Dear Senator Feinstein,
You made the following comments in regards to Edward Snowden:
“I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason, He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s treason.”
Please let me assist you in this matter a little.
Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution spells out what is considered treason in the United States:
“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.”
This sets up two avenues for treason prosecutions. One is the “aid and comfort” path, wherein somebody aiding a country waging war on the U.S. can be charged, and the other is the “levying war” path, wherein one is charged for actively waging war against the United States, or an individual state.
It seems obvious that Snowden’s actions don’t qualify as levying war against the U.S. as all the levying war cases require an assemblage of men and force.
But that still leaves open the “aid and comfort” provision. Even that, however, has its limits. For example, you have to be aiding and abetting a country or entity with whom the U.S. is actively at war.
That’s why Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, when charged with passing state secrets relating to the design of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union, couldn’t be charged with treason. They couldn’t be charged for treason, because the Soviet Union wasn’t an enemy for the purposes of treason law, because we weren’t at war with them.
So the government would have to demonstrate that Snowden was actively trying to provide aid and comfort to a specific entity, such as al-Qaeda, with which the U.S. is at war. What’s more, all treason cases require two witnesses to the “overt act” in question. So the federal government would also need two witnesses who observed Snowden leaking the information.
As much as you'd like to believe that Edward Snowden's acts are an act of treason they are in fact NOT. Just because you want something to be true or that you state something to be true doesn't in fact make it true. I might personally believe that you were born a man and that you had a complete gender reassignment surgery in some back alley in Bangkok but that doesn't make it true.
For the record, the University of San Francisco offers quite a few courses in Constitutional Law and Government Regulation, perhaps you should take one of them or all of them.
thanks,
-t