If you are correct, then maybe you're next on the list.
BTW, Ashcroft's words mirror those used in the Constitution Article III Section 3 to define treason, which is punishable by death.
Evidently from the assassination of al-Awlaki, the Constitution is now interpreted to mean that conviction of treason merely requires either 1) "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" or 2) "confession in open court". The "open court" part seems to no longer apply to the witness testimony.
You may think that merely writing something that gives aid and comfort to the enemy, which Ashcroft asserts includes anything that would scare people about "lost liberty", would be protected by the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment does not revise the text of the original Constitution but only supplements it to prohibit Congress from making laws restricting freedom of the press. Whatever constituted an "overt act" in the Article III Section 3 definition of treason remains unchanged by the First Amendment. If one refers to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, it is explicit that any treasonous writing constitutes an "overt act of treason" even if unpublished because "scribere est agere" (to write is to act).
Caveat scriptor: scribere est agere.
I don't have a problem with that.
Scaring people would only be “treason” using your argument if the liberties claimed to be lost really are a “phantom”.
In this case we’ve got an American citizen killed by the US government without due process - based simply on the POTUS’ opinion that the person killed was a terrorist. You tell me what that is if not a violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process for US citizens.
And we’ve got a law passed by Congress and signed by the usurper in the White House which allows the same treatment for those who are “belligerent” (an undefined term so it can be defined however the POTUS wants to define it) as for those giving actual material aid to terrorists. That treatment includes indefinite detainment without the due process of knowing the accusation against you, having a lawyer, going to trial, etc. The POTUS can make up an arbitrary definition for “belligerence”, on the basis of that definition label any one of us “belligerent” and thus a terrorist, and give the kill order. Furthermore, he can have the assassination be done by the military using whatever method he wants - including undetectable assassination methods so nobody even knows that he gave an assassination order.
These are NOT “phantoms of lost liberty”. These are right now, right here violations of our Constitution and laws.