[Ada Coddington]

By this logic, if Johnny Bin Walker was one of the hijackers on the aircraft and piloted one of the planes into the WTC towers, and the US then declared war, he would not have been a traitor because the US had not declared war at the time the events occurred. Are we saying only actions after the US declares war would be traitorous or could actions that involve levying war against the US be traitorous?

That would seem to be the case. If Taliban Johnny had piloted a plane, he would have been guilty of a criminal act but not treason.

[dpa5923]

Then how do you reconcile the fact that the Constitution does not require a state of war exists, only that the accused waged or levied war against the US?

It would seem that requiring a state of war to exist at the time of the alleged traitorous act would require a constriction on the Constitution not in the original document, added by any amendment nor ever implied in the document. Indeed, the lack of a statement requiring a state of war to exist implies that one is not required.

Comments?

[nopardons]

Nope ! Your uderstanding of the Consttution, is extremely flawed.