraid he will be convicted?

.

cthia wrote:However, it should be subject to adjudication by the courts. Theisman should have turned himself in. It is simply a formality. But one that MUST be followed. It will show everyone else that it IS indeed a crime and must be considered further.

Okay, but that opens a whole can of worms.

Consider the situation: At the time of Theisman shooting Saint-Just, the judiciary has been effectively dismantled. What judges and prosecutors there are are mostly rubber-stamping edicts handed down by the government; it has to be assumed that at that point, no independent judiciary exists. Given that, at what point is it possible for Theisman to turn himself in without it being a massive conflict of interest for any judge to preside over his case? If we assume that the Republic of Haven is somewhat analogous to the US in how it organizes its judiciary, appointments for judges are made by the government, which is only in power due to Theisman's actions (and we know that a lot of ranking members of the government consider themselves indebted to Theisman for what he did). For fairly obvious reasons, Theisman can't trust judges appointed by Saint-Just or Pierre, and decades of legislaturist rule make pre-CPS judges equally suspect.

Treason, as you said, must be a crime. No state, no matter how just or tyrannical, can allow its authority to be substantially undercut. However, the sort of treason Theisman or the Valkyrie group are guilty of, with the explicit intent to save their country from the depredations of a corrupted ruler, must be treated with nuance. As people raised in christian environments, we believe in a concept of morality that transcends legal considerations (whether we go by the ten commandments or the universal declaration of human rights doesn't matter), and that occasionally, violating laws in the pursuit of restoring morality is necessary and justified.

What I'm trying to get at here is that absolutist declarations like the one you used in this thread are ... not helpful. In your last post, you are saying that yes, you do recognize that there has to be nuance to this whole process, that judging a traitor is never a completely straightforward affair and that context plays a significant role in how their actions are to be judged. Declarations like yours only invite contradiction, not discussion, and they detract from your overall question, which is actually fairly interesting (i.e. the question of whether or not turning himself in would be a necessary course of action for Theisman).

In order to get back to that: Personally, I believe that Theisman should at the very least have resigned from office as soon as possible. It's basically the old Cincinnatus ideal of a person assuming terrible authority, but having the moral integrity to relinquish said authority when whatever crisis they were facing has been decisively dealt with. Given my ruminations above, I do not believe that he should be subject to legal proceedings (if only because such proceedings would be irrevocably tainted by the conflicts of interest of all parties involved).

cthia wrote:

The E wrote:But you still haven't answered the question why treason is immoral, illegal and wrong regardless of the government being betrayed. Why is it wrong to resist a tyrannical government? Why is it wrong to work towards its destruction or abolition?

Most of the commenters in this thread seem to agree that the US' founding father's treason against the UK was justified, or that the various assassination attempts against Hitler from within the german military were. In modern times, people like Edward Snowden are not universally vilified (as they would be if your interpretation of his acts were commonplace), but are receiving a not inconsiderable amount of public support and acclaim for their actions. Similarly, people who leak evidence of corporate malfeasance, while also traitors, are generally hailed as heroes for being unwilling to compromise their morals in the service of what- or whoever they're working for.

Why is this wrong, in your estimation?

EDIT:
Consider this: The concept of a "loyal opposition", i.e. a political faction that is allowed to exist despite its public opposition to whatever the current government is doing, is a concept that can only exist if treason is subject to some form of moral relativity. Under true autocratic regimes, a substantial opposition cannot be allowed to exist; the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for citizens to disagree on the way the country is run forms the bedrock of modern democracy. Using your absolute declaration that treason is always and immutably wrong, how do you justify the existence of opposition parties? At what point does a refusal to support the government or the expression of disagreement with it cross over into being treason?

I never follow a crowd off of a cliff simply because it is the biggest. I'd rather be in the minority watching them plummet to their doom wishing they had listened. LOL Do pardon the punny..

Really, I understand everyone's sentiment. And I agree, just not wholly. We differ on a very salient point.

Asking me why a government lists a crime as a crime is a rhetorical question I'd hope.

It has to be that way. And I did answer it already. Failing to set limits is to accept anarchy. I do understand the disconnect and the reason for it. The main difference in your and my stance is that I recognize that treason, murder... cannot be treated as arbitrary and or convenient crimes.

When does it cross the line? Every time it is committed. We cannot allow Garp the right to assimilate the law and then take the law in his hands according to Garp's interpretation of said law.

The E wrote:Why is it wrong to resist a tyrannical government?

Because tyrannical represents many things to many people. I am certain that we can find many who consider Donald Trump and his actions to be tyrannical. I even remember seeing it somewhere in his first few weeks! Donald Trump and the New Dawn of Tyranny.

Is it okay to distinguish the man's life under the guise of a coup? Vigilante justice cannot be allowed!

The E wrote:Why is it wrong to work towards its destruction or abolition?

I do not think it is wrong, E. I think it is wrong to allow an individual or group to take up arms with it as a shield.

Again, I perfectly agree that there may be times it is warranted. As in the case stated by Annachie. Even a few others. Even yours here now. Even Theisman's.

However, it should be subject to adjudication by the courts. Theisman should have turned himself in. It is simply a formality. But one that MUST be followed. It will show everyone else that it IS indeed a crime and must be considered further.

Remember the point about O.J. Simpson in the Godwin's Law thread?...

... Which completely ignores the :case in which the weight of truth of the specific comparison becomes the most important piece of evidence to the defense, and also becomes much bigger than the original argument, e.g., when Johnnie Cochrane's assertions regarding the incendiary recordings of the DA's lead detective, Mark Fuhrman, in perjuring himself - made privy and exacerbated by the inexcusable and quite shockingly horrendous revelations of LA police officers' sentiments, brutalities and atrocities against African Americans - became bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial itself and may have been the final straw that broke the prosecution's back and irrevocably turned the tide against the prosecuting team, which should have convicted (a guilty - in my book) O.J. Simpson.

Likewise...

Which completely ignores the :case in which the weight of truth of the specific crime in question (Saint-Just's) becomes the most important piece of evidence to the defense, and also becomes much bigger than the present crime (Theisman's) e.g., when Johnnie Cochrane's assertions regarding the incendiary recordings of the DA's lead detective, Mark Fuhrman, in perjuring himself - made privy and exacerbated by the inexcusable and quite shockingly horrendous revelations of LA police officers' sentiments, brutalities and atrocities against African Americans - became bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial itself and may have been the final straw that broke the prosecution's back and irrevocably turned the tide against the prosecuting team, which should serve to exonerate (an innocent - in my book) Thomas Theisman.

All of that was determined in a court of law. Not vigilante justice. Overthrow a tyrant. Sure. Save lives. Sure. But do the right thing afterwards and place yourself at the mercy of the court. Because the final determination of one's illegal (questionable) actions SIMPLY MUST be adjudicated by it which was founded to do so -- the legal system. Or anarchy will reign supreme and the courts will become a mockery and we shall hearken back to a time of guillotines, hangings and vigilante justice. Do you really want to hearken back to that era?

Let the courts render justice and punish you... for wasting their time if they will.

But they must remain the final arbiters that make that determination. For not even Theisman has the right to judge -- but a judge.

Unless Theisman is afraid he will be convicted?

Except that Theisman did place himself at the mercy of the government. He turned over power to Pritchart to organize an interim government with the sole proviso:

War of Honor, Chapter 2 wrote:There hadn't been any strings, no reservations, no secretly retained authority. The one thing Thomas Theisman would never be was a puppet master. There'd been one, and only one, condition, and that had been that Eloise Pritchart prove to him that she was as committed as he was to the restoration of the old Constitution. Not the Constitution of the People's Republic of Haven, which had created the office of Hereditary President and legally enshrined the dynastic power of the Legislaturalists, but the Constitution of the old Republic. The Republic whose citizens had been expected to be more than mere drones and to vote. The one whose presidents and legislators had served at the will of an electorate which held them responsible for their actions.

Boldface is my emphasis.

And then he served in the new government (which knew of his actions in removing St. Just) as Secretary of War/Chief of Naval Operations. And yet he was not tried for treason. Ergo, the new government does not view his actions as treasonous. Therefore (since the victors write history), he did not commit treason.

The E wrote:
Okay, but that opens a whole can of worms.

Consider the situation: At the time of Theisman shooting Saint-Just, the judiciary has been effectively dismantled. What judges and prosecutors there are are mostly rubber-stamping edicts handed down by the government; it has to be assumed that at that point, no independent judiciary exists. Given that, at what point is it possible for Theisman to turn himself in without it being a massive conflict of interest for any judge to preside over his case? If we assume that the Republic of Haven is somewhat analogous to the US in how it organizes its judiciary, appointments for judges are made by the government, which is only in power due to Theisman's actions (and we know that a lot of ranking members of the government consider themselves indebted to Theisman for what he did). For fairly obvious reasons, Theisman can't trust judges appointed by Saint-Just or Pierre, and decades of legislaturist rule make pre-CPS judges equally suspect.

Treason, as you said, must be a crime. No state, no matter how just or tyrannical, can allow its authority to be substantially undercut. However, the sort of treason Theisman or the Valkyrie group are guilty of, with the explicit intent to save their country from the depredations of a corrupted ruler, must be treated with nuance. As people raised in christian environments, we believe in a concept of morality that transcends legal considerations (whether we go by the ten commandments or the universal declaration of human rights doesn't matter), and that occasionally, violating laws in the pursuit of restoring morality is necessary and justified.

What I'm trying to get at here is that absolutist declarations like the one you used in this thread are ... not helpful. In your last post, you are saying that yes, you do recognize that there has to be nuance to this whole process, that judging a traitor is never a completely straightforward affair and that context plays a significant role in how their actions are to be judged. Declarations like yours only invite contradiction, not discussion, and they detract from your overall question, which is actually fairly interesting (i.e. the question of whether or not turning himself in would be a necessary course of action for Theisman).

Or even look at the American revolution. The English courts at least still existed - but I can't see any of the Founder Father's turning themselves over for trial. I guess those courts could have tried them in absentia - but that leaves the real world problem that you can't just ignore this newly independent country that successfully rebelled; and trying the rulers for treason is counter-productive to working with America. And the American courts would be appointed by those same successful revolutionaries - so exceedingly unlikely to tru or convict for treason even if they weren't hopelessly conflicted in their interests.

Heck John Adams, later our second president, clearly performed treasonous acts against King and Country (England), yet in 1785, the year after the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolution he was serving as US Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (Great Britain). Even if Great Britain had been unwilling to break diplomatic protocol to the point of seizing him for treason they would have been well within their rights to refused to accept him as Ambasidor (persona non grata him) had his treason still been an issue with them.

And the treaty of Paris itself involved direct negotiations with Great Britain - with the American negotiators including several who'd preformed actions that would have been judged traitorous had the Revolution failed. Again apparently no problem sitting across the table practicing diplomacy with those untried traitors (to take cthia's stated view)
Yet apparently nobody involved though the status of whether or not the US Founding Father's were guilty of treason was worth any discussion. (If it has been that would have been a negotiation point in the peace treaty -- but no, everyone involved, France, Spain, the US, and Great Britain all recognized, at least tacitly, that successful revolt had made the question of treason moot and unworthy of mention).

Against whom did Theisman commit treason? The Old Republic? That died when the People's Republic was proclaimed. The People's Republic? Up in smoke along with Hereditary President Sidney Harris. The Committee of Public Safety? Theisman put a bullet into its brain the same time he put one into Oscar Saint Just's.

There no longer existed a polity which could claim that Theisman had violated his oaths. His killing of St. Just precedes the restoration of the Old Republic, so asserting jurisdiction would be an ex post facto law. Tom has committed essentially the perfect crime, by winning the game of treason.

Jonathan_S wrote:

The E wrote:
Okay, but that opens a whole can of worms.

Consider the situation: At the time of Theisman shooting Saint-Just, the judiciary has been effectively dismantled. What judges and prosecutors there are are mostly rubber-stamping edicts handed down by the government; it has to be assumed that at that point, no independent judiciary exists. Given that, at what point is it possible for Theisman to turn himself in without it being a massive conflict of interest for any judge to preside over his case? If we assume that the Republic of Haven is somewhat analogous to the US in how it organizes its judiciary, appointments for judges are made by the government, which is only in power due to Theisman's actions (and we know that a lot of ranking members of the government consider themselves indebted to Theisman for what he did). For fairly obvious reasons, Theisman can't trust judges appointed by Saint-Just or Pierre, and decades of legislaturist rule make pre-CPS judges equally suspect.

Treason, as you said, must be a crime. No state, no matter how just or tyrannical, can allow its authority to be substantially undercut. However, the sort of treason Theisman or the Valkyrie group are guilty of, with the explicit intent to save their country from the depredations of a corrupted ruler, must be treated with nuance. As people raised in christian environments, we believe in a concept of morality that transcends legal considerations (whether we go by the ten commandments or the universal declaration of human rights doesn't matter), and that occasionally, violating laws in the pursuit of restoring morality is necessary and justified.

What I'm trying to get at here is that absolutist declarations like the one you used in this thread are ... not helpful. In your last post, you are saying that yes, you do recognize that there has to be nuance to this whole process, that judging a traitor is never a completely straightforward affair and that context plays a significant role in how their actions are to be judged. Declarations like yours only invite contradiction, not discussion, and they detract from your overall question, which is actually fairly interesting (i.e. the question of whether or not turning himself in would be a necessary course of action for Theisman).

Or even look at the American revolution. The English courts at least still existed - but I can't see any of the Founder Father's turning themselves over for trial. I guess those courts could have tried them in absentia - but that leaves the real world problem that you can't just ignore this newly independent country that successfully rebelled; and trying the rulers for treason is counter-productive to working with America. And the American courts would be appointed by those same successful revolutionaries - so exceedingly unlikely to tru or convict for treason even if they weren't hopelessly conflicted in their interests.

Heck John Adams, later our second president, clearly performed treasonous acts against King and Country (England), yet in 1785, the year after the Treaty of Paris ended the American Revolution he was serving as US Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (Great Britain). Even if Great Britain had been unwilling to break diplomatic protocol to the point of seizing him for treason they would have been well within their rights to refused to accept him as Ambasidor (persona non grata him) had his treason still been an issue with them.

And the treaty of Paris itself involved direct negotiations with Great Britain - with the American negotiators including several who'd preformed actions that would have been judged traitorous had the Revolution failed. Again apparently no problem sitting across the table practicing diplomacy with those untried traitors (to take cthia's stated view)
Yet apparently nobody involved though the status of whether or not the US Founding Father's were guilty of treason was worth any discussion. (If it has been that would have been a negotiation point in the peace treaty -- but no, everyone involved, France, Spain, the US, and Great Britain all recognized, at least tacitly, that successful revolt had made the question of treason moot and unworthy of mention).

What the hippopot am I

If Theisman's freedom is contingent upon someone whose only recourse is to compare his deeds to the efforts of a segment of the British population to form an independent government outside of the British government and outside of Britain - effectively exiling themselves, then either he better fire his legal team pronto and represent himself or pray that he has as golden a view from the stalag as Michelle Henke was afforded by Pritchart!


****** *

FYI only and to illustrate that there is no season for treason.

Note that Kings, Queens, dictators, Countesses and the like are not immune from the long armed claw of the law.

Note also there is one acquittal, William Blizzard.

Germany

• Adolf Hitler, for his role in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923
• Marinus van der Lubbe, for high treason and arson in the Reichstag fire case, in 1933
• Sophie Scholl, Hans Scholl and Christoph Probst in 1943 for their involvement in the anti-Nazi White Rose movement
• Ulrich Wilhelm Graf Schwerin von Schwanenfeld (1902-1944), a key conspirator in the failed assassination attempt in the July 20 plot in 1944 on Hitler's life
• Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, for the attempted assassination of Hitler in the July 20 plot in 1944
• Günter Guillaume, Private Secretary to then-chancellor Willy Brandt, and his wife Christel Guillaume, both officers of East German Staatssicherheit, in 1975
• Clyde Lee Conrad, former US Army NCO, the only person to have been handed down a lifetime sentence for treason by a court of the Federal Republic of Germany, in 1990
• Klaus Kuron (de), counter-intelligence officer with the Bundesverfassungsschutz who had spied for East German Staatssicherheit, in 1992

United States

• Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, convicted of treason and sentenced to hanging; pardoned by George Washington; see Whiskey Rebellion.
• John Fries, the leader of Fries' Rebellion, convicted of treason in 1800 along with two accomplices, and pardoned that same year by John Adams.
• Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; see Dorr Rebellion; released in 1845; civil rights restored in 1851; verdict annulled in 1854.
• John Brown, convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1859 and executed for attempting to organize armed resistance to slavery.
• Aaron Dwight Stevens, took part in John Brown's raid and was executed in 1860 for treason against Virginia.
• William Bruce Mumford, convicted of treason and hanged in 1862 for tearing down a United States flag during the American Civil War.
• Walter Allen was convicted of treason on September 16, 1922 for taking part in the 1921 Miner's March with the coal companies and the US Army on Blair Mountain, West Virginia. He was sentenced to 10 years and fined. During his appeal to the Supreme Court he disappeared while out on bail. United Mineworkers of America leader William Blizzard was acquitted of the charge of treason by the jury on May 25, 1922.
• Herbert Hans Haupt, German-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted of treason in 1942 and executed after being named as a German spy by fellow German spies defecting to the United States.
• Martin James Monti, United States Army Air Forces pilot, convicted of treason for defecting to the Waffen SS in 1944. He was paroled in 1960.
• Robert Henry Best, convicted of treason on April 16, 1948 and served a life sentence.
• Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose" convicted 1949. Subsequently, pardoned by President Gerald Ford.
• Mildred Gillars, also known as "Axis Sally", convicted of treason on March 8, 1949; served 12 years of a 10- to 30-year prison sentence.
• Tomoya Kawakita, sentenced to death for treason in 1952, but eventually released by President John F. Kennedy to be deported to Japan.

List of people convicted of high treason in England before 1 May 1707

1283

• Dafydd ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales
  
  1305
• William Wallace
  
  1381
• John Ball
  
  1405
• Richard le Scrope, Archbishop of York
  
  1478
• George Plantagenet,1st Duke of Clarence, for plotting against King Edward IV of England in 1478
  
  1495
• Sir William Stanley
  
  1499
• Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick
• Perkin Warbeck
  
  1521
• Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham
  
  1535
• Thomas More, Lord Chancellor
  
  1536 - Anne Boleyn, etc.
• Anne Boleyn,Queen
• George Boleyn, 2nd Viscount Rochford
• Sir William Brereton
• Mark Smeaton
• Sir Henry Norris
• Sir Francis Weston
  
  1537 - Pilgrimage of Grace
• Sir Robert Aske
  
  1541 - Catherine Howard, etc.
• Catherine Howard, Queen
• Thomas Culpeper
• Francis Dereham
  
  1549 - Kett's Rebellion Persons convicted for their involvement in Kett's Rebellion:
• Robert Kett
  
  1553 Jane Grey, etc.
• John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland
• Lady Jane Grey
  
  1554 - Wyatt's Rebellion
• William Thomas
• Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk
  
  1572 - Ridolfi plot See Ridolfi plot:
• Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk
  
  1586 - Babington plot Fourteen individuals were executed for their involvement in the Babington plot. Person convicted include:
• Sir Anthony Babington
• Mary, Queen of Scots
• Chidiock Tichborne
  
  1601 - Essex Rebellion
• Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex
• Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton
  
  1603 - Main plot
  Persons convicted for their involvement in the Main Plot include:
• Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham
• Thomas Grey, 15th Baron Grey de Wilton
• Sir Walter Raleigh, executed 1618
  
  1605 - Gunpowder plot
• Robert Catesby, John Wright, Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, Robert Wintour, Christopher Wright, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby and Francis Tresham, for the Gunpowder Plot
  
  1649
• Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland
  Regicides of Charles I
  See List of regicides of Charles I
  Tonge plot
  
  1680 - Popish Plot
  Persons implicated in the alleged Popish Plot:
• William Howard, 1st Viscount Stafford
  
  1683 - Rye House Plot
  Those convicted in relation to the Rye House Plot include:
• William Russell, Lord Russell
• Elizabeth Gaunt
  
  This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
  
  Alphabetical list
  A
  
  B
• Anthony Babington (1586) (Babington Plot)
• Anne Boleyn, Queen (1536)
• George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford (1536)
• Sir William Brereton (1536)
• Henry Brooke, 11th Baron Cobham (1603) (Main Plot)
  
  C
• Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland (1649)
• Thomas Culpeper (1541)
  
  D
• Francis Dereham (1541)
• Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex (1601) (Essex Rebellion)
• John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland (1553)
  
  E
  
  F
  
• Guy Fawkes (1605) (Gunpowder Plot)
  
  G
• Elizabeth Gaunt (1685) (Rye House Plot)
• Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk (1554) (Wyatt's Rebellion)
• Lady Jane Grey
• Thomas Grey, 15th Baron Grey de Wilton (1603) (Main Plot)
• Dafydd ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales (1283)
  
  H
• Catherine Howard, Queen (1541)
• Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk (1572) (Ridolfi Plot)
• William Howard, 1st Viscount Stafford (1680) (Popish Plot)
  
  I
  
  J
  
  K
• Robert Kett (1549) (Kett's Rebellion/Norfolk rebellion)
  
  L
  
  M
• Thomas More, Lord Chancellor (1535)
  
  N
• Sir Henry Norris (1536)
  
  O
  
  P
  Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (1499)
  
  Q
  
  R
• Sir Walter Raleigh (1603, executed 1618) (Main Plot)
• William Russell, Lord Russell (1683) (Rye House Plot)
  
  S
• Mark Smeaton (1536)
• Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham (1521)
• Sir William Stanley (1495)
• Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (1586) (Babington Plot)
  
  T
• William Thomas (1554) (Wyatt's rebellion)
• Chidiock Tichborne (1586) (Babington Plot)
  
  W
• William Wallace (1305)
• Perkin Warbeck (1499)
• Sir Francis Weston (1536)
• Thomas Wintour or Winter (1605) (Gunpowder Plot)
• Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton (1601) (Essex Rebellion)

This list is incomplete.

.