Correct de jure Japan was not an enemy until war was declared. But that would not have stopped the prosecution of enemy agents aiding them prior to war being declared.
Withholding information would have to be carefully established along with motive, it would seem.
Obviously I did not pretend to quote the Treason Clause.
Defining “enemy” is the point. It isn’t a coyote smuggling wetbacks in, an international drug ring of private individuals, or people sneaking across the border to get a yob, it is a nation except for Bin Laden. So a state of war is the defining characteristic in Treason.
Treason is designing the overthrow of the government not making money or stealing goods.
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard in a long time. According to you a nice blitz which knocked out DC (and hence congress's ability to assemble, and therefore declare war) would not make the aggressor an enemy.
Withholding information would have to be carefully established along with motive, it would seem.
Obviously I did not pretend to quote the Treason Clause.
Obviously you don't pretend to understand that someone can be your enemy without you deciding it.
Defining “enemy” is the point.
Correct.
It isn’t a coyote smuggling wetbacks in, an international drug ring of private individuals, or people sneaking across the border to get a yob, it is a nation except for Bin Laden.
Ah, so individuals can't be enemies of the US (the Congress cannot declare war against an individual) unless that individual is Osama? You are not consistent at all.
So a state of war is the defining characteristic in Treason. Treason is designing the overthrow of the government not making money or stealing goods.
You must have failed reading comprehension, I quoted the definition, treason does not entail the overthrow of the government: it is warring on the states or rendering aid and comfort to their enemies.