[Sandy]

The federal treason law was not meant for attacks like these. It was directed towards what may be termed political treason. I don't mean that it would never apply to attacks on property of structures of the federal government

I'm really thinking of treason in the "adhering to the enemy" sense rather than in the "levying war" sense. *Planning* to levy war (or *planning* to set off a dirty bomb or fly a plane into a building) wouldn't be considered as *actually* levying war, so it couldn't Constitutionally be considered treason.

[mrsmith]

"*Planning* to levy war (or *planning* to set off a dirty bomb or fly a plane into a building) wouldn't be considered as *actually* levying war, so it couldn't Constitutionally be considered treason."

Mere plotting isn't treason, but I think that principle is more accurately stated that something has to be actually done to advance the treasonous plot. It doesn't have to be carried to fruition to be treason.

I assume that would be true in state trials too since it's an english law "thing" (as you know I'm no lawyer- I have run across the concept in historical accounts).

[NJ_gent]

"I'm really thinking of treason in the "adhering to the enemy" sense rather than in the "levying war" sense. *Planning* to levy war (or *planning* to set off a dirty bomb or fly a plane into a building) wouldn't be considered as *actually* levying war, so it couldn't Constitutionally be considered treason."

Treason requires overt acts with multiple witnesses for prosecution. It was intentionally made very difficult to prosecute by our founding fathers due to the fact that under Crown rule, the crime of 'treason' was a murky and nebulous charge levied most often by royalty in order to punish those who opposed or offended the king in some way. Because treason is so difficult to prosecute, lesser versions of it with less involved burdens of proof have been developed (espionage, for instance).