Charges of Treason?

[Growler]

From the U.S. Constituition, Article 3.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Then there is this piece of analysis:

Though the constitutional provision is phrased somewhat backhandedly on the point, it is clear from the development of the section that the overt act is intended as a distinct element of proof of the offense in addition to intent. This would seem at least clearly to rule out treason prosecutions for the mere holding of dissident opinions.37 An effort, by violence, to resist the general execution of the laws, however, would apparently be viewed by the proponents of the treason clause as sufficient to make out a levying of war.38 "Traitorous" correspondence with the enemy would establish adherence to him.39 Beyond these scant items, the constitutional record gives us no specific help.

From chapter 4 of THE LAW OF TREASON IN THE UNITED STATES Collected Essays by James Willard Hurst

The numbers in the quoted exerpt above are footnotes.

I conclude that violent protestors within the borders of the US are vulnerable to charges of treason. Peter Arnett was abroad and merely dealt with propaganda (dissident opinions) but not secret information, and therefore his acts fail to meet the definition of treason.