Did the New York Times commit treason?

[Klington]

"Readers should demand that the New York Times come clean about David Rohde. How much was paid in total by the NYT/others to Taliban to gain release of David Rohde? How much was spent in total by NYT/others in all activities to gain the release of David Rohde? After I "Tweeted" that NYT spent millions (I did not say ......in ransom), the NYT did in fact admit to having paid the Taliban. NYT continues the cover up." -Posted by Michael Yon on Facebook basically saying that the NYT paid enemy combatants to secure the release of one of their reporters.

I was too lazy to research into it, however I definitely respect this author's credibility. Anyways, go ahead and debate the issue and if you want to, or go research it on google.

[Bad Infinitum]

See, this is the sort of thing you need a good K&R firm for! People like me help other people not commit treason.

The fact that there was a massive media blackout seems a little fishy to me. It's like they were saying "Sure, we know about it. We have a plan" and that plan involved paying terrorists. That's probably why the official statements still say that Rohde "escaped" his captors. "Official statements" are usually grade-A shrubbery though.

[Klington]

What's a K&R firm?

My train of logic is this:
Money->Weapons->Kill American Troops->Treason

[Bad Infinitum]

Kidnap & ransom. Client, in fear of kidnap, pays firm, client is kidnapped, firm either A) rescues client, or B) pays ransom.

And yep, that's a pretty solid train of logic. However, by that transitive property of treason, the CIA is guilty of treason for providing weapons and training to the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then again, the CIA is probably guilty of much more heinous treason charges that'll never surface, so that point is moot.

[Klington]

To be honest, my political philosophy thinks that is, in essence, treason too. However, my political ideals are no longer very mainstream and I have no wish to argue the point. I much rather have a more even-sided debate on an issue which is more black and white.

In addition to this, one could assume that the CIA usually commits acts of seemingly near treason in order to further the cause of the United States. While the actions may be the same, the intent would be different. Then again, one could assume that he has no effing idea what the CIA does and just wish for the best.

While we are on the topic of intent, perhaps that should serve as a supplementary question to the debate. Is intent necessary for treason? Does one need to purposefully try to undermine the US for it to be treason? If so, clearly this case would not be treason.

[Bad Infinitum]

Intent is a mystery of law enforcement. In Illinois, it is legal for an average citizen to walk down the street with a combat knife, either concealed or open carry, so long as that citizen does not intend to cause harm to another person with said knife. However, if police have any reason to suspect malicious intent, that person gets a few months in jail and a pretty hefty fine. It's basically determined by the arresting officer... who could just be having a bad day.

The CIA's intent is always shady. Even if they had the best of intent, they'd mask it in a web of deception and lies just to save face. It's their nature. CIA operations are usually politically motivated or actually designed to do some good in the world. Rarely both.

The New York Times, however, being an investigative journalism institution, generally doesn't give two shits about the wellbeing of the country or the world. They just like telling people about other people's lives. In this case, they chose not to tell anyone what was going on. Just the fact that they kept the abduction from the headlines (which is often the case when reporters are kidnapped) tells me that they were only looking out for their own interest, as opposed to the interest of the country. To me, that says "bad intent", and possible treason. IF the allegations of payoff as opposed to the official statement of "escaped" are true.

[Klington]

I will wait to hear dissenting opinions before I start chiming in my .02

[Anime Daisuki]

Its a ransom, its as simple as that.

Journalists also regularly pay guides, middle-men, to enter nations hostile to the USA, that doesn't mean they are all committing treason.

[Ananke II]

Leaving aside whether paying ransoms is a good idea or not, is it actually treason to do so in the US?

[Bad Infinitum]

That's the question. If a ransom was paid, it was paid to Taliban insurgents. What are they going to use that money for? Weapons and munitions to kill Americans.

[Guy]

Treason is defined in 18 USC 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

So traditionally, yes.

[Shadowtech Demons]

According to the definition, yes it would be treason in the normal sense. But I don't think when they wrote that part they thought about ransoms being payed to get back Americans. I bet the government has payed ransoms to get back some of their soldiers and people, but they can't be charged of treason. But when the NYT does it, people thinks it is treason.

[Minurva]

Well I'm pretty sure If I personally was to hand over money to them nothing good would come of it for me. So I'm gonna go ahead and say it's poor taste for the NYT to do it..

[Takaram]

By traditional definitions, yes this is essentially treason. However, I don't think that this really opens up the Times to any legal issues. Ransoms get payed all the time to entities that aren't exactly in agreement with the US. Everyone who pays a ransom to get their people and ships back from Somoza pirates would be committing treason if this is treason.

[NunYa Dam Biz]

The Times is a Leftist Rag that should be rated along side the National Enquirer

[Caerthrage]

Apr 5, 2010 22:43:44 GMT -5 Bad Infinitum said:

Kidnap & ransom. Client, in fear of kidnap, pays firm, client is kidnapped, firm either A) rescues client, or B) pays ransom.

And yep, that's a pretty solid train of logic. However, by that transitive property of treason, the CIA is guilty of treason for providing weapons and training to the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then again, the CIA is probably guilty of much more heinous treason charges that'll never surface, so that point is moot.

But isin this the point, we gave them the marjority of the weapons that are killing our boys, we even trained them, so in the end the Russian and American power game is partly to blame, but I think the Taliban would have still risen without America, but America just made the process faster and more dangerous