Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Ada Coddington wrote No war, no treason.
And riley1992 wrote She said, "No war, no treason" and she may very well be correct. The United States of America has not officially declared war upon anyone.
By this logic, if Johnny Bin Walker was one of the hijackers on the aircraft and piloted one of the planes into the WTC towers, and the US then declared war, he would not have been a traitor because the US had not declared war at the time the events occurred. Are we saying only actions after the US declares war would be traitorous or could actions that involve levying war against the US be traitorous?
I am a little perplexed that we assume that since a state of war doesn't exist that treason is impossible. The constitution does not require a state of war to exist only that the accused levyed war against us. Comments?
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.
That would seem to be the case. If Taliban Johnny had piloted a plane, he would have been guilty of a criminal act but not treason.
But he didn't levy war against us. That's the whole point. If there was some evidence linking him to the hijackings he could possibly be tried for treason. As it stands, he was living in another country, had, for all practical purposes, renounced his citizenship, and was merely defending his homeland against what he saw as an invading force. I submit that even if there was a declared war it would be difficult to try him for treason.