<On the other hand, if they actively try to hamper military operations, say by damaging railroad cars carrying military equipment or other such acts, then it could (but wouldn't) be argued that they're "adhering to said Enemies", in effect by acting as guerilla fighters on behalf of the enemy. In effect, they would be acting as agents for the enemy.

Anything can be alleged; anything could be argued. The point is proof.

Vandalizing railroad cars: OK, let's take that as an example. Let's say that I have beyond the shadow of a doubt vandalized railroad cars carrying military equipment. Have I then "adhered to the enemy"?

Have I had any contact with any known enemy organization or individual? Yes or no?

Do I have a history of hating the military because of something that happened to a relative? Yes or no?

Am I connected to a peace church or other organization that places high value on civil disobedience? Yes or no?

Do I hate the railroad for some reason? Yes or no?

Do I hear voices telling me that demons/aliens/pixies have taken over the equipment in the cars? Yes or no?

Am I prone to spontaneous acts of "thrill" vandalism? Yes or no?

Do I have a personal grudge against anyone connected with either the specific military outfit or the railroad? Yes or no?

Do I know that there's military equipment in the cars? Yes or no?

Do I even know there's a war on? Yes or no? (Remember the jury selection for the OJ trial? There really are people severely out of touch.)

Legally, it can't be said that a person or group is acting as an agent of an Enemy of the nation (remembering always the significance of that capital "E") unless the answer to the question of Enemy contact is an unqualified and incontrovertible "Yes". "In effect" has nothing to do with it. Treason lives in the legal universe.

If you want to call someone "disloyal", that's a personal judgment. It's a far more appropriate word to use in the context you have presented. Including Jane Fonda.

Regards--
Mary Anne