The key being, "opposition to armies of occupation".
An army of occupation will try everyone, civilian and military alike, under its own martial code. Martial law is significantly different in its definitions of legal conditions, rights and crimes, and martial codes differ among nations, even considering the moderating influence of treaties.
An American citizen committing a crime that impedes the American military cannot be said to be opposing an army of occupation. It's our army. Therefore, it's a civil crime, and only treasonous if there is proven collusion with an identified enemy of the nation.
If the United States becomes ruled by martial law, your argument will hold. As long as we continue to be governed by civil law, the current definitions will continue to be followed.
Regards--
Mary Anne
Current Events » in reply to I disagree
I took Resistance and other guerilla movements into account
The whole thread (22 posts)
- More from the "peace movement"
- In war, that is called treason.
- Ed, what do YOU know?
- Interfere with troop movements in wartime and find out, Windy.§ (n/t)
- One definition of treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
- They are getting into a dangerous area...
- Ed, what do YOU know?
- In war, that is called treason.