that there are people who want to hurt America, and the government should be vigilant in pursuing them.

Treason is not a forgotten crime from another era, but a serious offense that still matters today. In the Los Angeles Times article, “Videos Lead to Treason Charge” by Greg Krikorian and Richard B. Schmitt on October 12th, 2006, a man from Southern California who converted to Islam was charged with treason – the first time this has happened since the World War II era (1). The article explains that Adam Yahiye Gadahn, was accused of giving “aid and comfort to Al Qaeda” (1) by appearing in propaganda videos for the terrorist organization. In his videos, Gadahn says that he had “joined a movement waging war on America and killing large numbers of Americans” (1), and that the September 11th attacks “notified America that it’s going to have to pay for its crimes and pay dearly” (1). Gadahn’s insidious actions fit the Constitution’s requirements for treason since he is “levying war” against the country and aiding the enemy with their videos. His case explains that anti-treason statutes are still necessary in the modern world, even though only a handful of people have been convicted in the United States. Gadahn is not simply protesting American policy, but advocating the deaths of innocent Americans. People like Gadahn who seek to hurt Americans should be the ones charged with treason, not mere protestors expressing their freedom of speech.

Some believe dissent is equivalent to treason as it encourages the enemy. Because the United States is a representative democracy, policymakers must respect the will of the people, or else be voted out. Knowing this, enemies could intensify their attacks to force Americans to rise up and force a withdrawal from combat. By protesting against American policy, dissenters commit treason by showing that the country is divided, and thus give “comfort and aid” to the enemy. The Vietnam protests are an example of this, as cases where protestors waved North Vietnam flags and chanted “Ho Chi Minh” did not help troop morale. In fact, the protests seemed to make the war worse. The North Vietnamese launched the Tet Offensive for this reason – while it was militarily ineffective, it turned the American public against the war. But while those protestors disagreed with the government’s reason for war, they weren’t deliberately supplying the enemy with tactical details or strategies that could have helped the enemy kill more soldiers. This is true with modern day protestors, who try to make the distinction between supporting the troops and disagreeing with government policy. While protestors may be “unpatriotic” for disagreeing with the government in time of war, they aren’t traitors.