What should we do with the General who said talking to Congress was "treason"?

If you were in the room when the AF General was talking to the group you could give a truthful and honest answer ! But you were not in the room the same as I was not in the room . To play he said she said or telephone only goes so far . I have been involved with other weapons systems and have reported to on them . You never go around your commander ! And Congress will not single you out . They start with your commander . Your commander passes your name and information . It is called chain of command .

SGT (Join to see), thanks for explaining your downvote.

There is a *huge* difference between going over your Chain of Command's heads, and committing treason.

SGT (Join to see), to amplify a bit on what SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA said, words matter, and some matter more than others. "Treason" is one of the heavyweights in that regard -- it should be bandied about with the same casual frivolity you would use for "genocide" or "serial rapist".

Treason is the *only* crime defined in the Constitution, and the definition is very clear. It is such a serious crime that actions sincerely labelled treasonous (e.g., a certain female actor's famous visit to Hanoi) fall far short and can at worst be prosecuted as "giving aid and comfort to an enemy".

Second, there is no question about what General Post said. He has not denied what he said, and has issued a written apology for his "poor choice of words". So there is no "he said she said" going on.

Finally, even if we give this flag-rank officer a heaping benefit of doubt and presume that he was just making an attempt at over-the-top humor in front of 300 airmen, even a joke by a general can be misperceived as a serious statement -- which is why flag officers are expected to be more careful about what they say than second lieutenants. So it's very reasonable to expect General Post to have known that any comment, serious or not, questioning the loyalty and integrity of Air Force officers and enlisted who professionally disagree with the leadership's decision to try axing the A10 (yet again) would be taken as an attempt to silence them from offering honest advice to Congress.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "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."

"If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it. . . anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason," he reportedly told the airmen. quote from story in the link
I would say that saying before hand that you will deny the comment pretty much negates the context excuse.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-air-force-general-fired-10-treason-comments-224441453.html

it is so easy to take any thing said by anyone out of context ! And not being there in person to hear the speech or comments . This sounds like they are playing telephone .

Based on what I read and my understanding, which is limited since I was not there or have not seen any video, He should be reprimanded. even a poor choice of words is an indication of poor judgement and he shouldn't be in such a command position.