I don't agree, and I do come even closer to equating it with treason.

You can argue all you want for an unfettered definition of the First Amendment, but frankly no other codicil in our Constitution is anywhere near as unfettered. And, the Constitution does indeed define Treason.

Now, let's start prosecuting these folk for Treason and see how they fare in the court system. If they get off, then Volokh will turn out to be right. If he is wrong, we can throw an awful lot of awful people in jail, where they'll have an awful lot of time to think about their support for monster tyrants who are out there trying to kill our wives and children with terror.

We're going to war, boys, and this is not 1963 and Vietnam. These people are not shooting the children of their fellow villagers, they're trying to shoot off a dirty nuke in our major cities.

And those who give comfort to our enemies should be held accountable for that.

Um, I believe you may have made a Freudian typo...

Oh, please, Paul. The U.S. barely ever even prosecutes actual spies for treason -- they charge them with epsionage, a much lesser charge -- and you want to clog up our courts with a bunch of friggin' hippies? I am pretty solidly pro-war in this case, but I think this whole "objectively pro-Saddam" stuff is and has been a bunch of hooey.

It never ceases to amaze me:

a) how many people have swallowed whole the "Iraq tied to 9/11" crap, and
b) how many of these same people think that we'll be safer with a few million more extremely pissed militants in the world.