英文原文: The End of Treason
Daniel Pipes, 轉自紐約太陽報，2005年10月16日
來自英國的新報道指出在這個國家的三個伊斯蘭教主義者領袖（Omar Bakri Mohammed，Abu Uzair，和Abu Izzadeen）可能麵對叛國罪的指控。
在7月7日倫敦襲擊事件以後，其中的兩個人說如果他們知道將要在英國實施的另外一次爆炸事件的計劃，他們不會報告警察。第三個人稱讚倫敦爆炸事件是讓英國“清醒並聞到咖啡的味道”。
但是叛國罪指控是否現實呢？不那麽現實。Mohammed先生逃跑了，另外兩位伊斯蘭教主義者不是英國公民。另一位官員Lord Carlile指出大概沒有“曾經在叛國罪的案件中任何環節出現的律師仍然活著並且繼續工作。” 實際上，自從1966年在英國沒有見到任何叛國罪法案的適用（最初在1351年頒布），除了兩件小案子。
這種案例的缺乏指向了一個更深的現實：叛國罪現在和藍色法律，禁酒案，或者禁止種族間通婚的法律一樣都是死法。我預測，沒有根本的改革，沒有任何西方國家會再一次因為叛國而起訴國民。
直到最近，叛國是一個強有力的概念。美國憲法定義叛國罪為“發動反對美國的戰爭，或者通敵，給與敵人幫助和安慰”。曆史上有名的叛國者包括Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling和Lord Haw-Haw。
叛國罪法案總是很難實施，但現在已經不可能實施，正如美國塔利班分子John Walker Lindh 的案子表明的。他在阿富汗的戰場上被捕，因為對他的同胞使用武力，叛國罪的指控很明顯適用於他。但是他被指控為更輕微的犯罪，並且被判處更小的犯罪，“為塔利班提供服務”。
為什麽這次失敗了呢？ 因為對忠誠的定義根本被改變了。傳統上，一個人一出生就被假設是對他的國家忠誠。西班牙人或者瑞典人對他的君主效忠，法國人對共和國效忠，美國人對憲法效忠。
這種假設現在已經陳舊了，新型的是為個人的政治團體效忠――社會主義、自由主義、保守主義或者伊斯蘭教主義來命名一些可選項。地理的和社會的聯係比過去的更不重要。
1899年到1902年的布爾戰爭是這個演變的裏程碑，當英國公眾一個重要的片斷就是口頭反對政府的戰爭的論點和行為。第一次出現被稱為“小的英國人”集團公開對抗政府並且呼籲政府結束進行戰爭。
另一個先鋒在一戰中出現，當聯合軍隊領袖的無能導致了和政府的巨大的疏遠。第三個例子是法國在阿爾及利亞的戰爭期間，憤怒的知識分子包括讓-保羅-薩特Jean-Paul Sartre，曾極力呼籲謀殺他們的同胞：“擊斃一個歐洲人有一石二鳥之效果，毀滅壓迫者和受欺壓者”。
這個隔離在越南戰爭時期達到了全盛時期，那時美國的持不同政見的人揮舞著越南共和國的國旗並且高舉 支持河內的標語（ “Ho ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF一定會贏”）。
以色列提供了國內顛覆的登峰造極的例子。她的人口中有六分之一阿拉伯人，對猶太民族掌權的國家很少忠誠，有時公開的呼籲對以色列的暴力行為或者反對以色列國家的存在。 有些猶太的學者也呼籲阿拉伯的暴力行為。這種氣氛甚至還導致猶太人幫助阿拉伯恐怖分子的情況。
現今，對個人的祖國效忠已經不再是一種理所當然之事；祖國必須提供如此行的原因。相反，痛恨自己的祖國和支持敵人是普遍的。“叛國者”，就像“私生子”一樣已經沒有恥辱了。
這一新趨勢有著意義深遠。例如，在戰爭中，各方必須競爭以吸引各自的國民和敵人效忠於己。在二戰中，協約國與德國和日本作戰；現在他們並不集中在整個國家而是集中在塔利班或者薩達姆身上，希望能夠贏得阿富汗人或者伊拉克人的衷心。
這會帶來全新的聯盟：在2003年伊拉克戰爭的內建中，西方的反戰組織有力的站在薩達姆侯賽因的一邊， 而反過來聯軍強調它的伊拉克的支持者。在反恐戰爭中，贏得衷心的戰爭是大範圍的逼近，並且這一戰爭是可以改變的。
叛國罪作為一個概念在西方是已死去了。為了贏得戰爭，政府需要考慮這種改變。
The End of Treason
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
August 16, 2005
http://www.danielpipes.org/2865/the-end-of-treason
 Print |  Send |  Comment |  RSS | Share:    |
Translations of this item:
News reports from Britain indicate that three Islamist leaders in that country – Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Uzair, and Abu Izzadeen – could face treason charges.
The first two of them said, after the July 7 attacks in London, that they would not warn the police if they knew of plans to carry out another bomb attack in Britain. The third praised the London bombings for making the British "wake up and smell the coffee."
But are treason charges realistic? Not terribly. For starters, Mr. Mohammed has fled and some Islamists are not British citizens. For another, as an official, Lord Carlile, pointed out, there is probably not "a lawyer still alive and working who has ever appeared in any part of a treason case." Indeed, Britain has seen no application of the Treason Act - originally passed in 1351 - since 1966, except for two minor instances.
This absence points to a deeper reality: the crime of treason is now as defunct as blue laws, prohibition of alcohol, or laws banning miscegenation. I predict that, short of radical changes, no Western state will again prosecute its citizens for treason.
Until recently treason was a powerful concept. The U.S. Constitution defines it as "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to [its] enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Famous traitors in history include Benedict Arnold, Vidkun Quisling, and Lord Haw-Haw.
The law of treason was always difficult to apply but now it is impossible, as illustrated by the case of the American Talib, John Walker Lindh. Captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan bearing arms against his countrymen, treason charges clearly applied to him. But he was charged with lesser offences and pled guilty to even more minor ones such as "supplying services to the Taliban."
Why this collapse? Because the notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed. Traditionally, a person was assumed faithful to his natal community. A Spaniard or Swede was loyal to his monarch, a Frenchman to his republic, an American to his constitution.
That assumption is now obsolete, replaced by a loyalty to one's political community – socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or Islamism, to name some options. Geographical and social ties matter much less than of old.
The Boer War of 1899-1902 marked an initial milestone in this evolution, when an important segment of the British public vocally opposed its government's war arguments and actions. For the first time, a faction dubbed "Little Englanders" openly defied the authorities and called for ending the war effort.
Another bellwether came during World War I, when the incompetence of the Allied military leaders led to a massive alienation from government. A third came during the French war in Algeria, when angry intellectuals such as Jean-Paul Sartre effectively called for the murder of their fellow-citizens: "To shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses."
This alienation reached full florescence during the Vietnam war, when American dissidents waved Vietcong flags and chanted pro-Hanoi slogans ("Ho ho, Ho Chi Minh, NLF is gonna win").
Israel offers an extreme case of internal subversion. Arabs, one-sixth of the population, owe little allegiance to the Jewish state and sometimes openly call for violence against it or oppose its very existence. Some Jewish academics have also called for Arab violence. This climate has even led to several cases of Jews assisting Arab terrorists.
At present, loyalty to one's home society is no longer a given; it must be won. Conversely, hating one's own society and abetting the enemy is common. "Traitor," like "bastard," has lost its stigma.
This new situation has profound implications. In warfare, for example, each side must compete to attract the loyalty of both its own and the enemy's population. In World War II, the Allies fought Germany and Japan; now, they focus not on whole countries but on the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, hoping to win Afghan or Iraqi allegiance.
This can lead to novel complexities: in the build-up to the Iraq war of 2003, anti-war organizations in the West effectively took Saddam Hussein's side, while the coalition in turn emphasized its Iraqi supporters. In the war on terror, the battle to win allegiances looms large and is fluid.
Treason as a concept is defunct in the West. To succeed in war, governments need take this change into account.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 11, 2006 update: A U.S. grand jury today indicted Al-Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn on the charge of treason, the first American so accused since World War II. He first has to be caught, however, before he can be tried.
