EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
Snowden is an interesting case, I don't nessecarily condone or condemn him, but several members of this forum (and by several I mean A person who vigorously supports their country who happens to be in the 31st state admitted to the union, not intending to name anyone specifically here) have called Snowden a "traitor"
now Snowden has not been charged or convicted of treason, but I'll be generous and say If probable cause exists to charge snowden with treason we'll call him a traitor.
does PC exist? The US constitution contains only one criminal charge, treason. treason is defined in Article 3 section 3 of the US constitution.
merriam webster defines war as "1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict " Snowden has therefore not levied war against the states.
In addition Snowden has not given aid and comfort to our "enemies". No state of war or armed hostility exists between us or Hong Kong, us or the PRC, us or Russia. US citizens may freely travel to these countries, no embargo exists between us or any of these countries, we routinely trade with these countries, and their citizens may freely travel and emigrate here with no special restrictions. Therefore we are not "enemies" with Hong Kong, the PRC, or Russia in any true sense of the word.
Snowden has confessed to leaking information, but to the media, not in open court.
finally there is the witness requirement, which brings up some interesting questions, did two witnesses have to see him copying the information? or see him leaking it? the discussion is theoretical since he hasn't met the first element of the crime.
Therefore, Snowden cannot be considered a traitor since he does not meet the elements of the crime of treason.
now Snowden has not been charged or convicted of treason, but I'll be generous and say If probable cause exists to charge snowden with treason we'll call him a traitor.
does PC exist? The US constitution contains only one criminal charge, treason. treason is defined in Article 3 section 3 of the US 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. 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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
merriam webster defines war as "1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict " Snowden has therefore not levied war against the states.
In addition Snowden has not given aid and comfort to our "enemies". No state of war or armed hostility exists between us or Hong Kong, us or the PRC, us or Russia. US citizens may freely travel to these countries, no embargo exists between us or any of these countries, we routinely trade with these countries, and their citizens may freely travel and emigrate here with no special restrictions. Therefore we are not "enemies" with Hong Kong, the PRC, or Russia in any true sense of the word.
Snowden has confessed to leaking information, but to the media, not in open court.
finally there is the witness requirement, which brings up some interesting questions, did two witnesses have to see him copying the information? or see him leaking it? the discussion is theoretical since he hasn't met the first element of the crime.
Therefore, Snowden cannot be considered a traitor since he does not meet the elements of the crime of treason.
Last edited: