Maggie's Farm

A Coastie, no less! That's the sort of Admiral this son of a career USCG officer would sail into hell for. Had my eyesight been better, I might have had the chance to say this myself. We have a remarkable group of leaders among the Flag Officers of the various services in this generation!

The statement is mistaken on at least three counts. In the U.S., treason is specifically defined as, "Adhering to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort." 1.) Not all flag officers are in complete agreement as to the points ADM Lee raised. 2.) The insistence of each U.S. citizen's right to responsibly exercise Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is not treason by definition. 3.) Disagreement with any government functionary's implementation of policy that arbitrarily, materially and substantially infringes on any individual's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights is not treason by definition. With respect to point 2 and 3, officers in the U.S. military take an oath to "protected and defend the Constitution" precisely because the Sovereign power in this country is the Constitution, not a King, Dictator or other sort of flawed human being. I marvel at the extent to which ADM Lee and others will risk their fortunes to do this. Should there be a declared enemy, who by definition will be intent on destroying the Constitution, in whole or in part, these officers will risk, and if necessary forfeit their lives to defend it. As to any risk of their honor - the third virtue so highly prized by our Founding Fathers - this is not in question, especially in a time and a season in which there is so little honor left.

To assert that the failure of any (or all) representatives to uphold any (or all) of the nations laws, including the Constitution itself, does neither relieve the individual of the duty to uphold such laws, nor does it in any way impair the individual's ability to do so. Both the government and the individual citizens are holders of rights and duties: the failure of the government to also be an effective guarantor of rights and duties does not in any respect alter the individual's responsibility as a holder of rights and duties. This is one of the reasons we have enjoyed more than a couple of centuries' worth of peaceful transitions of power, as opposed to a series of coups, dictatorships, reigns of terror and other such atrocities as may fill the history books.

As I noted above, the definition of treason under U.S. law is very specific and very narrow. The Founding Fathers did this for a reason, and we have enjoyed an unusually stable society because of it. We certainly have had our share of incompetence, dishonesty and deviousness among our leadership over the course of our history as a nation, and no doubt we will continue to have such as long as we endure as a nation: such is the nature of human nature, and such it will be as long as the human race endures. There is no case for treason, properly so-called. In this I am not mistaken.

If our leadership is lacking in character and/or derelict in their duties, shame on them; but remember they didn't get there on their own. Replace them in the next election, or if you can make a case, pursue the remedies available in law for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance. Calling for the ouster of those in any level of government who have demonstrated sound character and the courage to act on it is, at best, counterproductive, and more likely to lead to the very situation you describe in your post.