Treason is one of the things explicitly mentioned in our Constitution to be illegal. It can cause the downfall of an established government or entail the defeat of a growing one. So it’s certainly understandable to include the preclusion of treason as a legitimate act. But, my thought is that there’s a time in which it can be beneficial and sometimes even necessary.
Treason is loosely defined as an attempt, either completed or failed, to undermine the nation or sovereign. But here it’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.” So, my question again is, can it be for the betterment of society? I believe it can. Governments inexorably get their power from fear. Sure, those in power may have said to gain it from a higher source, but, at the crux of it, they all derive their power from their citizenry (as explained here…somewhere…); if people weren’t afraid of something there would be no need for government. If they weren’t afraid of protecting their rights, there’d be no need to have an agency protecting them and if they weren’t afraid of the repercussions of overthrowing an established government (like a switch that went from fearful to fearless in a matter of seconds), there’d be no government any more.
If treason is an attempt to undermine the government, why wasn’t the the gentleman that leaked that there were warrantless wiretaps going on charged with treason? He undermined the intelligence gathering of the nation and may have directly weakened the resolve of its national security. Why wasn’t the person that leaked to the media that government was/is using the GPS built in cell phones to track people charged? These could both be construed as aiding the enemies of the state. Regardless, I believe that there comes a time in the course of every government in which there is a time for people to seriously consider rebellion, so this poses a question. Do you rebel because it’s for the best, do you not rebel because it’s illegal, do you rebel with full intention that the existing government is overthrown, do you not rebel believing it not to be the time or necessary, or do you rebel against the fact that it’s illegal? The illegality of it perpetuates the security of the state since it makes it doesn’t accept that there are genuinely times in which it may be necessary. The paradox is that the government is because those people are, you can’t have one without the other. If there should happen to be a rebellion, should it be legal since it’s the will of the people? From the very same people that willed the government to originally exist and now want it to disappear, even?