I might consider your opinion if I thought he would be treated fairly in trial. If the last few years are any indication, there is no chance of that happening. The POTUS has already said that he is guilty of treason before any trial has begun. Do you realize the outrageousness of that simple fact?
Being that he has already confessed on video and presumably there's a good amount of other evidence the government would have nothing to gain from an unfair trial.
He confessed to infiltrating the NSA via B-A-H for the purpose of grabbing material to later leak to the public. He may not have realized it at the time but that's very damning, especially since he went out of his way to get information relating to Chinese hacking activities.
Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.
The point is, if we can argue about it, then there should be a fair trial to determine whether or not it was treason. The president and other leaders saying it's treason doesn't lend itself to a fair trial in the future. The appropriate response is "He committed crimes, we will have a trial to determine the extent of those crimes and whether or not it is treason".
You're focusing way too much on treason. There's probably 5 other felonies besides that Snowden would be guilty of without even having to think about treason charges.
No. The Commander-in-Chief might, for non-state military members that happen to be Americans and a few other "Law of War" provisos. But that's why you don't oppose the U.S. militarily, it's been shown to be hazardous to one's health.
