@nimh,
Quote:For example, "ridiculing US democracy" -- whether in consultation with foreign enemies or not -- should be firmly part of free speech, shouldn't it?
Per the US Constitution, Article III, section 3
Quote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfor...
Criticizing or ridiculing one's government would obviously be protected speech. Conspiring with or acting at the instructions of a foreign government which is attempting to bring down or weaken one's government is clearly different and, per the article above, seems undeniably cause for a charge of treason. Beyond that, it certainly makes sense for a government/justice system to respond differently to a covert enemy agent heading up the Ohio Corn Huskers Union, Local 23 and another such agent up high in Intelligence or the Senate or, as in our case (possibly) the President.
"Act of war" is defined in various ways but I don't believe any of the definitions I read would have been formulated recently enough to take our new cyber world into account. It seems obvious that if a foreign government or non-state entity hacked into the systems controlling, say, a dam above a heavily populated area and set off a water release, that would be as much an act of war as dropping bombs on that same location. However, working to manipulate an election doesn't seem to me to reach the same level (and certainly wouldn't justify a military response).
So, I think talk of "acts of war" are silly at this point. Talk of "treason", on the other hand, is not out of line because it is quite possibly what is going on.