Sessions - isn't this treason?

[onenote]

72. Again. Legal definitions aren't the same as dictionary definitions.

Leaving aside what the law considers "adhering" or giving "aid and comfort", the fact is that the law, not the dictionary, defines who is an enemy.

Who are our enemies? Those that are engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war -- that is, those who are levying war against us.

I refer you to the definition of "enemy" found in title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense): Section 2204: "the term "enemy" means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States."

The term "hostilities" is not defined in title 50, but it is defined in title 10 (Armed Forces). Section 948a - "The term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war."

Our differences with Russia do not rise to the level of a conflict subject to the laws of war. Among the indicia that normally would mark a state of war exist between countries that do not exist with respect to the US and Russia:

Russia and the United States maintain diplomatic relations. War is the failure of diplomacy and I can think of no occasion where two countries fighting a war with one another have formal diplomatic relations.

Russia is not now, nor has it ever been (even at the height of the Cold War) named as an enemy of the United States under the Trading with the Enemies Act. In fact, a quarter of a million Americans will probably visit Russia as tourists this year and several billion dollars of commerce between the countries will occur. That is not how nations that are engaged in hostilities subject to the rules of war behave.

Finally, turning back to what constitutes "adhering" to an enemy and giving them "aid and comfort", I have to wonder which side you would have been on during the Vietnam War. Would you have been calling for Jane Fonda's head as a traitor to the US for "adhering" to the North Vietnamese? Would you have urged prosecution of people like me who not only did everything they could to evade serving in Vietnam, but counseled others as to how to avoid service, including fleeing to Canada? Would you have stood on the sidelines and yelled traitor at those who marched in anti-war demonstrations carrying the flag of North Vietnam or who burned their draft cards or even burned the American flag -- all actions that, broadly defined, gave "aid and comfort" to the "enemy" in that war.

Russia's interests are not our interests. Putin is a thug. And the Russians clandestine efforts to influence the 2016 election need to be fully investigated and appropriate actions need to be taken in response. But if you think we're at war with Russia, I would ask this: how does the war end? Is there a peace treaty? Unconditional surrender? Do we overthrow Putin's government by force? Do we invoke our NATO treaty and demand that our Allies declare war on Russia?

Throwing "treason" around is an easy, empty charge, which is why the founders of the nation went to lengths to make it as narrow as possible.