My definition would be anyone on whom we've declared war (of course), since we don't do that as much any more I'd accept a congressional authorization of military force. In my opinion everyone else doesn't count even if we don't trust them or like them very much. I believe the only groups covered by this currently would be North Korea (armistice, not peace) and Al-Qaeda. (Apologies if I missed one) I'm sure the government would disagree and want to have the ability to add groups from an arbitrarily created list that has no oversight such as the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. I wouldn't be comfortable with that without congressional oversight and a formal approval vote for each entry.

Except in Texas where it's still a valid defense to say "He needed killing" and get off scott free if the jury agrees. Not a bad law in my opinion.

Traitor: One who commits treason
Treason: 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.

He didn't levy war on us, he didn't adhere to our enemies, nor did he give them comfort. There is a flimsy argument that perhaps his actions gave aid to our enemies but if you roll with that reasoning then all of the people he exposed are also traitors so I'm not sure that's an argument the government would want to make.

He may be a criminal under the current laws, but he's not a traitor. Furthermore, if what he did was illegal then it's the law that is wrong and should be changed. The correct action would be for him to receive a presidential pardon followed by congress strengthening the whistleblower laws and a big shakeup at the NSA to root out their culture of taking activities beyond what they are authorized for. I'm afraid we don't live in that rosy alternate universe however.

Yes, because everything in the world is binary and there are no shades of grey.

You're suggesting a culture where the majority of inhabitants have no hope for the future. To say that such a culture would be unstable is a vast understatement. The likely outcome would be bloody and violent revolution. War is economically wasteful and destructive to the environment, I don't think the result would be nearly as cheery as you seem to be assuming.

File a bug report.

Seems like what you need is a way to replicate that original process and let the brain re-learn its interface.

Well, not Human 1.0 anyways.

Perhaps, but have you considered the consequences of what you're suggesting when the group who can't support children grows to include the majority of the population?

Of course they also don't usually decide that they'd rather have a skyscraper instead of a bridge when you're mid-project.

That is because the displaced farm workers were able to move into the manufacturing sector. More recently displaced manufacturing workers have been moving to the service sector for at least forty years. The question is, now that the service sector is going through the same process where are all the workers going to move to? (There are only three sectors to the economy) While 100% automation is unlikely any time soon, if manufacturing and the service sector become as efficient as Agriculture then we're looking at less than 4% of the population being employed. Those sort of levels would have profound social consequences.

The head accountant is still there but the overall size of accounting departments and associated administrative staff have shrunk massively over the last fifty years.

Personally I prefer the automated ones.

Social breakdown isn't the normal problem of socialism, rather it's the allocation of benefits at a rate faster than wealth is produced. In order for a society to have successful socialism it must first A) Be exceedingly wealthy, B) Have a way to continue generating large amounts of wealth even after incentives for work are reduced, C) Ensure that beneficiaries can't vote themselves wealth greater than what is being produced. So far we haven't managed to create a society that can do all three at the same time but automation may fix A&B enough that a bit of social design to fix C might make the whole thing workable.

Hence the emphasis on DARPA projects that can produce robotic soldiers and autonomous war machines.