America sets the bar high in defining traitorous acts. But ‘adhering’ to the enemy in times of war? Watch out.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324688404578543410828226862.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
The case of the runaway spy Edward Snowden is igniting talk of treason. No less a figure than the speaker of the House, John Boehner, has gone on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and called Mr. Snowden a “traitor,” while the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, deemed his revelation of U.S. surveillance methods an “act of treason.”
This is a teachable moment in respect of a heinous crime. It reminds us of why the Founders made it so difficult to bring charges of treason. But it’s also a moment to reflect on a warning sounded by an early chief justice. The constitutional protections against abuses of treason charges remain strong, but once war is levied—that is, waged—citizens will want to take care about how they behave.
For treason turns out to be unique in American law. It is the only crime that the Constitution forbids Congress from defining. It is the only crime to which a court may never accept a confession given to the police. It is the only crime for which restrictions are laid down on how much evidence juries must hear. The Constitution itself underscores that the Founders feared treason law.