Hi, Larry.

You chose to emphasize the dependent clause, "giving them Aid and Comfort". I see it as "giving them Aid and Comfort" while adhering to said Enemies, as a function of the dominant verb clause. That is, it's treasonous if you have joined the other side, not if you merely disagree with your own.

This is why the Lindh case was so important: he went so far as to join the other side in a very visible and obvious way.

(Please note that opponents to gun ownership frequently cite the Second Amendment differently than those who support it. Opponents use the emphasis on the dependent clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", rather than the verb clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", to justify their opposition. Linguistic logic would dictate that one be consistent in the emphasis one chooses when interpreting different portions of the same document. To allow the dependent clause to carry dominant meaning in one case makes it so in all cases. As a nation of laws, we must be very careful about stuff like this.)

Acts of civil disobedience that impede the rightful duties of the military in pursuit of their work, as commanded by the President with the support of Congress, are serious business. They are certainly criminal acts, which their perpetrators know quite well. However, I would be surprised if the Justice Department -- no, wait, I wouldn't be surprised if this Justice Department -- chose to prosecute them as anything more than a collection of routine criminal charges, e.g., reckless endangerment, criminal mischief at the felony level, vandalism, arson and second degree murder where pertinent, and an assortment of Federal charges concerning interference with the military, of which I'm sure there are many.

These would be sufficient to lock people up for a while without the onus of bringing a charge of treason, with its additional requirements of proof. The idea in these cases is not supposed to be punishment so much as to make the behavior stop. There is no statute of limitations on treason; those charges can be pursued later, at greater leisure, as long as the evidence is preserved.

To prove treason, Justice would have to prove intent to aid the enemy in connection with active contact and coordination with said enemy. This differs quite a bit from active opposition to one's own government expressed in physical ways that can be seen as criminal acts. Even if protesters act as a group, with premeditation and planning, unless they are connected (money, instruction, materials, correspondence -- any will do) to the enemy, the most they can be accused of is criminal conspiracy and possibly racketeering, along with the acts themselves which they have completed.

I believe that people who do things like this, as they endanger the lives of military personnel who are following orders given by duly authorized government authorities, are asking for criminal prosecution, and they should get it.

I also believe that calling it "treason" without the additional proof is one more step to the loss of freedom of expression and the right to dissent in this country. The key phrase here is "chilling effect"; throwing the word "treason" around carelessly causes it. If we lose that essential freedom, it won't matter anymore if we win the war.

Regards--
Mary Anne