[alexbock]

Could any computer crime be reasonably interpreted as treason given the fairly strict definition in the constitution?

  Treason against the United States, shall consist only
  in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
  Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall
  be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
  Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
  open Court.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the government try to claim "cyber warfare" meets the bill for "levying War against them", but I can't imagine the supreme court letting that stick.

edit: If you provided hacked information to a foreign power I could see that being considered giving aid to an enemy. My original question was more focused on the actual hacking itself than what you do with the information.

[colinbartlett]

Treason would be a hard one because I think it only applies during wartime. But would any of our various unending wars qualify? War on terror, war on drugs? Maybe not since they weren't declared by congress.

It could be considered "light treason" however...

[dailyrorschach]

It's unlike it would be a Treason charge, though we are not required to be at war for that to apply. The reason would be the proof burden for Treason in court is very high, and set forth in Article III.

In truth it'd be likely to fall under federal statutes governing systems access, and probably I'd guess the 1917 Espionage Act.

[bdcravens]

Aside from Presidential speeches, the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were never formally ended.

[chipperyman573]

"The war on drugs" is not an actual war, it's just a catchphrase.

[tptacek]

No, "the war on drugs" does not qualify for treason.