> In this case they're arguably scamming the government out of money, but that can hardly be compared to the crime knowingly aiding a known adversary.
If you're crippling infrastructure then you are inherently then you're most certainly aiding adversaries. You cannot fight an adversary if you cannot get goods moved.
If you're scamming the government out of money then you are inherently aiding adversaries. You cannot fight an adversary if you are penniless.
>If you're crippling infrastructure then you are inherently then you're most certainly aiding adversaries. You cannot fight an adversary if you cannot get goods moved.
>If you're scamming the government out of money then you are inherently aiding adversaries. You cannot fight an adversary if you are penniless.
But if you apply this argument it quickly becomes a slippery slope. Running a fraud ring? You're depriving the security services of resources that could have been spent catching spies. Treason. Tax evasion? You're depriving the state of resources. Treason. Jaywalking? Believe it or not, treason. M̶a̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ profiteering as a government contractor? Dunno man, sounds like you're a c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶e̶r̶r̶e̶v̶o̶l̶u̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ traitor by making the government "penniless".
If you're crippling infrastructure then you are inherently then you're most certainly aiding adversaries. You cannot fight an adversary if you cannot get goods moved.
If you're scamming the government out of money then you are inherently aiding adversaries. You cannot fight an adversary if you are penniless.
It sounds very comparable to me.