War Protesters and Treason - Example Persuasive Style Argumentative Essay

The following is a sample argumentative essay written for a college freshman English class. Using a persuasive style, it argues that war protesters should not be prosecuted for treason. The paper outlines how a person can be charged with treason and describes people who have been charged for this crime. This example essay received high marks because it featured a strong introduction, detailed body paragraphs, and an excellent conclusion. It would be useful reference for people in need of crime essay ideas, or those who want a proofread essay with excellent command of language.

Protesters: The False Traitors

Treason is the highest crime in the United States, and can be punishable by death. Some feel that people who protest against the government are committing treason by showing that the country is politically divided. But treason should be reserved for individuals that willingly make plans to hurt the country, rather than protestors expressing their freedom of speech.

Historically, treason laws were far reaching, meaning that dissenters could be accused of treason. This was especially true in English law, where a person could be sentenced to death for imagining the death of the king or violating the queen. According to University of Michigan professor David A Porter's course site, "High Treason," Eighteenth century English law demanded that such traitors "be hanged by the neck and then cut down alive," (1) have their "entrails be taken out and burned" (1) decapitated, and then drawn and quartered. While such punishments were usually reserved for those who fought against the king, English law included a provision of constructive treason. According to the Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2003 article, "Treason", constructive treason was used to "discourage resistance against the crown" (2) and "extended the offenses to include words instead of deeds" (2). The article notes that "in 1663, a writer was convicted of treason for writing an article suggesting that the king was accountable to the people," (2) meaning that those who dared to question government policy were signing their death warrants.

Unlike the old British laws, the United States Constitution excludes dissent from its definition of treason. According to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Because English treason laws were frequently abused, the founders wanted to make sure that Congress could only charge someone with treason for deliberately aiding an enemy. Indeed, the Constitution makes it difficult for a person to be convicted of treason at all. It explains that "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." Because of this clause, individuals like Aaron Burr - a former vice-president involved in a conspiracy against the government - have been acquitted of treason charges. In light of this, Congress will typically charge would-be traitors of espionage because of the easier conviction. Dissent is specifically not mentioned in the Constitution because the founders themselves were committing high treason by breaking from England. They wanted to create a central government that could run the country but would not persecute its citizens when they protested.

Historical events like the so-called "Whiskey Rebellion" of 1794 explain why dissenters should not be treated as traitors. The Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2003 article, "Whiskey Rebellion," describes the event as a "series of disturbances in 1794 aimed against the enforcement of a U.S. federal law of 1791 imposing an excise tax on whiskey" (1). Farmers who were affected by this tax felt that the law was an "an attack on their liberty and economic well-being," (1) and so rose up against government officials in western Pennsylvania, even tarring and feathering some of them. The government attempted to negotiate with the dissenters, but eventually resorted to using state militias to quell the riot. While "two offenders were convicted of treason," (2) the article notes that "they were pardoned by Washington" (2), who thought of them as simple people hurt by the tax, not traitors trying to hurt the country. In England, such dissent would have been met with swift executions, but in the case of the Whiskey Rebellion, few people were charged, and most were exonerated. This event would set a precedent for more serious protests that would occur later in American history.

In the case of the protests against the Vietnam War, the dissenters were not committing treason, but rather petitioning the government to stop the violence. At the time, Americans were sour at the government's poor choices for entering Vietnam, but many felt that the protests were unpatriotic, even dangerous for the country. According to the Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2003 article, "Anti-Vietnam Movement," "60 percent of all Americans surveyed felt that antiwar protests were counterproductive because they showed the Communists in Vietnam that the United States was divided over the war" (15). Giving comfort to Communist groups like the Viet Cong by protesting U.S. policy could certainly be considered a treasonous offense, or at least helpful to the enemy. In 1971 during one large protest, the Nixon administration "responded with mass arrests, incarcerating both peaceful marchers and more radical protesters" (18). President Nixon even branded the protestors as disloyal, according to the Encarta article, saying "North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that" (18). But despite this, the protestors' purpose was not to give "comfort and aid" to the North Vietnamese. The people were angry over a war that seemed to have been concocted from the start, as the release of the Pentagon papers showed. Protestors were expressing their rights to free speech and assembly, not to help America lose. As Martin Luther King Jr, said in 1967, "I opposed the war in Vietnam because I love America," (11) and that "This war is a blasphemy against all that America stands for" (11). Dissent is not treason, but rather allows Americans to challenge the government in a fair, constitutional way.

Traitors like Aldrich Ames show why the government should concentrate on those who want to harm the country rather than protestors expressing their civil liberties. Ames worked as a CIA mole for the Soviets for nine years before he was arrested in 1994. According to the Crime Library he "single handily shut down the CIA's eyes and ears in the Soviet Union by telling the Russians in 1985 the names of every 'human asset' that the U.S. had working for it there" (1). Ames betrayed the names of twenty-five American spies working in the USSR, ten of whom suffered from what the KGB called "vyshaya mera (the highest measure of punishment)" (1). Here, the condemned person "was taken into a room, made to kneel, then shot in the back of the head with a large caliber handgun so his face would be made unrecognizable" (1). Ames was paid thousands of dollars for his work, which he splurged on expensive items such as Rolex watches and clothes for his wife. Though he was aware that the people he was betraying to the Soviets were most likely to be executed, Ames had no qualms - it was either they or he. Of his spying Ames said, "It wasn't personal. It was simply how the game was played" (3). Though Ames was charged with espionage and sentenced to life in prison, his actions were certainly treasonous as he helped the Soviets execute American spies. Ames' example shows that there are people who want to hurt America, and the government should be vigilant in pursuing them.

Treason is not a forgotten crime from another era, but a serious offense that still matters today. In the Los Angeles Times article, "Videos Lead to Treason Charge" by Greg Krikorian and Richard B. Schmitt on October 12th, 2006, a man from Southern California who converted to Islam was charged with treason - the first time this has happened since the World War II era (1). The article explains that Adam Yahiye Gadahn, was accused of giving "aid and comfort to Al Qaeda" (1) by appearing in propaganda videos for the terrorist organization. In his videos, Gadahn says that he had "joined a movement waging war on America and killing large numbers of Americans" (1), and that the September 11th attacks "notified America that it's going to have to pay for its crimes and pay dearly" (1). Gadahn's insidious actions fit the Constitution's requirements for treason since he is "levying war" against the country and aiding the enemy with their videos. His case explains that anti-treason statutes are still necessary in the modern world, even though only a handful of people have been convicted in the United States. Gadahn is not simply protesting American policy, but advocating the deaths of innocent Americans. People like Gadahn who seek to hurt Americans should be the ones charged with treason, not mere protestors expressing their freedom of speech.

Some believe dissent is equivalent to treason as it encourages the enemy. Because the United States is a representative democracy, policymakers must respect the will of the people, or else be voted out. Knowing this, enemies could intensify their attacks to force Americans to rise up and force a withdrawal from combat. By protesting against American policy, dissenters commit treason by showing that the country is divided, and thus give "comfort and aid" to the enemy. The Vietnam protests are an example of this, as cases where protestors waved North Vietnam flags and chanted "Ho Chi Minh" did not help troop morale. In fact, the protests seemed to make the war worse. The North Vietnamese launched the Tet Offensive for this reason - while it was militarily ineffective, it turned the American public against the war. But while those protestors disagreed with the government's reason for war, they weren't deliberately supplying the enemy with tactical details or strategies that could have helped the enemy kill more soldiers. This is true with modern day protestors, who try to make the distinction between supporting the troops and disagreeing with government policy. While protestors may be "unpatriotic" for disagreeing with the government in time of war, they aren't traitors.

In other countries where dissent is considered treason, liberty is restricted. In China, the repressive government prevents people from disagreeing with state policy, and punishes those who do. A classic example of this is the Chinese government's suppression of pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989. By putting a halt to these dissenters, China's leaders held onto power but stifled attempts at democracy. Even in the Internet age, China still limits the people's ability to speak out. According to the BBC News article, "Google censors itself for China," Google prevents searchers from finding links to the Tiananmen Square massacre on the Chinese version of the search engine. With an authoritative government, China's leaders can act unchecked, allowing for human rights' abuses and extreme poverty in the country. Accusing protestors of treason would put the United States in the same league as China - a government that restricts personal liberty and the freedom of speech.

Americans have the right to disagree with their government without being accused as traitors. No matter what political rhetoric may be thrown at protestors, dissent is legal and should remain that way. For those who do protest, they should take heart that some consider dissent not treason, but the highest form of patriotism.

Works Cited