There are two basic contentions of treason.
First, that Kerry’s aforementioned meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators was treasonous because of an historical footnote called the Boland Law, to the effect that it was illegal for a private citizen to negotiate with foreign, and most especially belligerant nations. The case relies on a strenurous exertion to define “negotiation” to include damn near anything.
Kerry referred to the visit in his Senate testimony, referencing a previous visit by Sen Eugene McCarthy. He said that in his judgement (and, presumably, advisors) that so long as he scrupulously avoided any “negotiation”, and given that his circumstances were so similar to the precedent set by Sen McCarthy, he was pretty sure he was in compliance with all relevent laws. Myself, I take him at his word. If for no other reason but that there is no chance whatever that the NV thought that Kerry was empowered to negotiate, nor did he so represent.
The other argument is more emotional, to the effect that Kerry’s anti-war activity, by its very nature and his fervent advocacy, offered aid and comfort to the enemy. The most rational of these invokes the effect of dissent on our enemie’s morale and determination. In effect, such an effort offers comfort, if not aid.
It is unfortunate that no political action can be entirely innocent, outside of Jimmy Carter. But there you have it, you are invariably choosing between evils. I wrestled with this notion then, as I am pretty sure Kerry did.
But consider: if we accept the notion that criticizing the government in time of war is illegitimate and unpatriotic, we write a carte blanche for any scoundrel to render himself immune to examination and accountability. I trust no one will argue that we have not, nor will we, elect a scoundrel.
Another, and far more repulsive, scenario is the retarded cousin to the above argument, the kind of argument usually confined in the attic and fed on gruel. This holds Kerry at fault because the NV used such to torment POW’s and undermine thier will to resist.
This is wretched behavior, to be sure. But again, if one must* refuse* to do good, by opposing an administration in grevious error, because evil men will misconstrue the meaning of your actions…well, when ever would you act?
