Hmmm, no.
As Commander and Chief of the U.S military and therefor chief strategist for conflict (though smart ones would delegate), the President is entitled to negotiate and reciprocate with the Enemy, and if need be — surrender.
IF he gave AQ stingers because they promised to bring down Syrian Jets, and be nice guys to us, then they turn around and use them on U.S jets instead .... That’s not treason. That’s perfidy on the part of AQ, and foolish on the part of the President.
Charging and finding the President guilty of Treason would be a very difficult task.
The Constitutional definition of treason: Art III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person whall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Adhering to the United States’ enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Bashar Assad is not our enemy. He has done nothing to us. If we arm Al Qaeda who has openly said that they seek to destroy us, supposedly for the purpose of taking out Bashar Assad who is basically an innocent bystander as regards US.... how is that not giving aid and comfort to our sworn enemies? First off it is basically declaring illegal war on an innocent bystander and then fraternizing with our enemy to serve HIS purposes in getting rid of that innocent bystander. That is TOTALLY, TOTALLY different than gathering together a “coalition of the willing” to oust somebody who has sworn to export terrorism to our various countries (as was indicated in the records that were found in Saddam’s palace. Saddam’s son sent out a recruitment letter for jihadists willing to do attacks on American and British interests all over the world, and there was a message from the Al Qaeda people saying that the US knew it was a joint effort between AQ and Iraq so they should expect the US to retaliate against Iraq. Saddam was also on tape saying that the new method of warfare would be terrorists, so that a given country couldn’t be blamed.)
And I really, really doubt that when Ghadaffi’s 20,000+ Manpads went “missing” (cough), somebody in the US who oversaw the unlawful ousting of Ghadaffi to continue the “Arab Spring” in which extremist Islamists ousted and took over from our ALLIES in the “War on Terror” (at the time that we took him out, Ghadaffi was cooperating with us more than any other country by reporting suspected terrorists to us)... was there making the recipients of those weapons sign promises that they would only bring down 747’s that had no Americans on board.
Then there’s the tax exemptions to Obama’s family that is fund-raising for the Muslim Brotherhood. There is also Obama’s signed membership in The New Party, whose goal was to overthrow the US Constitution through covert means. Morsi’s #2 says that Obama is a signed member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the US military identifies as an extremist organization, and I believe they probably have a plank supporting worldwide sharia, which is a direct enemy of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I could go on all day, unfortunately. Every enemy this nation has ever had is on Obama’s list of quick-dial friends and always has been. Always welcome to visit the White House. When Bin Laden’s son Hamza was caught at the finish line of the Boston marathon bombing, Obama met with the Saudi ambassador and had the “known terrorist” classification removed from him, had his wife literally “comfort” that sworn enemy who had just blown up little American kids by visiting him in the hospital for the whole terrorist world to see and laugh at, and then exported him on a supposed student visa “overstay” (even though we can’t deport anybody, ever) so that he would evade an angry CIA and Boston Police Department who knew who the guy was and wasn’t about to let him get away.
And then.... Hamza also showed up 3 months later AT THE WHITE HOUSE, at a party for US military, ON JULY 4TH.
Is that “comfort and aid” to a known enemy?
Like I said, I could go on all day. The guy is a foreign enemy combatant. If we can’t get this guy for treason, then nobody will EVER be convicted of treason, even if they nuked the whole country. And there are questions of whether Obama might do that too. I think you’d be hard pressed to find anybody informed, such as we Freepers, who doubts that he is capable of doing it.
Bullshot....negotiating with an adversary may be interpreted as a
legitimate function....giving weapons to people who are trying to
kill Americans and have actively, repeatedly and consistently
stated their agenda of destroying America meets the black letter
legal definition of treason.
Charging him and hanging him would certainly be a formidable
task....but it would still be a legal, necessary, moral and necessary
act.