POTUS says "Theisman should be jailed!"

saber964 wrote:You can sum up why Tom didn't get tried for treason in two phrases

He won

The winner writes the history

Or
“History is written by the victors.” -- Winston Churchhill

Vince wrote:

saber964 wrote:You can sum up why Tom didn't get tried for treason in two phrases

He won

The winner writes the history

Or
“History is written by the victors.” -- Winston Churchhill

History = His Story

History is the Story as He is telling it. Dead men never tell theirs.

Or you could argue that TT's actions were to fight the illegal OSJ government, and thus can not be considered treason.
He wasn't overthrowing a government, he restored one.

In this sense, immediately restoring the original constitution boosts his case.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Or you could argue that TT's actions were to fight the illegal OSJ government, and thus can not be considered treason.
He wasn't overthrowing a government, he restored one.

In this sense, immediately restoring the original constitution boosts his case.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Couldn't have said it any better.

Looking back at that paragraph, oh I bet you could.

Mixing tenses like that. *shudders*

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

cthia wrote:

Murder is murder. Treason is treason. Most every one here in the thread agrees with your sentiment. So do I. With the sole exception of dismissing the crime and sweeping it under the rug. No statue of limitations on the crimes means they'll remain under the rug as crimes eons into history.

Is it treason to end a "government" which itself came to power as the result of an act of treason?

Remember, OSJ and Rob Pierre's Committee for Public Safety itself came to power by the commission of acts of treason against the Legislateralist government which preceded it.

Murder? Yes. TT killed OSJ in cold blood when he clearly had the opportunity to take the snake into custody, but Treason ... IMHO, no. The Peep government was (again in my opinion) never legitimate.

It's always amusing to watch the enthusiasm with which the proponents of expediency embrace that position in opposition to the primacy of the rule of law in discussions like this. Almost
as amusing as the outrage expressed when said expediency is practiced upon their own persons, in fact.

Unfortunately, Cthia's opening premises, as is so often the case, are invalid, making the ensuing discussion, as the French would have it, caduque. To whit: Thomas Theisman was an officer of the Armed Forces of the Peoples' Republic of Haven. As such we know that he swore an oath at his commissioning. We _don't_ actually know the terms of that oath, but they don't actually matter. Given the maintenance of the trappings of republicanism it's more likely to have been an oath to uphold the Constitution than one of allegiance to the President, but either leads to the same conclusion. [Actually, under the circumstances, my suspicion is that the oath was in fact to uphold the Constitution of the Republic of Haven. More on that anon.] As an officer, it was his duty, when presented with reasonable cause - in the form of the recordings of the interrogation of Amos Parnell at Camp Charon - to believe that an insurrection against the Republic was in course, to bring it to an end and apprehend any surviving insurrectionists. To fail to act in this manner might arguably constitute treason; to fulfill his sworn duty is not.

There are 2 points on which legalistic debate can be sustained. The first is about whether duty required that he act 'immediately' or 'as soon as practicable'; I present the argument that action need be effective or it becomes pointless, and therefore that taking it sooner that practicable is unjustifiable. Theisman therefore acted properly in waiting as long as he did. The second, and more problematic, is the matter of the surviving ring-leader of the insurrection, who was killed resisting arrest. It's clear that he was resisting, both personally - he was armed when discovered - and by proxy since insurrectionist forces obedient to his orders were engaged in armed resistance at the time. What is less clear is whether he personally was still capable of _effective_ resistance when killed, and whether killing a person resisting arrest when they can no longer resist effectively is justifiable. Current jurisprudence most places, the US being a prime example, is that this is a judgement call for the arresting officer; we have to assume that the same holds for the Havenite state. I have to say that I find the argument morally dubious, but it is clear that the killing of those not actively resisting arrest, or even with no intent to resist, is legal, and legality is our only concern here.

Theisman's actions _after_ the suppression of the insurrection are arguably more dubious, but the fact is that we lack crucial information for evaluating them. Had he retained power and made himself head of state or even government on a continuing basis, that would have been treasonable - I very much doubt that Haven's constitution provides for anything of the sort - but he did not. Whether what he did do was legal we simply don't know. It was his duty, no doubt, to restore power to the legal civilian authority, but that may not have been _possible_: if his oath was to the _Republic_of_Haven_, none of the institutions of the _Peoples_ republic would likely have had legal authority under that document - and his actions in establishing a provisional government and supervising the restoration of the legal structures were not just not treason but his bounden duty. Otherwise, under the constitution of the PRH... who knows? Whatever remained of the existing government was complicit in the insurrection just ended, and thus suspended from office. Maybe he, as ranking naval officer, really was the legal successor to Harris. Maybe what's-his-name on Terra, the old Foreign Secretary, was. Maybe Parnell was, or perhaps the constitution as amended left the question rather open. [You'll recall that by this time the poor thing rather resembled a pretzel] In which case the only option was to call a Constitutional Convention where, lo and behold! it was decided to cut through the confusion and just roll everything back to the balmy days of yore. 200 years ago or whenever.

Regardless, the accusations of treason and murder have no legal standing.

Silverwall wrote:Cthia, you are confusing internal laws within a government stating Coups are illegal with being some sort of global edict from a higher being that coups are illegal.

All Coups are illegal from the perspective of those being overthrown. If they are considered illegal after the fact depends on many factors including but not limited to:

* WHICH SIDE WON IN THE LONG TERM (this is most important)
* Public opinion
* Reputation of those overthrown (internal)
* Reputation of those doing the overthrowing
* Reputation of those overthrown (externally)
* Willingness of the international community to recognise the new government.
* Form of old government
* Form of new government

None of this can be determined on a simple matrix but is a massivly complex interlocking set of value calls and nuanced judgements unique to each case. Given the many examples in real life we can compare to Theismans actions it is very unlikely any successor government would prosecute such an action.

Probably the closes real life example would be Von Stalfenburg and bombing Hitler in the bunker. In real life he failed and was duly rounded up and tried and executed for treason. If he had succeeded he would have been considered a hero for helping overthrow a paranoid tyrant and ending the war.

cthia wrote:
What other perspective is there? Can there be? Should there be?

Be very careful and move very slowly, as you are unscrewing the lid form a vast can of worms and they are really squirming in anticipation.

If I follow your lead, then a successful coup to unseat Trump's rump and demand that Hillary be seated is legal, at least in its conception and execution. Whether Clinton would actually be seated is besides the point.

Speaking of points, Clinton would win on every single factor that you named, especially public opinion. Remember, public opinion is on the side of the popular vote. She takes the other points by a popular landslide as well.

One simply cannot compromise on certain immutable ideas as treason or murder. Murder and treason. Or one compromises his own integrity and soul. Harrington understood this well. So did the Soul of Steel. One reason Beth was always so pissed regarding the Peeps is that they never seemed to understand this. Or have nothing going on at their core by way of access to morals, scruples and values. It seems that the spots still linger?

A misnomer...

Victory does not justify murder and treason. Treason or murder.

Or all of the Nazi's responsible for the inhumane crimes against the Jews would never have had their crimes follow them unto the day of resolution and justice.

Siverwall wrote:If all that happend was overthrowing the current president then it's obviously illegal because the basic structure of the state has not changed. We are talking about a case where the fundamental structures of the state are changed these follow a different set of rules. If you can't see that there is a difference between the two examples then you are being blinkered by absolutism or extreme legalism.

You are still attempting to justify the act and classify it under the name of another rose that smells sweeter, by manner of some insane perceived qualifications and merits.

Murder and treason. Treason and murder are immutable. Just as sure as Detective Stabler would have shot that creep while he was on the pavement because he knew he'd just be out on bail the next day and kill again does not absolve him of the crime. Heck, the creep was bragging that's what he would do.

Stabler's badge is collected and he sees Internal Affairs.

We cannot allow ourselves to be judge, jury and executioner. That is too much power for one individual, or office to wield. The Constitution would never give one individual that much power. Or base the Constitution on one man's assimilation of the law -- and his morals, scruples and values.[/quote]

Vince wrote:

saber964 wrote:You can sum up why Tom didn't get tried for treason in two phrases

He won

The winner writes the history

Or
“History is written by the victors.” -- Winston Churchhill

This pretty much sums up the "right" answer to the original thought process.

So could we actually extrapolate this a bit?

From Safehold: Was Shan-Wei a "traitor" in actively opposing the council's decision when the vote went against her? Is Nimue, in both versions, currently operating against Federation military law?

From Dahak: Was Colin a "traitor"? Did he violate his oath to the US Constitution?

Very interesting conversational topic.

Louis R wrote: Unfortunately, Cthia's opening premises, as is so often the case, are invalid, making the ensuing discussion, as the French would have it, caduque. To whit: Thomas Theisman was an officer of the Armed Forces of the Peoples' Republic of Haven. As such we know that he swore an oath at his commissioning. We _don't_ actually know the terms of that oath, but they don't actually matter. Given the maintenance of the trappings of republicanism it's more likely to have been an oath to uphold the Constitution than one of allegiance to the President, but either leads to the same conclusion. [Actually, under the circumstances, my suspicion is that the oath was in fact to uphold the Constitution of the Republic of Haven. More on that anon.] As an officer, it was his duty, when presented with reasonable cause - in the form of the recordings of the interrogation of Amos Parnell at Camp Charon - to believe that an insurrection against the Republic was in course, to bring it to an end and apprehend any surviving insurrectionists. To fail to act in this manner might arguably constitute treason; to fulfill his sworn duty is not.

There are 2 points on which legalistic debate can be sustained. The first is about whether duty required that he act 'immediately' or 'as soon as practicable'; I present the argument that action need be effective or it becomes pointless, and therefore that taking it sooner that practicable is unjustifiable. Theisman therefore acted properly in waiting as long as he did. The second, and more problematic, is the matter of the surviving ring-leader of the insurrection, who was killed resisting arrest. It's clear that he was resisting, both personally - he was armed when discovered - and by proxy since insurrectionist forces obedient to his orders were engaged in armed resistance at the time. What is less clear is whether he personally was still capable of _effective_ resistance when killed, and whether killing a person resisting arrest when they can no longer resist effectively is justifiable. Current jurisprudence most places, the US being a prime example, is that this is a judgement call for the arresting officer; we have to assume that the same holds for the Havenite state. I have to say that I find the argument morally dubious, but it is clear that the killing of those not actively resisting arrest, or even with no intent to resist, is legal, and legality is our only concern here.

Theisman's actions _after_ the suppression of the insurrection are arguably more dubious, but the fact is that we lack crucial information for evaluating them. Had he retained power and made himself head of state or even government on a continuing basis, that would have been treasonable - I very much doubt that Haven's constitution provides for anything of the sort - but he did not. Whether what he did do was legal we simply don't know. It was his duty, no doubt, to restore power to the legal civilian authority, but that may not have been _possible_: if his oath was to the _Republic_of_Haven_, none of the institutions of the _Peoples_ republic would likely have had legal authority under that document - and his actions in establishing a provisional government and supervising the restoration of the legal structures were not just not treason but his bounden duty. Otherwise, under the constitution of the PRH... who knows? Whatever remained of the existing government was complicit in the insurrection just ended, and thus suspended from office. Maybe he, as ranking naval officer, really was the legal successor to Harris. Maybe what's-his-name on Terra, the old Foreign Secretary, was. Maybe Parnell was, or perhaps the constitution as amended left the question rather open. [You'll recall that by this time the poor thing rather resembled a pretzel] In which case the only option was to call a Constitutional Convention where, lo and behold! it was decided to cut through the confusion and just roll everything back to the balmy days of yore. 200 years ago or whenever.

Regardless, the accusations of treason and murder have no legal standing.

Objection - Assumes facts not in evidence.

1 - TT was in the Legislaturist (sp) military to begin with as an officer. His willing participation in the coup, by accepting a People's Republic commission, most likely violated his first oath.

2 - The Amos Parnell disclosures occurred after he had accepted a People's Republic commission and the oath that that would entail. Thus even assuming the Parnell disclosures allowed him to revert to his already violated prior oath, he then violates his current oath.

3 - Saying OSJ was resisting arrest and posed an immediate threat to a man in full combat armor is going a bit far - like saying the kid in Tiananmen Square in front of the tank was a real threat - and would have been ok to run over...

Really interesting discussion.

Wow, ok...

Objection - Assumes facts not in evidence.

1 - TT was in the Legislaturist (sp) military to begin with as an officer. His willing participation in the coup, by accepting a People's Republic commission, most likely violated his first oath..

Tom Theisman started his career in the People's Republic of Haven's Navy. This was during the Legislaturist regime. When Pierre did his coup, the official story - which, as far as the entire galaxy knew was true - was that A) the Harris Assassination was carried out by PRHN personnel; and B) that Pierre's Committee of Public Safety was the legitimate successor of the government, given that so much of the government was killed.

That means that Theisman did not at any point change his allegiance. As far as he - or anyone else outside the conspiracy - knew, he was following his legal civilian superiors, however distasteful he personally might find them. Doing otherwise would mean he's one of the traitors, which, of course, is the exact opposite of what he believes.

2 - The Amos Parnell disclosures occurred after he had accepted a People's Republic commission and the oath that that would entail. Thus even assuming the Parnell disclosures allowed him to revert to his already violated prior oath, he then violates his current oath.

This is completely null and void given the point above: until Parnell came back from the dead, Theisman was working under the assumption that the CoPS is there to ensure the continuity of government.

3 - Saying OSJ was resisting arrest and posed an immediate threat to a man in full combat armor is going a bit far - like saying the kid in Tiananmen Square in front of the tank was a real threat - and would have been ok to run over...

A fair point, and probably the closest you could get to criminal charges. But, again, the victors write the history books. And remember why Theisman shot him the first place: he was certain that yet another flashy show trial and execution would do more harm than good. So if Theisman had to dispose of St. Just in a less than legal way, in service of the greater good, then he'd do it and live with that blotch on his soul.