First, a tip o' the hat to Dr. J. E. Pournelle, who put the idea out there. See it HERE.

I'll begin with a definition from the Constitution of the United States of America:

"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."

Now, presuming that Maj. Hasan is indeed guilty of murdering and wounding his comrades-in-arms, is it treason?

The argument that Dr. Pournelle raises is pertinent. "I would presume that arming oneself and shooting 43 US soldiers is (1) levying war against the United States, and (2) an overt act, and that Major Hassan should be charged with treason."

Dr. Pournelle also argues that previous speech and writings by Maj. Hasan lend credence to the charge of Treason.

There is, in my view, another reason for viewing Maj. Hasan's killing spree as treason: He turned on his comrades and killed as many as he could. This is the most heinous act a soldier can do - killing your own.

So, let us enumerate the charges against Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

1. 14 counts of murder.
2. 29 counts of attempted murder.
3. 1 count of Treason, as defined above.

Numbers one and three above are punishable, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct."

IF Maj. Hasan is found guilty, of any of the three above, then he should be put to death.

It's not likely, though. The political correctness currently prevalent will label him as "disturbed" and he'll be committed to a "mental health facility", there to live a lot longer than his disarmed victims.