iLOL :lamo
Someone who has constantly shown that they know not of what they speak, saying someone else who also knows not of what they speak is "right", while again showing that they do not understand what they are talking about, is absolutely hilarious.
The definitive statement you posted
(as if it is your own) came from the authors opinion piece. And he is absolutely correct, as that is an enemy. What you failed to understand is two fold
likely because you also failed to read his source material, 1. "Open war" does not mean declared war, and 2. that is not the only definition of an "enemy".
War does not have to be declared on the other party for them to be enemies.
From the authors source material.
Chap. II. Of Levying War and Adhering to the King's Enemies.
[...]
Sect. 12. States in Actual Hostility with Us, though no War be solemnly Declared, are Enemies within the meaning of the Act. And therefore in an Indictment on the Clause of Adhering to the King's Enemies, it is sufficient to Aver that the Prince or State Adhered to is an Enemy, without shewing any War Proclaimed. And the Fact, whether War or No, is triable by the Jury; and Publick Notoriety is sufficient Evidence of the Fact. And if the Subject of a Foreign Prince in Amity with Us, invadeth the Kingdom without Commission from his Sovereign, He is an Enemy. And a Subject of England adhering to Him is a Traitor within this Clause of the Act
.
If you bother to look, the above definition is even reflected in some current US laws and applicable to individuals, not just states.
It is unlikely that any court would find otherwise.
Such dishonesty.
No mater what you say now, your original statement implied there are two conditions that must be met for the charge to be applicable when it is only one.
Furthermore, the Constitutional requirement, nor the statute state that the US has to be in a declared war or the people be declared an enemy.
The requirement is that they be Waring against the US or an enemy.
