I keep seeing the mantra that "Treason has a very specific definition"

[Azathoth]

I've heard this formulation used for a long time by a lot of educated people, not just on DU. And it has always struck me more as dogma or received wisdom than informed fact, a bit like the notion that the president can't be indicted. It's a line people learn from commentators (or law professors) that they repeat without real evidence.

The definition of treason appears in the Constitution:

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

Congress adopted this definition when it codified treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Now, so far as I know, there are only a handful of SCOTUS cases that meaningfully touch on treason, with the only really relevant one being Bollman:

To constitute a levying of war, there must be an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. Enlistments of men to serve against government is not sufficient.

This is it. It was decided in 1807, so in those days the only way an "assemblage of persons" could use "force" would have been for them to muster with muskets and march. But we live in an age where every modern military has their own cyberwarfare division, and it is generally understood that the next cataclysmic war on this planet will begin with an assault on each belligerent's technology systems. Hence, there is a very real argument to be made that a foreign actor launching a coordinated cyberattack on the US can be considered "levying war" for the purpose of prosecuting treason.

I saw in another thread someone citing a definition from 18 U.S. Code §2331:

(4)the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A)declared war;
(B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin

to argue that cyberattacks don't count. But this neglects the very first sentence of §2331:

As used in this chapter—

In other words, that definition is only relevant when we are talking about Chapter 113B, the federal terrorism laws. Treason, meanwhile, is handled in Chapter 115, and there is a conspicuous lack of definitions for that Chapter.

Now, it's entirely possible that I'm missing some major case or statute that can resolve this issue and provide us with the "very specific definition" that we have been endlessly assured exists. But if I'm not, then I think the definition of treason is anything but very specific, and the folks dismissing the possibility of treason in this whole Russia clusterfuck are jumping the gun. As far as I can see, the case for treason here is an open question.

[brush]

1. Sedition comes closer to what the trumpers have done since there's no shooting war but it still...

doesn't quite get there.

They've created a dastardly new way to undermine their own country right before out eyes.

It requires a completely new word coinage for the entitled, audacious, arrogant, in-your-face, yet bumblingly incompetent, lie-filled betrayal (?) the Russians and Comey helped them pull off.

DU wordsmith's, have at it.

We await your creations.

[deminks]

2. Pentagon defined cyber attacks as a traditional act of war in 2011.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country's military.

In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks," said a military official.

(end snip)

They sabotaged our effing elections. Trump and his merry band of GrOPers are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[FreepFryer]

4. Correct. (n/t)

[shanny]

5. The Pentagon is part of neither the legislative

nor judicial branch. They are part of the administrative branch and ultimately under civilian control. That branch is tasked with "faithfully executing the law." I for one would have a big, BIG problem with them being allowed to define "war" or "treason" all by themselves.

[FreepFryer]

6. They aren't doing anything all by themselves. Congress authorizes the Pentagon in the NDAA.

Pentagon leaders have for years struggled to define cyberwar in terms of what level of cyberattack would warrant a military response, and whether a response would be in cyberspace or include the use of kinetic weapons. The DoD Cyber Strategy of 2015 states that the “United States has been clear that it will respond to a cyberattack on U.S. interests through its defense capabilities,” but is not particularly clear about what would prompt retaliation or what shape retaliation would take. It says only that response would come “at a time, in a manner, and in a place of our choosing, using appropriate instruments of U.S. power and in accordance with applicable law.”

Among other factors, the difficulty in attributing the origin of a cyberattack has complicated the question of ordering a response.

As far as launching cyberattacks, U.S. Cyber Command has control of DoD’s offensive (as well as defensive) cyber operations, although Presidential Policy Directive 20 currently gives the President sole power to authorize cyberattacks that could damage another country’s assets.

While the NDAA would add requirements to that power, some lawmakers and others say that DoD should also have the ability to respond in-kind to cyberattacks, an idea with which others have agreed. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has argued that the Cyber Command, which in May was elevated to a unified combatant command, should be empowered to run offensive operations on its own.

Some members in Congress–particularly Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.–have for years criticized the White House for its cybersecurity policy, calling for a more clearly defined strategy that outlines response and delineates who is responsible for making the decisions to retaliate. In March, lawmakers complained that the lack of a clear strategy has resulted in inaction in the wake of attacks from Russia and elsewhere, making the United States, as Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, has put it, “the cyber punching bag of the world.” (July 2018)

https://www.meritalk.com/articles/congress-pushes-for-a-clearer-strategy-on-cyber-warfare/

[shanny]

7. Your entire post shows that

the Pentagon is pushing this on their own and do NOT have the backing of the legislative or judicial branches--in the form of actual laws. "Some legislators say..." isn't sufficient, esp when the most prominent is McCain, who never met a war he didn't like.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

[FreepFryer]

9. No it doesn't. That's your interpretation but that is neither the point nor the subtext. (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

3. Aiding Russia in a cyberattack on our electoral infrastructure is treason.

No prevarication or hairsplitting required.

[harumph]

10. What Trump has done does not rise to treason by definition -however,

it very well could be conspiracy to commit fraud against US -

or espionage:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/espionage

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37

People are so hung up on "treason" - it's internet posturing - but there are lots of other
serious crimes that (may) have been committed.