A legal question about reagan and the weapons he sold to Iran ?

[moof]

First, with his sorta confession on video tape that ...

I said several months ago that ..bla bla ..arms for hostages did not happen bla bla ... and now even though may heart says bla bla....
... the facts and evidence say otherwise.

So assume that the proper legal details were in place and Reagan had been convicted for selling weapons to terrorists back in 1990.
Does that qualify for the charge of Treason ?

What would he properly/legally be called after the conviction,
Would he just be a felon or a traitor ?

and last the mining of the harbour in Central America was an act of war but was that also a war crime in itself ?

[H2O Man]

1. While it was criminal, and violated

the foundation of the separation of powers as defined by the constitution, it was not "treason" by any legal definition. Treason fits a specific group of behaviors, and like the word "traitor," has a certain emotional power. But it doesn't fit the crime that reagan was clearly guilty of. Yet, those crimes he did were every bit as significant, though they perhaps lacked the emotional edge as far as that label goes.

[Yupster]

2. I thought the diversion of the money

to the Contras was the illegal part? I thought the arms sales to Iran were legal.