Since I don't believe in absolutes I would have to say almost ANYTHING could be interpreted to be treason by someone who has an axe to grind. This is why the right-wing Bushites harbor someone on staff who outted a CIA operative as political punishment, but some would have Congresspeople speaking out against the war arrested.
Suppose a politician says something like :
I really am quite irritated, sometimes, given recent events about terror.
Is that treasonous? To someone, that could be treason or evidence of espionage vis-a-vis secret messages. Perhaps, more likely, it is just an unfortunate turn of phrase.
As for treason, I'm of the "provable harm" camp. If you can prove harm, it is treason: giving the flight plan of the President to Al Qaada the week before he leaves, for instance.
Making stump statements in Iowa and saying that the President is a Moral Coward, no. But none of this is cut in stone, now is it? If I give up the President's flight plan (after he returns home) the identical data is not timely enough to present a risk to the President, so there is no treason. But, it could be a diplomatic secret. And so on...
In a republican form of democracy, one has to be especially careful that "treason" does not become an excuse by a kakistocracy to silence dissent. |
