Treason

כאשר אזרחים השייכים לקולקטיב הלאומי או ל"עם" חוצים את הקווים ובוגדים במולדת, הם מסמנים ומנכיחים את הגבולות והטאבואים שאותם אסור לחצות, המגדירים נורמות וציפיות של התנהגות מקובלת ונאמנות למדינה. במובן זה, הגבול הנוצר אינו חוצה טריטוריות והוא לא מגדיר את המדינה מבחוץ, אלא הוא קו מתחם הנוצר באופן ספונטני בתוך החברה דרך תגובה חברתית-רגשית לאקט הבגידה המתבטאת בסיקור התקשורתי של מקרי הבגידה, ותגובה חוקית-פורמלית הבאה לידי ביטוי בדרך שבה מוענשים הבוגדים. לטענתי, לא רק החוק קובע מה ייתפס כבגידה, אלא מרכיבי זהותם של הבוגדים, מעמדם והפריפריאליות הגיאוגרפית והחברתית שממנה הם מגיעים משפיעים גם הם על הדרך שבה נתפסים מעשיהם ומוגדרים בין כחתרנות ובין כבגידה. בנוסף, למרות הסנקציות המופעלות כלפיהם, גם לבוגדים ישנו כוח להביא לשינוי השיח ולהנכיח את אותם גבולות וטאבואים שאותם מנסה החברה להשתיק או להתעלם, ולפיכך מערכת היחסים בין הבוגדים למדינה הִנָה דיאלקטית ולא חד- כיוונית. על מנת להראות כיצד נעשית הנכחת התיחומים והגבולות הללו, סוקר המאמר ארבעה מקרים של בוגדים ישראלים: אודי אדיב, מרדכי ואנונו, טלי פחימה וענת קם. שתי נשים ושני גברים, שני מזרחים ושני אשכנזים, אשר כל אחד מהם בגד בזמן אחר וביצע אקט שונה של בגידה, אולם כולם הועמדו לדין בגין בגידה במולדת או ריגול, וכל אחד מהם ריצה זמן מאסר בכלא. בחינת המקרים תדגים את הגבולות שאותם הנכיחו, וכיצד גם לאחר שחרורם מן הכלא, היכולת שלהם לחצות חזרה את הקווים ולחזור ולהיות חלק מן הקולקטיב הישראלי, אשר בערכיו ובאידיאולוגיה שלו בגדו, הושפעה מזהותם, מגדרם והפריפריאליות שלהם אשר קודם עיצבו את הדרך שבה נתפסו מעשיהם.

Soviet soldiers may have allowed themselves to be captured because they had lost hope in the face of an overwhelming German onslaught.  At the other end of the spectrum, some Soviet soldiers “voted with their feet” against a repressive Stalinist regime and actively supported the German effort to defeat the Soviet Union.  Mark Edele, in his brief, brilliantly documented book Stalin’s Defectors: How Red Army Soldiers became Hitler’s Collaborators, 1941-1945, seeks to explain the motivations of soldiers across all of those variations, but he focuses his attention on Soviet soldiers who did, in fact, collaborate with German forces, in some cases participating in brutal and murderous Nazi actions against the peoples of Eastern Europe.

The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Law and Literature addresses the need for an authoritative guide  through the bewildering maze of medieval law as well as the need for concise examples of how the law infiltrated literary texts. The Companion combines accessible essays written by leading specialists in legal history with essays exploring literary conversations with the law in the works of later medieval authors
from Chaucer to Malory. The first half of this book contains detailed introductions to legal concepts, practices, and institutions in medieval England. In the second half, experts cover a number of texts and authors from across the later medieval period whose verse and prose can be understood as engaging with the law. In this way, the Cambridge Companion to Medieval Law and Literature forms the basis for students wishing to explore this rich area or for scholars to familiarise themselves with literary uses of the law.

ISBN: 9781316632345

The Secret War marks a new direction in the cultural history and theory of intelligence gathering and state secrecy in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. While historical truth remains hidden from the public, Eva Horn finds in political fiction, which serves as both an indicator and a tool, a means to analyze political secrets. Starting with a general theory of treason and military intelligence as a specific type of political knowledge, the book charts the history of intelligence gathering from 1900 to 9/11. The Secret War analyzes literary and cinematic depictions of espionage from Rudyard Kipling and T. E. Lawrence to John Le Carré and Steven Spielberg. Horn considers these fictional accounts against the historical development of Western secret services from their inception in World War I to their struggle against current terrorist networks. The Secret War shows the crucial part fictions play in shaping conflicts, constructing “the enemy,” and deciding political strategies.

Колабораціонізм як суспільно-політичне явище в сучасній Україні (кримінально-правові аспекти). Робота спрямована на досягнення мети розв’язати опорні кримінально-правові проблеми колабораціонізму як суспільно-політичного явища, що виникає у зв’язку із окупацією території суверенної держави, та згенерувати на цій основі науково обґрунтовані ідеї із вдосконалення кримінально-правового забезпечення охорони національної безпеки.

На підставі вивчення історичних витоків колабораціонізму розглядаються причини та передумови його виникнення у сьогоденній Україні. Аналізуються та систематизуються підходи представників державної влади України, правоохоронців і суддів, науковців і громадськості до розуміння суті й проявів відповідного явища, розкриття його кримінально-правового змісту. Визначається поняття колабораціонізму, характеризуються його іманентні ознаки, надається класифікація; здійснюється відмежування від суміжних явищ.

У підсумку робиться спроба сформувати оптимальну юридичну модель колабораціонізму як соціально шкідливого типу поведінки, що є злочином (привілейований вид державної зради), та визначити базові засади кримінально-правового впливу на колаборантів, включаючи розв’язання питання щодо їхнього амністування.



******

Collaborationism as a socio-political phenomenon in modern Ukraine (criminal law aspects). The work furthers the objective of solving the underlying criminal law issues of collaborationism as a sociopolitical phenomenon, which arises in connection with the occupation of the territory of a sovereign state, and is aimed at elaboration, based on this, of scientifically sound ideas for improving measures of criminal law protection of national security.

Based on the study of the historical origins of collaborationism, reasons and preconditions for its emergence in modern Ukraine are considered. Approaches by members of the Ukrainian govern¬ment, law enforcement representatives and judges, researchers and general public toward understanding the essence and manifestations of the discussed phenomenon and its criminal law meaning are analyzed and systematized.

The concept of collaborationism is defined, its immanent elements are characterized, legal characteristics is provided; separation from related phenomena is conducted. In the conclusions part, the author attempts to form an optimal legal model of collaborationism as a socially harmful type of behavior, which is a crime (privileged type of treason), and to determine basic principles of criminal law influence on collaborators, including the issue of their amnesty.

FRANÇAIS — Cet article propose d’illustrer et d’interroger la notion de trahison en étudiant le cas de militants antinazis et antifascistes qui ont changé de camp et sont devenus des espions pour les régimes autoritaires. Les traîtres au sein de la Résistance sont la preuve de l’approche « proactive » fasciste et nazie dans l’application des plans de répression des deux régimes qui perçoivent en eux un moyen efficace pour infiltrer les réseaux d’opposants politiques. « Retourner » les résistants contre leurs camarades et leurs groupes politiques d’origine était une technique de (contre)espionnage très efficace pour démanteler les réseaux de Résistance. Les opérations répressives à l’encontre des traîtres ont contribué à remettre en cause la pureté et l’unité de la Résistance pendant de nombreuses années au lendemain de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et ont généré des traumatismes individuels et sociétaux. Des cas longuement débattus comme ceux de René Hardy et d’Ignazio Silone témoignent des traces durables que ces opérations répressives ont laissées dans la conscience publique.

ENGLISH — This article illustrates and interrogates the concept of treason by investigating the cases of anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist militants who switched sides and became spies for the authoritarian regimes. I argue that these traitors within the Resistance provide proof of the “proactive” repression of the Nazi and Fascist secret police, their method of identifying and tempting potential traitors in order to infiltrate networks of political opponents. “Turning” Resistance members against their comrades and political groups of origin was a highly effective (coun- ter)espionage strategy, leading to the dismantling of numerous networks. Moreover, the participation of traitors in repressive operations cast doubt on the purity and unity of the Resistance for many years after the end of the Second World War, generating individual and societal traumas. Long-debated cases such as René Hardy’s and Ignazio Silone’s are symptomatic of the lasting traces that such operations left on the public conscience.

The kings of twelfth- and thirteenth- century Scotland faced prolonged opposition from families and individuals who fought either to assert their independence from centralising authority, or for the throne itself. The insurrections that arose as a result were all successfully defeated by an increasingly confident Scottish monarchy. Current historiography describes such royal victories as bloodthirsty affairs, with Scotland’s kings exacting excessively violent revenge on the bodies of their enemies. Historians of medieval England have drawn parallels between such acts and  the political violence of contemporary Wales and Ireland, with England alone providing an example of a more civilised royal response to rebellion. This chapter reconsiders the actions of Scotland’s kings and reassesses the violent paradigm that has been accepted to date, examining cases of non-violent response as balance. It suggests that, instead of being violent avengers, Scottish kings behaved in a more acceptable and accepted contemporary manner than previously understood.

FORWARD
The attempted coup of 1/06/2021 in the U. S. has put a fine point on the question of whether government by and for “the people” is possible when so-called representatives of the people foster a media pandemic of political lies to change reality-perceptions in-order to influence the political choices made by “the people”. More precisely—in a two-party system when one of those parties engages in active sedition (continually refuses to recognize their oaths of office or the democratic principles for which they stand)—is democracy a viable form of government in an incipient media age?  Putting the issues more bluntly, a demagogue who thinks he is above the law was elected president by a significant minority of the electorate that identifies with his Fascist values.  He immediately proceeded to blatantly obstruct every democratic law and to dismantle the entire structure of government, firing and replacing qualified administrators in every governmental department with unqualified zealots who supported his tyranny. Additionally, he constantly fostered violent sedition among “the people” and was absolved of all obviously criminal treachery by Republican zealots who blatantly ignored both multitudinous facts and personal integrity in their absolute fealty to a self-professed tyrant.  The final offense by zealots has been to allow treason against democracy and its principles without punishment. If the most successful experiment in democracy (the U.S. representative republic) cannot defend itself (with law & the remarkable heroism of progressives) against the most severe treachery, can it remain viable as a governmental structure? An incipient consensus is that the current system has many virtues but that it requires refinement. This paper addresses the issues involved with achieving such refinement in the form of Coherent One World Government based on a fractal electromagnetic unified (coherent universal) field ontology that can foster a humanitarian quality of collective human intention (moral agency) of “the people”.

In recent decades the term "treason" has been bandied about as a political weapon by various media figures and their followers in the United States, including in bestselling book titles.  These people allege that their political opponents are guilty of treason because they have allegedly departed from the views of the late eighteenth-century US Founders.  Some firebrands have called for the prosecution and execution of such alleged traitors under the Treason Clause of the US Constitution.  However, such opinionmakers fail to understand what the Founders meant when they formulated the Treason Clause of the US Constitution.  While invoking the Founders, they are themselves ignorant of what the Founders actually said.  The present essay provides a brief refresher course.

Thomas Wyatt (1504?-42) may have written the first sonnet in English. His translation from Plutarch's Moralia was the first publication of a classical moral essay in English. He introduced continental forms such as ottava rima to the language, and his paraphrase of the Penitential Psalms sparked a century of popular psalm translations. Yet while decades of criticism have centered on a handful of his best-known poems, many others are poorly understood, in part because we lack an authoritative edition. Volume 1--the first in a planned two-volume collection of Wyatt's complete works--comprises scholarly editions of 35 letters or memoranda, Wyatt's Declaration from the Tower and his Defence speech against treason charges, as well as the first scholarly edition of The Quyete of Mynde. It was published in March 2016 by Oxford University Press. Each text is extensively annotated, each letter has a prefacing headnote, and each grouping of texts is separately introduced. The recipient of one letter is identified here for the first time from new archival discoveries. Two letters of instruction from Henry VIII are included along with four appendices containing related documents. Biographical entries (totalling 17,000 words) identify and introduce 64 persons related to Wyatt's diplomatic service, including every known member of Wyatt's diplomatic household.

"That when my law partner came in on the first appearance to file a motion to dismiss, Your Honor did not read the motion. Your Honor accused my law partner, friend, and colleague of trying to delay proceedings. Now, it's not clear how a judge would know whether a motion is meant to delay...without reading it. That would be certainly the most talented judge I've ever met, and I've met some pretty talented ones. And I've worked for a judge. And I have judges who are friends. And if I told a judge that I met a judge in Suffolk County who could know whether a motion was meritorious without reading it, they'd tell me I was lying or they'd tell me that a judge pulled one over on me."

The Belgian Pierre Marie Ernest Sweerts, although sentenced to death in his own country, was initially not arrested after the Second World War. This was due to the fact that he had offered his services while working within the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA; the police-and security service of the SS). After the war he was employed as interrogator in special camps that were involved with mopping up the werewolf organisations (nazi underground resistance groups) and the hunting down of Abwehr-and SD-members in POW-and refugeecamps. After this he was employed in the Nederlandse Fiscale Recherche, the Dutch tax detective force, where he worked in tracing capital that had been embezzled by collaborators and nazis.
After the war he was involved in the struggle for freedom of teh Republic of the South Moluccas. His first attempt was with R. Westerling and Hazelhoff Roelfzema in 1951. His second attempt was in 1958 with help of the CIA assisting in the failed uprising of Darul Islam. Sweerts was at the time reappointed as commander in chief of the RMS/ PRRI by the government in exile of the PRRi (Rasjid). His third and final attempt was in 1965.

Rebels and traitors, Hobbes insists, should not be prosecuted legally as citizens. As self-proclaimed enemies of the State, they should instead be dealt with by the right of war. Regardless of its merits, this claim should strike us as puzzling. It suggests that rebels, by their act of rebellion, forfeit their citizenship. But this implies that citizens can unilaterally (if unjustly) renounce their subjection to the State; and this radically voluntarist position on political obligation appears at odds with Hobbes’s social contract theory. This chapter defends the Citizenship Forfeiture Thesis. Rebels and traitors indeed lose their citizenship; their injustice dispels them from the legal order. It does not follow that the obligation, incurred in the original covenant, to simply obey the sovereign is thereby voided. This obligation is not part of the legal order; rather, it upholds it. For Hobbes, political obligation is not possessed as a citizen. Recognition of one’s political obligation is what makes one a citizen.

"...Based on this Pro Se litigant’s interpretation of the law, any judicial officer who consciously decides to rule without jurisdiction has by definition - "Warred against the Constitution of the United States…” Included in the legal communication to the White House is the 02-16-2022 Emergency Motion that was filed to notify the Court of this serious criminal violation, along with supporting documentation that evidences a history of egregious (and uncorrected) judicial abuses dating as far back as 2015 (See attached, below)..."

"Raconter les circonstances du vol. La place de la préméditation dans les procès pour vol dans les Vosges (XVIe-XVIIe siècles)", p. 25-36, dans Anne-Claude AMBROISE-RENDU, Frédéric CHAUVAUD (dir.), Machination, intrigue et résolution. Une histoire plurielle de la préméditation, Limoges, PULIM, 2017, 253 p.

Treason is one of the most serious legal o fences that there are, in most if not all jurisdictions. Laws against treason are rooted in deep-seated moral revulsion about acts which, in the political realm, are paradigmatic examples of breaches of loyalty. Yet, it is not altogether clear what treason consists in: someone's traitor is of en another's loyalist. In this paper, my aim is twofold: to o fer a plausible conceptual account of treason, and to partly rehabilitate traitors. I focus on informational treason, as the act of passing secret intelligence to foreign actors without authorization. I argue that informational treason is sometimes justi ed, indeed morally mandatory; even when it is morally wrong, its bene ciaries are sometimes justi ed, indeed obliged, to make use of the intelligence thereby provided.

This paper examines the role of traitor's figure in the narratives of the principal Historias Generales de España focusing upon the Islamic conquest of 711. Starting by the Germanic legislative tradition, which associates the idea of treason with king's figure, we shall study the evolution of historical account throughout centuries, where the Visigoths have always played the role of axis in the representation of Spanish identity. We shall also discussed the different types of treason, their importance in national constructions, and their impact on historiographical tradition, emphasizing in particular the stereotype of the Jews and their stigmatization as internal enemies for much of the history of Spain.

Dear Mr. President:

It is with great regret that I must again report to the EOP (as required by Federal law) yet another witnessed violation to ARTICLE III AND 18 U.S.C. § 2381 – Judicial Treason, committed in the First Circuit Appellate Court by RECUSED Circuit Judge – Hon. William J. Kayatta, Jr., who issued an incremental order without jurisdiction on January, 26 2022 (Ref. HARIHAR v JDCU et al, Appeal No. 21-1953, US Court of Appeals, Boston, MA). Based this Pro Se litigant’s interpretation of the law, any judicial officer who consciously decides to rule without jurisdiction has by definition - "Warred against the Constitution of the United States…”

Albanian or Aromanian Honorary Prince of Moldavia and Wallachia, Alexander Ghica (1698-1741) was the chief interpreter (dragoman) of the Ottoman Empire between 1727 and 1741. His main task was to facilitate the communications between the Ottoman bureaucracy and the representatives of other states. Thereby, as dragoman, but at the same time as non-Muslim, Ghica had a special position within the Ottoman (Muslim) bureaucratic elite. On 5 February 1741, he was dragged by his feet to the harbor where he was loaded onto a caique. On the same day, his possessions were confiscated by the Ottoman state. After having been imprisoned for fifteen days, Ghica was beheaded on account of treason.
Reasons offered for Ghica’s execution were plenty. According to an official decree, the act of hiding a certain doctor or deposed Greek patriarch who had sought refuge with him was considered as treason. He was also accused of secretly altering one of the articles of the Treaty of Belgrade (1739). The Dutch Ambassador, on the other hand, suggested that the interpreter had overstepped the limits of power and made many enemies with little regard to principles or consequences. His extraordinary influence in affairs and the authority that he had gained in Romania and Moldavia could have been one of the other reasons for his execution. His great wealth caused suspicion among the Ottomans who assumed he was serving others too.
This paper considers the question whether the accusation of treason was rather an excuse to conceal other reasons for his execution. Was it possible that Ghica was extravagantly showing off his wealth, as it was not so much wealth itself but the flaunting of it that was subject to criticism in the Ottoman Empire? Although no laws were enforced regarding the display of status and wealth in the domestic interior, sumptuary laws regulated clothing in the “public sphere.” Additionally, by the eighteenth century, confiscation of the estates of the elite had become an important source of revenue for the state treasury and was used to keep their increasing power in check. In an attempt to uncover the possible reasons for Ghica’s execution, this study utilises contemporary chronicles and accounts, and most notably, the unpublished inventory records of Ghica’s estate.

This article aims to provide an extensive and detailed analysis of the law on treasonable offences in Singapore. It traces the historical development of the treason law in Singapore from the colonial period under British rule up until the present day, before proceeding to lay down the applicable legal principles that ought to govern these treasonable offences, drawing on authorities in the UK, India as well as other Commonwealth jurisdictions. With a more long-term view towards the reform and consolidation of the treason law in mind, this article also proposes several tentative suggestions for reform, complete with a draft bill devised by the author setting out these proposed changes.