[Kenton]

Well, not to answer my own question, but a quick review of the UCMJ pretty much answers my question, and it seems to come down in Kerry's favor.

Her's what the UCMJ says:

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER

....(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training....

The UCMJ doesn't seem to apply in this case, so the fact that he was a reserve naval officer may have no bearing on the issue. There may be a Federal law that was broken, however, but not a UCMJ violation.

[angkor]

the fact that he was a reserve naval officer may have no bearing on the issue.

Its the difference between "de facto" and "de jure".

He met with the enemy while a commissioned officer. By any commonsense definition, that's treasonous. That's being a traitor.

Whether it meets a particular legal definition is a separate matter.