The charge of treason is hedged about by Constitutional language, and for good reason. It was a principal weapon in the hands of the King to deal with his enemies, and in 1648-9 it was used by Parliament to kill the King.
The essence of a treason charge is the aid or comfort given to the "enemies of the United States". It's my view that only the People of the United States, acting through their representatives in Congress assembled, can define their "enemies", and the only way they can do that is to use the power granted to them in Article One, section 8 to declare war on them.
Any other construction enables the commander-in-chief (who will not always be GWB) to turn someone or something into an "enemy of the United States" through his own military powers, and that opens up the vista of treason prosecutions which the founders never envisioned.
It's yet another reason that Congress' abandonment of OUR (not their) war power is so bad.
If the People of the United States had declared war on the al Qaeda organization and Iraq, Michael Moore would be in prison right now.
It's a shame that our representatives failed to do so.
I think you make a very good point, with one exception, the very definition of 'enemy'. War declaration or not, the United States has people DYING while actively, militarily, engaged and these actions are promoting or hastening deaths at the hand of an armed enemy. Therein lies the application of treason.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:enemy