POTUS says "Theisman should be jailed!"

cthia wrote:Not unless all of the databanks have been erased. If not and then they are as a result of the trial, then that is another serious offense waiting to be levied of "tampering with evidence" and "obstructing justice" for starters.

Surely the DA of the prosecuting team -- representing the segment of the population of Team Just and Anti-Pritchart -- would subpoena ship's records and testimonies of eyewitnesses.

Could certain eyewitnesses afford to risk perjuring themselves and ending their careers?

And the plot thickens.

What data?

I've re-read the very end of Ashes of Victory. Aside from Theisman and Saint-Just, there were only four Marines in the room as witnesses - and if Theisman was going down for anything, those four would've been in the dock with him, not testifying against him.

The only recorders running would've been Saint-Just's own systems - if the power cuts caused by the assaults didn't shut them off. Which were then in Theisman and his Marines' control for some time. I'm sure the storage devices were unfortunately damaged during the assault.

As far as the Honorverse universe is concerned, the only available evidence to any Havenite prosecutor is hearsay. Without hard evidence, hearsay can't overcome reasonable doubt.

Duckk wrote:Wow, ok...

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.

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.

You are correct in that he did originally start in the People's Republic Navy. I had to reread the section where OSJ takes out the Hereditary President and most of the government. My mistake was misremembering the "committee" as a coup, not an emergency powers situation voted on by the Quorum.

So that takes TT to his 'coup'. I'm still not sure that Parnell's 'testimony' would give him a legal basis to form a new government - maybe taking out OSJ's group yes, but a new government would be a bit squishy.

But then again - he won.

cthia wrote:

CRC wrote:Good point. I doubt a jury would convict as well, but if the Republic's constitution is anything like the US, the president could simply pardon him a-priori.

Not unless all of the databanks have been erased. If not and then they are as a result of the trial, then that is another serious offense waiting to be levied of "tampering with evidence" and "obstructing justice" for starters.

Surely the DA of the prosecuting team -- representing the segment of the population of Team Just and Anti-Pritchart -- would subpoena ship's records and testimonies of eyewitnesses.

Could certain eyewitnesses afford to risk perjuring themselves and ending their careers?

And the plot thickens.

Or unless the Jury chose to (informally or not) apply the concept of jury nullification. In effect "we vote not guilty because we feel this shouldn't be a crime and/or in this case we don't believe this defendant deserves punishment".

We don't know if the Republic of Haven's court system gives a Judge (or oversight person/mechanism/court) tools to attempt to mitigate such a decision of mass juror desire over the letter of the law. Sometimes the cures are worse than the disease, unless the jury flat out admits they voted against the evidence -- if they simply return not guilty without further elaboration or comment it's damned dicey to allow that to be overturned just because other people think they got the call wrong.

cthia wrote:I'd like to use my one phone call to call my lawyer.

"Lawyer, why can't Alfredo Yu and Co. ever go home?"

They certainly couldn't have under the Committee of Public Safety because Rob Pierre pretended they were an emergency continuation of the Legislaturalist government.
Allowing an convicted (in absentia) traitor against that government to return would have undermined that pretension.

Under the restored Republic it's a little messier. Their original treasonous acts (foiling the plans of their government's temporary allies of convenience, the Massadans, and fleeing) probably would have been happily excused. Their taking up arms against their fellow officers, not just StateSec, even in the first war - much less after the restoration of the Republic (the 2nd war) is much harder for public opinion to forgive.

But give some time to the alliance between Manticore and Haven, and some joint ops between the Protector's Own and Havenite formations, and I wouldn't be surprised if things eased to the point where there wouldn't be any issue with them visiting. I doubt any would want to repatriate there -- too much has changed and too many people they knew are dead.

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:My curiosity is getting the best of me.

Does anyone else assimilate that quote the same way?

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...

What it represents to me is a facetious rib at an "opportunistic" crime and is an obvious repudiation of a tendency to justify an undeniable crime out of selfishness and convenience. It is the ever present human element indicative of human nature of which I always speak.

IOW, I imagine John Harrington to be shaking his head in disgust as he quotes it.

Treason is illegal, immoral and wrong. It is not an opportunistic crime nor is the quote a license and justification to commit. America feels it is the deeds of a less civilized nation and it represents a character at odds against the morals, scruples and values of America. It is a crime that America has always attributed to "those other uncivilized countries."

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.

It is like Godwin's Law. People tend to conveniently take it and twist it like a pretzel—as some Christians and non-Christians take passages in the bible—to mean what they need it to mean. A convenient opportunity.

****** *

Now lets see if I can find a formal support of my assimilation. A short search yields...

John Harrington.

A witty and erudite figure at the court of Elizabeth I, John Harington is now remembered mainly for two things. One is his cynical epigram on treason: ‘Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.’

Any questions?



cyn·i·cal
ADJECTIVE

1. believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity:
   
2. "her cynical attitude" ⦁ doubtful as to whether something will happen or whether it is worthwhile:
   
3. "most residents are cynical about efforts to clean mobsters out of their city"
   
4. synonyms: skeptical · doubtful · distrustful · suspicious · disbelieving ·
   
5. pessimistic · negative · world-weary · disillusioned ·
   
6. disenchanted · jaundiced · sardonic
   
7. antonyms: idealistic ⦁ contemptuous; mocking: "he gave a cynical laugh"

ep·i·gram
NOUN

1. a pithy saying or remark expressing an idea in a clever and amusing way.
   
2. synonyms: witticism · quip · jest · pun · bon mot · saying · maxim
   
3. a wisecrack ⦁ a short poem, especially a satirical one, having a witty or ingenious ending.

Treason is illegal, immoral and wrong. It is not an opportunistic crime or a license and justification to commit. America feels it is the deeds of a less civilized nation and it represents a character at odds against the morals, scruples and values of America. It is a crime that America has always attributed to "those other uncivilized countries."

Alright, everyone, pack it up! It is totally wrong to commit treason for any reason, period. Guess we should tear down the memorial to the Operation Valkyrie conspirators. Oh, and let us dig up and desecrate Oskar Schindler's corpse while we are at it.

cthia wrote:

CRC wrote:Good point. I doubt a jury would convict as well, but if the Republic's constitution is anything like the US, the president could simply pardon him a-priori.

Not unless all of the databanks have been erased. If not and then they are as a result of the trial, then that is another serious offense waiting to be levied of "tampering with evidence" and "obstructing justice" for starters.

Surely the DA of the prosecuting team -- representing the segment of the population of Team Just and Anti-Pritchart -- would subpoena ship's records and testimonies of eyewitnesses.

Could certain eyewitnesses afford to risk perjuring themselves and ending their careers?

And the plot thickens.

Jonathan_S wrote:Or unless the Jury chose to (informally or not) apply the concept of jury nullification. In effect "we vote not guilty because we feel this shouldn't be a crime and/or in this case we don't believe this defendant deserves punishment".

We don't know if the Republic of Haven's court system gives a Judge (or oversight person/mechanism/court) tools to attempt to mitigate such a decision of mass juror desire over the letter of the law. Sometimes the cures are worse than the disease, unless the jury flat out admits they voted against the evidence -- if they simply return not guilty without further elaboration or comment it's damned dicey to allow that to be overturned just because other people think they got the call wrong.

cthia wrote:I'd like to use my one phone call to call my lawyer.

"Lawyer, why can't Alfredo Yu and Co. ever go home?"

They certainly couldn't have under the Committee of Public Safety because Rob Pierre pretended they were an emergency continuation of the Legislaturalist government.
Allowing an convicted (in absentia) traitor against that government to return would have undermined that pretension.

Under the restored Republic it's a little messier. Their original treasonous acts (foiling the plans of their government's temporary allies of convenience, the Massadans, and fleeing) probably would have been happily excused. Their taking up arms against their fellow officers, not just StateSec, even in the first war - much less after the restoration of the Republic (the 2nd war) is much harder for public opinion to forgive.

But give some time to the alliance between Manticore and Haven, and some joint ops between the Protector's Own and Havenite formations, and I wouldn't be surprised if things eased to the point where there wouldn't be any issue with them visiting. I doubt any would want to repatriate there -- too much has changed and too many people they knew are dead.

Well that's surely a nice unexpected power move by some very expensive and savvy uptown city lawyer. You may have won your case.

I agree that both charges could have been beaten by Theisman. Which is why I think he should have turned himself in and left it to the courts. As it stands... the leopard still has spots. IMHO.

Potato wrote:

Treason is illegal, immoral and wrong. It is not an opportunistic crime or a license and justification to commit. America feels it is the deeds of a less civilized nation and it represents a character at odds against the morals, scruples and values of America. It is a crime that America has always attributed to "those other uncivilized countries."

Alright, everyone, pack it up! It is totally wrong to commit treason for any reason, period. Guess we should tear down the memorial to the Operation Valkyrie conspirators. Oh, and let us dig up and desecrate Oskar Schindler's corpse while we are at it.

Why does the majority of your posts carry with them a disrespectful and obnoxious tone? Though I have to agree that a better question is why do I bother to try and raise other parent's kids? Can you not argue with a slant towards respect? Just a slant? Am I being disrespectful to you for having a varying opinion?

You don't seem to get it. Treason is illegal for a reason. To permit it is anarchy unleashed.

You cannot justify treason. Treason is treason.

IF it is justified as represented by this most brilliant, respectful and insightful, post...

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.

THEN it truly is not treason, but duty, justice and honor.

BUT One must be prepared to do the time if it is determined to be a crime. And that determination should be a matter for the courts.

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...

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?

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?