Do We Still Prosecute Treason?

The Washington Post reports on the latest events in Iraq. Hans Blix has demanded that Iraq destroy approximately 100 missiles whose range exceeds that permitted under U.N. resolutions; an Iraqi spokesman said
the order is “being studied,” but gave no assurance that it will be obeyed.
Blix also “expressed skepticism over Iraq’s claims to have destroyed the stocks of anthrax and VX nerve agent” in an interview to be published in Time on Monday. Blix says he finds it “a bit odd” that Baghdad, with “one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world,” would claim to have no records of the substances’ destruction. Which demonstrates once again the madness of the whole inspections process. No one, not even Hans Blix, seriously doubts that the Iraqis are hiding biological and chemical weapons.
But most arresting is the Post’s report that “Saddam met Sunday with former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsey Clark, and the [Iraqi] news agency said the Iraqi president praised Clark for his role in the anti-war movement in the United States.
The Boston Globe adds this information about Clark’s visit to Baghdad:
“In an interview in his hotel room, Clark said that there is only one way to avoid war: ”George Bush and his top advisers would have to change their minds.”
“He described that as a real possibility.
”’I think [President Bush] has already been delayed weeks beyond what he wanted,” he said. ”They may decide they just can’t risk going forward, as badly as they want to. I think they’ve had to take pause at the big peace demonstrations.”’
I hope Clark is wrong about the impact of “antiwar” demonstrations. But if Clark’s actions aren’t treasonous, what is?