If they can show that Sylvestre et al have committedntreason, then 46.2(e) might be applicable.
Maybe. Is there any credible reason to think that they have access to military or scientific secrets that threaten the government?
As for sedition, it is the use of force as a means of accomplishing governmental change, or advocacy thereof. I don’t think that line has been crossed yet.
But as I said, go ahead and investigate. I just doubt there’s anything there. Yet.
Thing us, planning to sell secrets (or commit violence) is sufficient cause, which implies that promises to leak secrets they don’t (yet) have would be a criminal act.
Maybe. Is there any credible reason to think that they have access to military or scientific secrets that threaten the government?
As for sedition, it is the use of force as a means of accomplishing governmental change, or advocacy thereof. I don’t think that line has been crossed yet.
But as I said, go ahead and investigate. I just doubt there’s anything there. Yet.
Thing us, planning to sell secrets (or commit violence) is sufficient cause, which implies that promises to leak secrets they don’t (yet) have would be a criminal act.