Our foes press hard from every side, beginning with the inside

It required several days' gestation but, at last, the issue has been joined: was the debacle in Afghanistan the result of (a) dementia, (b) treason, or (c) treason under cover of dementia?  That is the $64,000 question now at issue among the commentariat.

Consider what we know: the U.S. military bugged out (1) without notice to our allies, (2) leaving behind some $85B in weaponry and (3) abandoning thousands as hostages and (4) even barring some of these hostages' attempts to escape.  Now we see why.  The Taliban want official recognition as Afghanistan's legitimate government.  Biden will give them that recognition as the ransom for the hostages.

The U.S. Constitution in Article III, Section 3 defines treason as "levying War against the United States, or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."  What we have on the ground in Afghanistan — a precipitous withdrawal of our forces and unannounced abandonment of our allies together with delivering equipment and weaponry worth billions to the enemy plus thousands of American citizens as hostages — clearly meets the Constitution's definition of treason as both levying war against the United States and giving aid to the enemy.

Is this what Joe intended?  That is the critical question.  Was the outcome deliberate or inadvertent?

The border between dementia and treason is intent.

A relevant legal principle, which is the law in the federal courts and all fifty states, holds that "a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts."  Legal presumptions are of two kinds: conclusive and rebuttable.  This presumption is rebuttable, meaning that the person is allowed to present evidence showing that he did not intend the consequences.

Has President Biden offered any evidence of non-intent?  Has he even claimed that the outcome is not what he intended?  Did General Milley effectively confess to intent when he said the military's last acts in Afghanistan reflected an "extensive amount of planning in this"?  Was not allowing the Taliban to control which Afghans fly to the U.S. effectively war by proxy — qui facit per alium facit per se ("he who acts through another does the act himself"), as the legal maxim for agency states?

Just how deep does this treason go?  The president has a stable full of advisers to help him design policy.  Has any of them shouted, "I told him not to do this!"?

The president has hundreds of agents to implement policy.  Has any of them fallen on his sword?

Have the Pentagon and the Brass joined forces with the White House in making war on the U.S.?  Does this include the secretary of state, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretary of defense?

How deep in the swamp does this treason go?  Are the Chinese in this picture?  What other theaters are there in this war on America?

The military acts in Afghanistan (aiding and abetting the enemy to America's extreme detriment) are paired with the Democrat establishment's chronic, non-military war against our cities, the family, education, elections, and military effectiveness.  Our government has also weaponized COVID against our economy, destroying working- and middle-class businesses and drastically increasing government debt.

It feels as if the entire Executive Branch and Democrat party itself are at war with America.  Under these circumstances, it's easy to echo St. Thomas Aquinas's cry, "Bella premunt hostilia" (our foes press hard on every side).

Image from Reality Bites by Broc Smith.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.