This is not treason.
As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama has lawful authority to say whatever he wants about military plans if he thinks it comports with his oath of office. Stupidity is not the same as treason. Obviously, he thinks there is some advantage to getting the word out to ISIL that Mosul will be retaken.
The retired general has an opinion that such disclosure aids and abets the enemy. He may be right that disclosure is a net negative, but it’s just an opinion, and he is not privy to Obama’s reasoning. Regardless of whether that opinion is correct, there is no evidence at all that Obama has adhered to the enemies of the United States, which essential to the Constitutional definition of treason. Nor are there credible witnesses to his adherence.
This is probably just Obama’s typical incompetence, or routine politics, and little different from the way other presidents have conducted themselves during war.
Credible evidence? Wait for it...it’s coming soon.
Aid and comfort to the enemy is treason.
Telling the enemy what the game plan is falls under that.
Thanks much.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Skepolitic,
Do you agree with the above definition?