[G Larry]

You'd do us all a service if you first understood the very narrow legal definition of “treason” and just how difficult it is to prove.
There is no basis in fact or law that disqualifies those at Ft. Hood, from being victims of “terrorism”.
Your assertion that this was simply an act of war, and because they are soldiers, they are somehow legitimate targets, is legally, linguistically, and logically wrong and abhorrent.
A position you would quickly retract if there were a policy to pre-emptively strike down all potential “Hasan’s”.

[The_Reader_David]

Odd, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution is just as I remembered it:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. . . .

Shooting our soldiers, communicating with the imam of three of the 9/11 hijackers, arguing on behalf of suicide bombing: sounds like levying war, adhering to our enemies, and giving them aid and comfort, to me.

Did you follow the link and read my fuller exposition of why insisting on calling the attack terrorism is unhelpful to policy?