

Why Espionage vs Treason for Snowden? - jusben1369

It&#x27;s interesting that they chose espionage vs treason. Espionage is the act of spying or using spies to obtaining secret information&quot; Espionage can be an act done for one&#x27;s country - treason can never be an act done from one&#x27;s country. By choosing espionage it could be a nod toward the fact that this is proven to a deliberate act towards the country. Or it could be simply to remove that as a point of conjecture to better secure a conviction.
======
mjn
The definition of treason is constitutionally limited in the U.S.:

 _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._

This is generally taken to mean that one can't be convicted of treason for
doing something that indirectly aids an enemy, which is what leaking secrets
would probably fall under. Instead it's limited to cases where someone
actively fights the U.S. (e.g. joined the Taliban, or during WW2 joined an
Axis army), or where they give direct material assistance to an enemy of the
U.S. ("adhering" is a bit vague, but is typically taken to require some kind
of direct allegiance, not only helping them indirectly).

Some cases of espionage could be treason, but it's only been charged in the
past where there is a very direct kind of espionage _for_ someone else, e.g.
an American being paid by the KGB.

------
socillion
Hong Kong doesn't have an equivalent to treason and so would not be able to
extradite him on charges of it.

