John Walker[1] gave sub secrets to Russia, and didn’t get a treason charge (but he may have turned state’s evidence to reduce his charge). He did die “mysteriously,” a year before he was eligible for parole. He was about as bad as you can get.
> 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.
Clearly and narrowly defining it in the constitution was a step to stop the clear abuses they had witnessed.
Look around even in this thread with everyone talking Treason.
I mean why not call it terrorism? Because terrorism is a blanket term that puts people outside of the normal legal system - e.g. 'outlaws' - and has them taken off to inhumane internment camps like Guantanamo Bay, where rule of law or the Geneva convention no longer apply. Apparently.
One day the US will / should be tried for war crimes, but since they have nukes and veto rights in the UN that's unlikely to happen. They've already indicated they would not hesitate to deploy troops to The Hague to extract any of their (former) leaders if they end up there.
Per Wikipedia:
> Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance.[1] This typically includes acts such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
I think the problem is that it needs to involve an enemy of the USA to be treason. Enemy as in declared enemy, not just hostile to.