Since this is the general discussion area, I thought I would try to start a discussion on the nature and various definitions of treason. Treason is a word that gets used quite a bit on this site, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. I believe that it is important when employing rhetoric to be clear as to the idea that one is attempting to convey, and so I am curious as to the usage intended in general discussion here.

My own opinion is that there are at least two practical definitions of treason, one of which is the common usage and one of which is the specific legally defined crime. When speaking of behavior that is injurious to the nation and its people in a general sense, it is acceptable to throw the term around with a bit less care than when stating a desire for the punishment of the criminal act of treason.

Before I post a little treatise I had previously written on the nature of treason, I would like to solicit comments from the other site members on this subject. Specifically:

1. How do you define treason?
2. Who in this country do you believe is guilty of treason?
3. Can one be a traitor and yet not guilty of the crime of treason?
4. Name an act that you believe constitutes treason.

You may provide a response to any or all of the questions above or may feel free to discuss other elements of the subject as you see fit, bearing in mind that the object here is not to argue over whether or not this or that person is a traitor, but rather to refine the understanding of the term and its usage.

As I mentioned, I will provide a short treatise on treason and the historical application of therm in this country after some of you have had an opportunity to post your own comments and opinions.