re: MA Wins Again
We all appreciate Mary Anne's contributions. One of the nice subtleties of her style is that she builds a foundation for further discussion.
1) Dictionary definitions don't mean anything.
That was never said or implied. What was said was that the dictionary is at best a general reference, a starting point, in much the same way as, say, World Book Encyclopedia is a general source.
The dictionary is not a reference for legal terms.
When using terms of the very specific meaning used in a legal document, the legal meaning is the only one. This is especially true when someone is making an accusation that can be construed as criminal. That kind of term was used in the exchange in question.
This can be generalized into the concept of a hierarchy of authorities. Dictionaries are at the base of this hierarchy, providing the most common and general definitions of words. In the context of the law, dictionaries provide "common law" definitions, which are always superseded by the formal definitions of the law provided by law books. A dictionary will describe murder as the crime of killing a human being; but in the law books you find many precise definitions of different kinds of murder, as many definintions as Eskimos are said to have for "snow".
Law books represent the next level of the hierarchy, technical references. As I described to gbaikie, engineering and science terms generally show up in a dictionary, but tend to be imprecise, like the definition of a meter as "about 39.37 inches". For accuracy you must go up to the next level, to a scientific reference, to find out the actual length of a meter, or of any other scientific or engineering term. Going with the less authoritative source when there's a more precise definition available will always lead to trouble.
Another way to approach the concept is to point out that it's important to use the most consequential definition of a word, not just for the benefit of the person you're applying it to, but for your own protection. For example, suppose you tell your associate Bill to "go beat Fred". If you later find yourself in court because Bill went and beat the crap out of Fred and you're accused of instigating it, you won't get any slack if you maintain that you just meant that Bill should win some contest or exceed Fred in some way. The most consequential meaning of "beat" is the one that put Fred in the hospital, and that's the one you'll be held responsible for using.
So it is with "treason". If you accuse somebody of treason and the Feds haul that person away to Gitmo, you're responsible for that consequence, no matter whether you maintain that you just meant "treason" metaphorically. If the person you accused is exonerated, eventually, then you're guilty of a false accusation of a crime. If you genuinely thought you were only using a metaphor, then you're guilty of making a terrible mistake. The consequences aren't erased by intention.
I'm not holding my breath that I'll get through to you, Mark. But it's a testimony to Mary Anne's contribution that she inspired further reflection on the subject.