@cheebdragon Non sequitur. When I say I have the US Constitution behind me, I mean it supports my claim about what constitutes treason. Of course we all have the Constitution behind us in the sense that it protects us all. But that doesn’t mean it agrees with all of us. As for the professors, the point is that they are better sources of what the law means than second-rate websites. If you refuse to acknowledge that some sources are better than others, then I might as well have ask a five-year-old to write out my interpretation in crayon and present it as proof. (And for what it’s worth, I’m finished with course work. I’ve done judicial interpretation. I’m neither a law student nor a lawyer, however. The law is simply something I have studied while pursuing my PhD in philosophy.)
As for the passage from the Annenberg Institute, it doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. This is just another case of you copying, pasting, and bolding without understanding what it means. The law has to be taken as a whole, not as random phrases. Passing along classified information is not itself enough for treason. It must be passed to an enemy, and an enemy is someone with whom we are at war. This last bit is the point of contention that arose over your last copy and paste, though you seem to have forgotten that in searching out a new copy and paste.
And by the way, I can think that Snowden did the right thing without worshipping him. I don’t know him personally, so I can’t say if he’s a good guy or not as far as everyday life goes. My claims are quite simple: I do not think that Snowden’s actions satisfy the legal definition of treason, and I think his actions are morally justifiable (regardless of whether they are optimal). Given that the US Constitution specifically requires adhering to an enemy as part of the aid and comfort path to treason, and given that “adhering” and “enemy” both have specific legal meanings, it is my claim that Snowden’s actions to not rise to the level of treason.
This does not mean that I have discounted the possibility that a judge might disagree with me. I do not belong to the school of legal philosophy, however, that says judges are infallible. I rather doubt that you would think such a thing either. As such, your attempted barb regarding judicial interpretation is toothless (as well as irrelevant and mistaken).
And finally, I never said that you claimed Snowden would be charged with treason. What I said was “As for whether or not Snowden will ever be able to set foot in America without being charged for his actions, I have never said he will be.” This was said in response to your claim that “He’s a traitor, idolize him if you want, whatever, but at the end of the day that guy will still never set foot in America without being charged for his actions.” In your rush to embarrass yourself respond to my arguments, you failed to keep in mind the context not just of my answers, but of your own as well.