Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jun 14, 2007 15:32:36 GMT -6
I have a few concerns:
-The act does not define many things. "Levying war" and "Inciting to treason" are here called treason, but what these acts may consist of is left inconclusive. Is levying war limited to acts of arms? What is incitation in this context?
-"Being "concerned" with an attempted coup is here given as treason... that is a very vague thing.
-1j seems superfluous, as hiring someone for treason would be a conspiracy to commit treason, already defined as treasonous.
-The concepts of "hacking" are not at all defined here, and since doing so is listed as treason, they probably should be. What constitutes this crime?
-The included crimes under treason seem to be enormous... giving classified information to an "unauthorized" entity (incidentally, authorization or lack thereof need to be defined badly) is a minimum of six months and $200?! That seems a trifle harsh... shouldn't there be some lesser degree of severity? Under this law, were I to tell you what happened at a secret Cabinet meeting, I would be guilty of treason!
-1L is also similarly enormous in implication... denying citizens their rights includes such a huge and undefined area of potential infractions.
-The largest and worst problem is that Sections 3 contradicts 4 and 7, at least to my reading. Either the normal criminal process works, or else there are special limitations on evidence and procedure. The one needs to at least acknowledge the others.
-Section 6 is very strange. Is it illegal to accuse someone of being a traitor? There is no penalty provided. Nor is there any stated burden or level of suspicion required for the Cort to bar someone from office, which would seem needed.
-The act does not define many things. "Levying war" and "Inciting to treason" are here called treason, but what these acts may consist of is left inconclusive. Is levying war limited to acts of arms? What is incitation in this context?
-"Being "concerned" with an attempted coup is here given as treason... that is a very vague thing.
-1j seems superfluous, as hiring someone for treason would be a conspiracy to commit treason, already defined as treasonous.
-The concepts of "hacking" are not at all defined here, and since doing so is listed as treason, they probably should be. What constitutes this crime?
-The included crimes under treason seem to be enormous... giving classified information to an "unauthorized" entity (incidentally, authorization or lack thereof need to be defined badly) is a minimum of six months and $200?! That seems a trifle harsh... shouldn't there be some lesser degree of severity? Under this law, were I to tell you what happened at a secret Cabinet meeting, I would be guilty of treason!
-1L is also similarly enormous in implication... denying citizens their rights includes such a huge and undefined area of potential infractions.
-The largest and worst problem is that Sections 3 contradicts 4 and 7, at least to my reading. Either the normal criminal process works, or else there are special limitations on evidence and procedure. The one needs to at least acknowledge the others.
-Section 6 is very strange. Is it illegal to accuse someone of being a traitor? There is no penalty provided. Nor is there any stated burden or level of suspicion required for the Cort to bar someone from office, which would seem needed.
