The U.S. legal definition of treason is provided in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"
That last clause seems to be sufficient.
The evidentiary requirements are quite stringent.
To convict someone of treason, the law requires the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court.
I think K-B has been honored more in the breach rather than in observance. Mukden was the first test and it was for naught.
Further, US sovereignty and the conditional senate ratification pretty much makes it null and void.
The U.S. legal definition of treason is provided in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"
That last clause seems to be sufficient.
The evidentiary requirements are quite stringent.
To convict someone of treason, the law requires the testimony of at least two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court.
So key question...
When the Kellog-Brand Pact was signed, did that modify how Article III section 3 was to be interpreted?
I think K-B has been honored more in the breach rather than in observance. Mukden was the first test and it was for naught.
Further, US sovereignty and the conditional senate ratification pretty much makes it null and void.
My point is that it has been used as "cover"
"The Obama Conflict" has a certain "ring" to it...
The prosecutorial river flowing by Hussein and Michelle is both deep and wide…