Treason vs being an enemy combatant
<p>What distinguishes a civilian charge of treason versus being an enemy combatant?  Richard J. Leon ruled:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Enemy combatant&quot; shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So:</p>
<ol>
<li>What's a belligerent act?</li>
<li>What distinguishes directly supporting hostilities vs indirectly supporting hostilities?</li>
<li>Is merely indirectly supporting hostilities excluded from the things that makes one an enemy combatant?</li>
</ol>

<blockquote>
<p>What distinguishes a civilian charge of treason versus being an enemy combatant?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nationality.  Someone who is not a US national cannot commit treason against the US, because treason is a breach of allegiance, and non-nationals do not owe allegiance.  The ruling you mention is not concerned with treason because the defendant is not a national of the United States.</p>
<p>If a US national meets the definition of enemy combatant then that person has committed treason, the definition of which is limited in the constitution to &quot;giving aid or comfort to the enemy.&quot;  It is also possible to commit treason without being a combatant, for example by giving indirect support to an enemy where that indirect support is found to constitute &quot;aid.&quot;</p>

united-states military treason