![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3630\/2017\/09\/19163550\/Bribery.png\")
\r\nBribery, of course, connotes a voluntary offer to obtain gain, where extortion connotes some form of coercion.<\/em><\/p>\r\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0--U.S. v. Adcock<\/em><\/a>, cited in Section 13.3.2 \"Bribery Elements\"<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n The government is tasked with keeping the nation safe from domestic and international attacks on the government and citizens. National security is an issue that affects the entire country, so most of the regulation in this area is federal<\/em>, rather than state<\/em> (Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 2011). Criminal statutes protecting the government can encroach on the individual freedom to protest government action and can also affect privacy interests, which subjects them to enhanced constitutional scrutiny similar to the crimes against the public reviewed in Chapter 12 \"Crimes against the Public\"<\/a>. This section explores crimes against the nation, such as treason, sedition, sabotage, and espionage. Section 13.2 \"Crimes Involving Terrorism\"<\/a> examines terrorism and the USA PATRIOT Act. The last section of this chapter discusses other crimes against the government that are primarily state<\/em> regulated, such as perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Article III \u00a7\u00a03 of the US Constitution defines treason<\/a><\/span> and specifies the evidentiary requirements for any treason trial. The founding fathers wanted to ensure that the government would not charge an individual with treason without significant and reliable proof. Treason was punishable by death in England, so it was a constant threat to anyone who disagreed with the ruling party. Although the treason clause in the Constitution is modeled after the early English law defining treason, it omits a section that criminalized \u201cimagining the death of the King\u201d and also limits Congress\u2019s authority to extend or expand the crime of treason or to lighten the evidentiary requirements.<\/p>\r\n The pertinent section of the Constitution states, \u201cTreason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n The criminal act<\/strong> element required for treason is levying war against the United States or<\/strong> adhering to the enemy by giving aid and comfort (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2381, 2011). Prosecutions for treason are practically nonexistent, so case law in this area is dated, yet still constitutes viable precedent. In U.S. v. Burr<\/em><\/a>, 25 F Cas 55 (1807), a case involving then-vice president Aaron Burr\u2019s prosecution for treason, the US Supreme Court held that levying war means an actual assembling of men, not a conspiracy<\/strong> to levy war, nor a mere enlistment<\/em> of men. In Haupt v. U.S.<\/em><\/a>, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), the US Supreme Court held that the defendant\u2019s acts of harboring and sheltering his son in his home, helping him to purchase an automobile, and obtain employment constituted providing aid and comfort to the enemy because the defendant\u2019s son was a spy and saboteur. The criminal intent element required for treason is most likely the general intent<\/strong> or knowingly<\/strong> to commit an act of levying war or the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> to betray the United States by giving aid and comfort to enemies (Cramer v. U.S., 1945). The Constitution<\/em> specifies the evidentiary requirements that two witnesses testify to an overt act of treason or that the defendant confess in open court, although this is not set forth in the federal treason statute (18 U.S.C., 2011). As stated in Cramer v. U.S.<\/em><\/a>, 325 U.S. 1, 34, 35 (1945), \u201cEvery act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses,\u201d and it is not enough that the elements of treason can be inferred<\/em> from the witness statements. Treason is graded<\/strong> as a felony that can merit the death penalty or prohibit the defendant from ever holding federal office (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2381, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n Benedict is identified as a person of interest in a treason case. A government agent posing as an enemy spy invites Benedict to dinner, and they discuss the decline of the United States and whether or not they should \u201cdo something about it.\u201d At the conclusion of the dinner, Benedict picks up the tab. Thereafter, Benedict is arrested for treason and refuses to incriminate himself by responding to law enforcement interrogation. It is unlikely that Benedict will be convicted of treason in this case. Benedict paid for the government agent\u2019s dinner, which could constitute providing aid<\/strong> to the enemy. However, Benedict indicated a hesitancy to take further action, which does not satisfy the requirement that he act with the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> to betray<\/em> the United States. In addition, only the government agent can testify as to Benedict\u2019s act of paying for a meal because Benedict is asserting his right to remain silent. Therefore, the constitutional requirement that two witnesses testify about the overt act charged as treason is not satisfied. The intent element and evidentiary requirement for treason are lacking, so Benedict probably will not be subject to prosecution for and conviction of this offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Figure 13.1<\/span> Crack the Code<\/p>\r\n Sedition<\/a><\/span> criminalizes the incitement of insurrection or revolution by seditious speech or writings and, as such, is subject to the restrictions set forth in the First Amendment. The first federal law prohibiting sedition was the Sedition Act enacted in 1798 and repealed by Thomas Jefferson after his election as president. The current federal statute criminalizing sedition was originally enacted in 1940 and is codified at 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a02385<\/a>. Conspiracy to commit sedition is codified at 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a02384<\/a>. Many states have similar provisions (51 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 6018, 2011). Like treason, sedition is rarely prosecuted.<\/p>\r\n The criminal act<\/strong> element required for sedition is either advocating, aiding, teaching, organizing or printing, publishing, or circulating written matter that advocates, aids, or teaches the overthrow of the US government or any state, district, or territory thereof by force<\/em> or violence<\/em> (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2385, 2011). The criminal intent element required for sedition is the general intent<\/strong> or knowingly<\/strong> to advocate, aid, teach, or organize, or the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> to print, publish, or circulate written matter that advocates, aids, or teaches the violent government overthrow. In Yates v. U.S.<\/em><\/a>, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), the US Supreme Court held that only advocacy directed at promoting unlawful action<\/em> could be constitutionally prohibited. Advocacy of an \u201cabstract doctrine\u201d was protected by the First Amendment as free speech (Yates v. U.S., 2011). Sedition is graded<\/strong> as a felony that can prohibit the defendant from obtaining employment with the US government for a minimum of five years postconviction (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2385, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n Mo, a disgruntled immigrant who has been denied citizenship, decides he wants to overthrow the US government and supplant it with a new government that will grant the citizenship privileges he desires. Mo prints up leaflets advocating the overthrow of the government by placing a series of bombs in strategic and specifically named places and passes them out every Saturday in front of varied places known for ethnic diversity throughout the city. Mo has most likely committed sedition in this example. Mo printed written matter<\/strong> advocating the overthrow of the US government by unlawful<\/em> action, using force<\/em> and violence<\/em>. Mo\u2019s intent was to get rid of the current government so that he could gain citizenship, which is specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong>. Thus Mo\u2019s conduct probably constitutes sedition, and he may be subject to prosecution for and conviction of several counts of this offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Figure 13.2<\/span> Diagram of Sedition<\/p>\r\n Sabotage<\/a><\/span> is criminalized at 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a02151<\/a> et seq., which includes several different forms of this offense. Many states have similar provisions (RCW \u00a7 9.05.060, 2011). In general, sabotage is destroying, damaging, or defectively producing (criminal act<\/strong> and harm<\/strong>) property with the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong>, general intent<\/strong> or knowingly<\/strong>, or negligently<\/strong> to impede the nation\u2019s ability to prepare for or participate in war and national defense and is detailed in the following United States Codes:<\/p>\r\n\r\n Both 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\u00a02153 and 2154 have the attendant circumstance<\/strong> that the conduct occur during war<\/em> or a national emergency<\/em>. All the sabotage statutes grade<\/strong> sabotage as a felony, with sentences ranging from five to thirty years\u2019 incarceration in federal prison.<\/p>\r\n Sabotage is prosecuted more often than treason and sedition, and there have been some extremely interesting criminal sabotage cases, including sabotage indictments<\/a> against a corporation manufacturing defective raincoats for the armed forces during wartime, a sabotage trial<\/a> for the burning of an ROTC building on the Washington University campus after the Kent State University riots, a sabotage trial<\/a> for defendants who stole copper wire from a railroad track that was used to ship war materials, and the sabotage indictment<\/a> of Osama bin Laden for extraterritorial<\/a><\/span> (outside the United States) activity.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Review the example in Section 13 \"Example of Sedition\"<\/a> with Mo. Add to this example and imagine that Mo gets no response to his fliers and becomes enraged. He decides to get back at the United States for not allowing him to become a US citizen by harming its national security and exposing it to attack by enemy forces. He thereafter hacks into the computer system used by the US Department of Defense and damages it so that it is out of commission for two weeks. Mo has most likely committed the federal crime of sabotage<\/strong>. Mo damaged<\/strong> national defense material with the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> to interfere with the nation\u2019s security and defense, which is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a02155, whether or not it is wartime or during a national emergency. Thus Mo may be subject to prosecution for and conviction of this offense and could face many years of incarceration for his conduct.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Figure 13.3<\/span> Diagram of Sabotage<\/p>\r\n Espionage<\/a><\/span>, also known as \u201cspying,\u201d is criminalized at 18 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a0792<\/a> et seq. Originally part of one of the early versions of the Sedition Act of 1918, the crime of espionage has a colorful history and many interesting criminal prosecutions similar to criminal sabotage. Federal espionage statutes criminalize various acts, depending on whether the conduct occurs during peace<\/em> or during war<\/em>. During times of peace, it is criminal espionage to gather, transmit, or attempt to gather or transmit defense information (criminal act<\/strong>) with general intent<\/strong> or knowingly<\/strong>, or with the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> that it will be used to damage the United States or assist any foreign nation (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 793, 2011). During times of war, it is criminal espionage to collect, record, publish, or communicate information about military activities or to attempt any of the foregoing (criminal act<\/strong>) with the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> that the information will be transmitted to the enemy (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 794(b), 2011). Espionage is graded as a felony<\/strong>, with potential sentencing of life in prison or the death penalty (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 792 et seq., 2011).<\/p>\r\n Some interesting criminal espionage cases are the Rosenberg case<\/a>, where a married couple conspired to pass nuclear secrets to the Soviets and were later executed pursuant to the death penalty, the Hanssen case<\/a>, where an FBI agent sold state secrets to Moscow for $1.4 million in cash and diamonds, and the Aragoncillo case<\/a>, where a White House employee stole intelligence documents from White House computers and e-mailed them to the Philippines.<\/p>\r\n\r\n Review the example given in Section 13 \"Example of Sabotage\"<\/a> with Mo and his computer hacking. Change the example so that before Mo damages the US Department of Defense computer system, he copies some information from different top-secret sites and sends them to operatives in an enemy nation with this message: \u201cI have stolen this information directly from the US Department of Defense. I have also disabled their computer system, which will probably take some time to repair. Now is an excellent time to attack the United States.\u201d He thereafter severely damages the computer system. In this example, Mo has most likely committed both sabotage and espionage. As stated in Section 13 \"Example of Sabotage\"<\/a>, Mo probably committed sabotage when he damaged<\/strong> national defense material with the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> to interfere with the nation\u2019s security and defense. When Mo copied top-secret information and sent it to an enemy nation, along with informing the nation that the US Department of Defense computer system was disabled, he gathered<\/strong> and transmitted<\/strong> information with the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> that it be used to injure the United States. Thus Mo has probably committed both sabotage and espionage and may be subject to prosecution for and conviction of these offenses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n President Obama on the Death of Osama bin Laden<\/p>\r\n President Obama\u2019s speech explaining Osama bin Laden\u2019s death is shown in this video:<\/p>\r\n(click to see video)<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n Table 13.1<\/span> Comparing Treason, Sedition, Sabotage, and Espionage<\/p>\r\n\r\nLearning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n \t
Treason<\/h2>\r\n
Treason Elements and Grading<\/h2>\r\n
Example of a Case Lacking Treason Elements and Evidentiary Requirements<\/h2>\r\n
![\"Crack](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2479\/2017\/09\/26210348\/a3c7cd3ea6fe8aa146e5a9ae5e81e721.jpg\")
<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nSedition<\/h2>\r\n
Example of Sedition<\/h2>\r\n
![\"Diagram](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2479\/2017\/09\/26210351\/a008072755c93ca47791cf30652bbd79.jpg\")
<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nSabotage<\/h2>\r\n
\r\n \t
Example of Sabotage<\/h2>\r\n
![\"Diagram](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2479\/2017\/09\/26210357\/3db246e6476438770611cb8a661679f0.jpg\")
<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nEspionage<\/h2>\r\n
Example of Espionage<\/h2>\r\n
Video of the President Informing the Nation bin Laden Is Dead<\/h3>\r\n