They were probably blustering about the treason thing.
Because “treason” was specifically abused by Britain, the US Constitution puts specific requirements on the crime of treason. In particular, there have to be two independent eyewitnesses to the treasonous act. Meanwhile, the Espionage Act has no such prosecutorial burden, and the penalties are just as severe…
It’s been a while since I had it, so you may be right. Though, I do remember they were very specific it would only meet treason if it resulted in an intelligence officers death, but I don’t remember under what Act or law they were interpreting from.
They were probably blustering about the treason thing.
Because “treason” was specifically abused by Britain, the US Constitution puts specific requirements on the crime of treason. In particular, there have to be two independent eyewitnesses to the treasonous act. Meanwhile, the Espionage Act has no such prosecutorial burden, and the penalties are just as severe…
It’s been a while since I had it, so you may be right. Though, I do remember they were very specific it would only meet treason if it resulted in an intelligence officers death, but I don’t remember under what Act or law they were interpreting from.