[meadsjn]

we were not in a declared war, therefore a charge of treason is impossible

Not so. "Waging war against the United States", or against the people of the United States, does not require any sort of declared war.

[drop 50 and fire for effect]

True but what Yates did does not nearly meet the definition of Treason. She was insubordinate and deliberately chose to disregard her duty. A firing offence, not a criminal offence.

Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution addresses Treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only (emphasis added) in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

[RedStateRocker]

I might be wrong, but I think that it does. That being the reason the Rosenbergs (who were surely as guilty of Treason as possible) were charged instead with espionage.

My understanding is To be guilty of levying war against the United States, the individual must intend to use organized force to overthrow the government.

Read more: Treason - Elements Of The Offense - Intent, Act, Prove, and War - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/2195/Treason-Elements-offense.html#ixzz4XYAgMF00