Oberon wrote:Caesar is treasonous. The degree can be argued, but not the fact. When you oppose, contradict, and subvert your ruler's authority, you are treasonous. You may color it loyalty to the nation, loyalty to some higher calling, or whatever other justification allows you to sleep at night. But at the end of the day, it is still treason.
No, it's not. Treason is betrayal. Caesar is voicing a loyal objection. The only one who actually even refused an order is Benjamen.
Leaders underneath a ruler are SUPPOSED to voice objections to plans that they think will not work.
If the Joint Chiefs of Staff were to argue against an order to invade a country (due to lack of resources and the country not currently posing as a threat), and this rejection was given in private to the President, would you accuse them of treason?
If you would, you should consider revising your personal definition of treason to match the common use.