...a former spook named Michael Morell, decided to give career advice to Edward Snowden, who apparently has an insufficient taste for self-immolation, at least by Morell's standards.

He violated the trust put in him by the United States government. He has committed a crime, in my view. You know a whistleblower doesn't run. A whistleblower does not disclose information that has nothing to do with what he says his cause is which is the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. You know if I could talk to Mister Snowden myself, what I would say is, Edward, you say you're a patriot, you say you want to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, you say that you wanted Americans to have a debate about this and to make up their mind about what to do about this. Well, if you really believe that, if you really believe that Americans should be the judge of this program, then you should also believe that the Americans should be the judge of your behavior in this regard. So if you are the patriot that you say you are, you should come home and be judged.

I certainly accept the notion that we should let career intelligence operatives define the parameters of civil disobedience for us. There's a whole passel of illogic in there. First of all, does Morell believe that Snowden's sole "cause" is the privacy and civil liberties of Americans? Does he not think, for example, that the American people have the right to know that their government is hacking the phones of foreign leaders, or should we all just wait around and be mystified when Angela Merkel wakes up one morning pissed as hell at us? And, it may make Mr. Morell uncomfortable, but Americans are perfectly fine with judging Snowden's behavior at a distance. What Morell wants is a trial, in which much of the evidence will have to be secret and a lot of the proceedings will be in closed session. I'd rather just wait for the next edition of the Guardian to arrive.

But, for all Morell's problems with how self-government is supposed to be transparent, his appearance was nothing compared to the full-blown nutty thrown by Congressman Mike Rogers...

ROGERS: Here's where I think he's crossed the line now, George, he has contacted a foreign country and said, I will sell you classified information for something of value. That's what we call a traitor in this country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You're talking about his open letter to Brazil?

ROGERS: Absolutely. He has traded something of value for his own personal gain that jeopardizes the national security of the United States. We call that treason. And I think that letter -- I think very clearly lays out who this gentleman is and what his intentions were clearly. And so would I like him to come back? He should come back. He didn't use any of the whistleblower protection avenues laid out before him. None. Zero.

Actually, "we" don't call that treason. Here is what We, The People call treason in the document in which We, The People happen to be the first three words.

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.

That "only" is a nice touch. The Founders, who saw people like Mike Rogers coming from a century-and-a-half off, knew that, if they didn't define treason as tightly as they could, it would become a convenience more than a serious charge, and they knew what that meant. And Brazil is not an enemy of the United States -- except, perhaps, in soccer -- so it doesn't matter what he and his cronies call treason. It only matters what We, The People call it, and that's made pretty plain, so ix-nay on the eason-tray, bub.