Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
That doesn't rise to the standard of treason, since treason is "leying war against [the states], or inadhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (Those are three seperate bases.)
Making it easier for enemies is not the same as giving them aid and comfort (material items and services) or adhering to them (civil association.) By the standard you are proposing here, every war protester in America is guilty of treason. They give comfort to the enemy by helping them believe that if they hold out and kill a few more Americans, America will pull out of the war. That isn't the standard, and it shouldn't be -- but if this was treason, so is that.
The examples I cited were bona fide acts of treason by the constitutional standard. Lindh was a member of an enemy insurection -- levying war and adhering to America's enemies. The human shields adhered to America's enemies and provided aid and comfort -- they went to enemy territory to promote enemy morale.
This is a crime by statute, but it is not treason. Treason is a serious enough charge that I don't levy it lightly. It was tasteless when Ann Coulter did it, and it is tasteless in this situation.
Actually, you're right. I don't even accept the premise that we're at war. But since we're twisting things that far, treason fits nicely in the scheme of things.
The word "treason" is being thrown around pretty freely these days.