Aye, there's the rub
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, this particular charge has been levelled about people posting here. There must be evidence. Find some. Then we can discuss the difference between dissent and treason using actual examples.
[emphasis added]
The following quotes are all taken verbatim from the United States Code, Title 18, Part I - Crimes; Chapter 115 - Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities, and can be found here, courtesy of findlaw.com.
Section 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Section 2382. Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having
knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals
and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same
to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the
governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is
guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.
Section 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or
conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere
with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of
the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or
willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the
United States, to the injury of the service or the United States,
or attempts to do so -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of
this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is
about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as
within the United States.
[emphasis added to the last Section]
This link records the results of a Google search using the term "aid and comfort to the enemy". A perusal of the first three pages is enough to illustrate that the accusation is widely used as a tactic of inflammatory rhetoric, yet none of the "accused" have been prosecuted under US law.
In other words, it is empty inflammatory rhetoric, also commonly known as propaganda.
With specific regard to The Habitable Zone:
It is long past time for the accusers to put up or shut up -- but, sadly, they steadfastly refuse to shut up. They hide behind vague generalizations, and continually re-construe their argument, asserting their right to deliberately do so [classic circular 'reasoning']. They characterize any objection to their accusations as threatening their free speech -- despite the fact that their speech has not been curtailed in any way, merely refuted -- yet simultaneously advocate the restriction of the speech of others.
Is it possible that they realize their accusations have no basis? Is that why every argument put forth since the initial accusation has avoided the central issue -- is, in fact, an ad nauseum repetition of their right to be loudly, stubbornly mistaken? Or is it the possibility of civil prosecution for slander and defamation of character, if they name names and quote actual posts?
In light of that, let me be clear:
The initial accuser was a person who posted here as "Gary" -- and I say "was", because he has not once responded to the objections raised against his accusations since he made them. To be blunt, he has run away from the fight.
He is a coward.
The circular argument in support of Gary's rhetorical attack and subsequent intellectual and moral cowardice has been conducted almost exclusively by Mark Eby (a.k.a., "idiot detector", "ID", et alii). His repeated attempts to stifle genuine debate -- by caling for debate in terms favorable to him alone -- are all over this thread, and the previous ones. Whether or not he actually agreed with Gary's accusation of treason, either in general or in specific instance, has been completely obliterated by his role as a stalking horse without a rider.
He is merely a fool.