Alleged talks between billionaire and Russian president could have enormous security implications

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man who is now central to Donald Trump’s election campaign, has been in regular contact with Vladimir Putin for the past two years, according to a report in the US.

The Wall Street Journal, citing several in-post and former US, European and Russian officials, reported that the conversations between the two men ranged from the personal to the geopolitical and included a request from the Russian leader not to activate his Starlink ​​satellite internet service over Taiwan as a favour to the Chinese leader and Putin ally, Xi Jinping.

  • subignition@fedia.io
    612·
    13 days ago

    Death penalty for treason would be a fitting end to Musk’s story, I think. It doesn’t look like anyone has gotten a death sentence under federal treason laws since the Civil War, though.

    The terms used in the definition derive from English legal tradition, specifically the Treason Act 1351. Levying war means the assembly of armed people to overthrow the government or to resist its laws. Enemies are subjects of a foreign government that is in open hostility with the United States.[6] Treason does not distinguish between participants and accessories; all persons who rebel or intentionally give aid to hostilities are subject to the same charge. source

    Russia might not meet the bar for “open hostility”, I’m not sure how that is defined. This layman sure as hell thinks Trump and the January 6 mob fall into the definition of ‘levying war’ though. And interestingly a conviction of treason also forfeits your right to hold public office, even if your punishment is prison instead of death

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      47·
      12 days ago

      Removed, advocating violence. Plus, isn’t Musk still a foreign national? Not sure how “Treason” applies to non-Americans.

      • subignition@fedia.io
        14·
        12 days ago

        You’re kidding me… I was discussing whether his actions meet the definition of a crime and therefore whether the established legal punishment would be appropriate. As others have commented he IS an American citizen (from 2002) and there’s no question of jurisdiction here. Although treason is a very high bar (despite mounting evidence) and it is much more likely that he could be got for sedition under the Smith Act or something.

        I disagree with your decision. I think your effort would be better spent focusing on the folks actually advocating for vigilantism.