First U.S. Citizen To Face Military Tribunal???
Mark J
> Interesting question: Can he be tried for treason? As I understand
> treason, he is not guilty and cannot be tried. The Taliban was
> fighting against the Northern Alliance, not against America. In no way
> can fighting against the Northern Alliance be considered treason.
The fact that he was fighting the northern alliance does not matter.
The elements of treason are 1) giving aid and comfort to the enemy,
that is, an act that helps the enemy or hurts the US's ability to
fight an enemy 2) voluntarily and intentionally. This guy was serving
in the Taliban's army. if the Taliban are an "enemy" for purposes of
the statute, he can be tried for treason, since his statements suggest
that he had the requisite intent. Given that we have troops on the
ground there, and that the official policy of the US gov't these days
is to kill taliban, it's no strech to say that the Taliban are an
enemy. So he's eligible for a treason prosecution. But not to be
strung up by his gonads, or fed his liver, as others have suggested.
There's this thing called the Eighth Amendment, you know. :)
The only problem I see with trying him for treason is evidentiary.
The constitution requires two witnesses to the treasonous act. Do we
have 2 credible witnesses?
Not that the Uncle Sam couldn't go after him on other grounds; I'm
sure serving in an enemy army violates a whole host of statutes and
regs. Perhaps he said some stupid things that might be evidence of
intent to abandon US citizenship and he could have his citizenship
stripped. But one thing's for sure...since he's a US citizen, he
isn't covered by the military tribunal executive order, since the
order specifies that only non-US citizens can be "tried" by the
execution squad.
Mark
Rusty Mullin
revocation of citizenship. It had something to with taking an oath to a
foreign country.
If this were the case, then even though he claimed US citizenship it had
been previously forfeited. If he is not a US citizen, then he is not guilty
of treason.
Also, being a member of an enemy army does not necessarily make one a
terrorist.
Let the name calling and insults begin. Oh yeah, intelligent discussion is
welcome as well.
Later,
Rusty
--
I am not giving you legal advice.
You would have to pay me in silver dollars first.
"Mark J" <iceb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ba107a46.01120...@posting.google.com...
Harrison Numbugger
<rusty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I thought I read somewhere once that serving in a foreign military is a
>revocation of citizenship. It had something to with taking an oath to a
>foreign country.
>
>If this were the case, then even though he claimed US citizenship it had
>been previously forfeited. If he is not a US citizen, then he is not guilty
>of treason.
>
>Also, being a member of an enemy army does not necessarily make one a
>terrorist.
>
in fact , now that according the bush administration we are 'at war' ,
none of them should be referred to as terrorists. They are now
combatants, soldiers.
bush can't have it both ways.
>Let the name calling and insults begin. Oh yeah, intelligent discussion is
>welcome as well.
>
>Later,
>
>Rusty
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Sam Sloan
<rusty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I thought I read somewhere once that serving in a foreign military is a
>revocation of citizenship. It had something to with taking an oath to a
>foreign country.
>
>If this were the case, then even though he claimed US citizenship it had
>been previously forfeited. If he is not a US citizen, then he is not guilty
>of treason.
>
>Also, being a member of an enemy army does not necessarily make one a
>terrorist.
>
>Let the name calling and insults begin. Oh yeah, intelligent discussion is
>welcome as well.
>
>Later,
>
>Rusty
This would not work. The Taliban was never recognized as the
Government of Afghanistan, even though it really was, so he never took
an oath to a foreign country.
I doubt that the Taliban takes oaths anyway.
Also, the Taliban never had an army as the term is understood so he
never fought for a foreign army.
I do not think he could be charged for anything.
I understand he is in US custody now. I just hope that they get him
back to the US soon, so that he can tell us what really happened.
Sam Sloan
D. Patterson
>
> This would not work. The Taliban was never recognized as the
> Government of Afghanistan, even though it really was, so he never took
> an oath to a foreign country.
>
> I doubt that the Taliban takes oaths anyway.
>
> Also, the Taliban never had an army as the term is understood so he
> never fought for a foreign army.
>
> I do not think he could be charged for anything.
>
> I understand he is in US custody now. I just hope that they get him
> back to the US soon, so that he can tell us what really happened.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
You couldn't be more wrong. This guy is in for really serious trouble.
He has already made statements to a reporter supporting the al-Qaeda
terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. His father has claimed his son's
statement shouldn't be held against him, due to his mental state.
Nonetheless, there can be no real doubt that his actions gave aid and
comfort to the enemy in a time of war. As for witnesses, the many peple
at the prison compound and his own confessions are likely to be found as
sufficient witnesses to acts of treason, felonious acts of war by a
civilian, war crimes (e.g. illegal mercenary), and a plethora of other
Federal charges as long as your arm. Don't forget, an American agent of
the CIA working as a prisoner interrogator was killed in the prisoner
revolt, and this man was a voluntary participant in this illegal and
deadly act. His only real hope will be acts of clemency by the Federal
Government.
The disposition of his case will be seen as a vital precedent for any
future cases of the British and other foreign Taliban soldiers.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
Sam Sloan
I disagree with almost everything you say, but we shall see. In any
case, it will be interesting.
It is my understanding or it has been reported on the groups that all
the others captured with him have been killed. Have you heard that?
I assume that he is still alive.
Sam Sloan
Christopher Green
> I thought I read somewhere once that serving in a foreign military is a
> revocation of citizenship. It had something to with taking an oath to a
> foreign country.
Serving in a foreign military doesn't result in revocation of
citizenship unless it is done with overt intent to relinquish
citizenship. There's a summary, with relevant law citations and
Supreme Court decisions, at
http://travel.state.gov/military_service.html
> If this were the case, then even though he claimed US citizenship it had
> been previously forfeited. If he is not a US citizen, then he is not guilty
> of treason.
Not necessarily forfeited (because he would have had to make some
positive action or statement, beyond just volunteering for a foreign
army, to do so).
> Also, being a member of an enemy army does not necessarily make one a
> terrorist.
Absolutely. This sounds to me like a case of a kid who got in over his
head. He has a lot to answer for, but nobody who has seen him commit a
terrorist or treasonable act has spoken up yet. And it still takes two
witnesses to support a conviction for treason.
> Let the name calling and insults begin. Oh yeah, intelligent discussion is
> welcome as well.
>
> Later,
>
> Rusty
--
Chris Green
Mark J
> revocation of citizenship. It had something to with taking an oath to a
> foreign country.
8 USC 1481 Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen;
voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth
or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily
performing any of the following acts *with the intention of
relinquishing United States nationality--*
...
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal
declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political
subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years;
or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United
States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or noncommissioned
officer;
...
(b) Whenever the loss United States nationality is put in issue in any
action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under,
or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the
burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss
occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed,
any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any
other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such
presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done
voluntarily
So,looks like our American taliban soldier has met (a)(3)(A), if not
(a)(2), if the foreign oath or military service was with intent to
give up American citizenship. The intent is the key.
>
> If this were the case, then even though he claimed US citizenship it had
> been previously forfeited.
Well, that would be a defense to treason, but if he won this, he'd go
from the frying pan into the fire, because if he wasn't a citizen at
the time of his military service, he's eligible to be sent to a
military tribunal. Seems preferrable to me to be convicted of treason
than sent to an execution squad. The method of death would likely be
more "humane" if the death sentence is issued by a court, and the
execution would be delayed for at least a couple years, leaving hope
that something may change to stop the execution. If sent to the
execution squad, he will be tried in secret, sentenced to death
without appeal, and will be killed immediately. The german spies
executed by the last military tribunal were tried and killed within a
week, IIRC.
> If he is not a US citizen, then he is not guilty
> of treason.
Yep; absolute defense, but see above.
>
> Also, being a member of an enemy army does not necessarily make one a
> terrorist.
No, but the more than terrorists are covered by the executive order,
and Bush's decisions as to who is covered by the order is
unappealable. Sec. 2(a)(1)(ii) can be read very broadly, and when
people fighting the US are concerned, statutes tend to be read
broadly. If this guy beats treason by arguing successfully that he is
not a citizen, Bush will lose zero political capital when he says
Walker is subject to the order.
The only hope would be for him to file a habeas corpus petition as
soon as he's declared subject to the order, and hope that the courts
would declare the executive order unconstitutional. My guess is that
no court would do so.
Mark
Mike Murray
>Not that the Uncle Sam couldn't go after him on other grounds; I'm
>sure serving in an enemy army violates a whole host of statutes and
>regs. Perhaps he said some stupid things that might be evidence of
>intent to abandon US citizenship and he could have his citizenship
>stripped. But one thing's for sure...since he's a US citizen, he
>isn't covered by the military tribunal executive order,
His actions while in Afghanistan as a member of the Taliban may well
have violated Afghani law, and since the Northern Alliance never lost
UN recognition as the official government of that country, we may be
legally obligated to return him, after questioning, to appropriate
agencies there.
If we want to try him for violations of US law, we could initiate
extradition proceedings. Or, if it turns out he committed no crimes
in Afghanistan, or was covered by some amnesty or other, the
government of Afghanistan could deport him.
Docky Wocky
on his chest, then throw him out the door.
Even if his present keepers have to tip his room up to full vertical to
actually boot him out, once he slips out into that Muslim paradise forming
outside, he can take his chances with the New Afghani government he so
wanted to be involved with. I am sure the NA will come up with a nice dose
of justice.
There is no defense for this nut. Twenty year olds with better heads on
their shoulders have, or may die in this mess.
Letting him off dishonors them.
nukday
"D. Patterson" wrote:
From a piece accreditted to Newsweek -
----------
When the U.S.S. Cole was bombed as it refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden in
October of 2000, killing 17 U.S. sailors, father and son had an
uncomfortable
e-mail exchange. Frank says he was upset that the dead sailors were the same
age as his son. John seemed to have a more casual view of the attack, which
U.S. authorities blamed on operatives of Osama bin Laden. He suggested that
the U.S. ship should never have been there in the first place, and that by
docking in an Islamic country, had committed an "act of war." The bombing,
John
implied, was a justified response. Lindh says he was "concerned" by his
son's
views, but felt that since John was an adult, there was little he could do
to
change them. "It was clear he had developed a different point of view," says
Lindh. "My days of molding him were over."
----------
If true [and I did type IF], the lad had a priori knowledge of whom he
was signing up with. This wasn't 'brain washing' but an exercise
in free will.
Sam Sloan
>If true [and I did type IF], the lad had a priori knowledge of whom he
>was signing up with. This wasn't 'brain washing' but an exercise
>in free will.
It is not a question of brainwashing. It is a question of law.
No charge can be made against him which will stand up in court.
Sam Sloan
ofergneezy
> The fact that he was fighting the northern alliance does not matter.
> The elements of treason are 1) giving aid and comfort to the enemy,
> that is, an act that helps the enemy or hurts the US's ability to
> fight an enemy 2) voluntarily and intentionally. This guy was serving
> in the Taliban's army. if the Taliban are an "enemy" for purposes of
> the statute, he can be tried for treason, since his statements suggest
> that he had the requisite intent. Given that we have troops on the
> ground there, and that the official policy of the US gov't these days
> is to kill taliban, it's no strech to say that the Taliban are an
> enemy. So he's eligible for a treason prosecution. But not to be
> strung up by his gonads, or fed his liver, as others have suggested.
> There's this thing called the Eighth Amendment, you know. :)
Aw come on, why should a little thing like the Constitution ruin our fun? :)
D. Patterson
Sam, where in the world did you ever get a fool idea like that? This
person was taken prisoner while serving as an illegal mercenary or
volunteer for a non-sovereign criminal organization committing acts of
war against sovereign nations and war crimes in a civil war. After
surrendering at discretion, this person then participated in an armed
rebellion against his captors, American officers, and medics. His
participation in the prisoner revolt led to the deaths and wounding of
many people, including American military personnel. He is not entitled
to status as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention. He is a
citizen of the United States with a presumably valid U.S. passport. He
has violated so many laws carrying the death sentence or very long
felony punishments, it's not funny.
As for the charges not standing up in court, we'll see.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
None Shall Defy
He is either the law or above the law.
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<3c0eb5db...@ca.news.verio.net>...
MH_
>iceb...@my-deja.com (Mark J) wrote in message
> news:<ba107a46.01120...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> The fact that he was fighting the northern alliance does not matter.
>> The elements of treason are 1) giving aid and comfort to the enemy,
>> that is, an act that helps the enemy or hurts the US's ability to
>> fight an enemy 2) voluntarily and intentionally. This guy was serving
>> in the Taliban's army. if the Taliban are an "enemy" for purposes of
>> the statute, he can be tried for treason, since his statements suggest
>> that he had the requisite intent. Given that we have troops on the
>> ground there, and that the official policy of the US gov't these days
>> is to kill taliban, it's no strech to say that the Taliban are an
>> enemy. So he's eligible for a treason prosecution.
This guy was fighting the Northern Alliance,
which is not even a government, much less an
official ally of the US. And since this is not a war
but a "police action" on the order of Grenada or
Panama, treason charges are not likely to stick
Paul Onstad
> >> The fact that he was fighting the northern alliance does not matter.
> >> The elements of treason are 1) giving aid and comfort to the enemy,
> >> that is, an act that helps the enemy or hurts the US's ability to
> >> fight an enemy 2) voluntarily and intentionally. This guy was serving
> >> in the Taliban's army. if the Taliban are an "enemy" for purposes of
> >> the statute, he can be tried for treason, since his statements suggest
> >> that he had the requisite intent. Given that we have troops on the
> >> ground there, and that the official policy of the US gov't these days
> >> is to kill taliban, it's no strech to say that the Taliban are an
> >> enemy. So he's eligible for a treason prosecution.
>
>
> This guy was fighting the Northern Alliance,
> which is not even a government, much less an
> official ally of the US. And since this is not a war
> but a "police action" on the order of Grenada or
> Panama, treason charges are not likely to stick
There is also the fact his involvement started before U.S. participation in
the conflict. It might have been a completely different matter had he left
the U.S. (or some other country) to fight with the Taliban once U.S. forces
were present.
-Paul
Mark J
> His actions while in Afghanistan as a member of the Taliban may well
> have violated Afghani law, and since the Northern Alliance never lost
> UN recognition as the official government of that country, we may be
> legally obligated to return him, after questioning, to appropriate
> agencies there.
>
> If we want to try him for violations of US law, we could initiate
> extradition proceedings. Or, if it turns out he committed no crimes
> in Afghanistan, or was covered by some amnesty or other, the
> government of Afghanistan could deport him.
How common is it for countries to give up their own citizen to another
country that wants to try him when the home country wants to try the
citizen itself? It seems pretty common for countries to protect their
citizens against foreign prosecution, if the home country can do so,
when the home country isn't interested in trying the citizen. Japan,
for example, never deports its citizens who are wanted for foreign
prosecution. Countries would seem to have even more incentive to keep
their nationals if they wanted to prosecute them themselves.
He's in our custody now. I doubt we will give him up.
Mark
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> This would not work. The Taliban was never recognized as the
> Government of Afghanistan, even though it really was, so he never took
> an oath to a foreign country.
That doesn't matter.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines "treason" as
actively aiding and abetting an enemy to make war against the U.S.
The Taliban was clearly our "enemy," since we're attacking them. The
Constitution does not require that the "enemy" be a foreign GOVERNMENT.
(Back then, pirates were a major threat, just as international
terrorists are today.)
And so the remaining question is whether this American guy, Walker,
aided them in their combat against the U.S.
When they found Walker, he was carrying an AK-47. If witnesses can be
found that will testify that he SHOT AT U.S. soldiers with that rifle,
then he's guilty of treason.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
9-11.
Answer the call!
Steven Litvintchouk
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines "treason":
"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."
It does *NOT* require a formal declaration of war by the U.S.
It does *NOT* require that the enemy be a foreign government.
(Centuries ago, pirates were as big a threat as international terrorists
are today. A U.S. citizen who had joined a freebooter to attack U.S.
ships would have been considered a traitor.)
What it *DOES* require is that the person have actively aided and
abetted the enemy.
In this case, we must find out what Walker *DID* during that prison
uprising.
If he shot at American troops, then he's a traitor.
If he sat passively, then treason will be much harder to prove.
Sam Sloan
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>And so the remaining question is whether this American guy, Walker,
>aided them in their combat against the U.S.
>When they found Walker, he was carrying an AK-47. If witnesses can be
>found that will testify that he SHOT AT U.S. soldiers with that rifle,
>then he's guilty of treason.
Suppose he shot to defend himself, because they were attacking and
trying to kill him?
>--
>Steven D. Litvintchouk
>Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
>
>9-11.
>Answer the call!
I don't have to answer the call. I was there.
Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/attack.htm
William Black
D. Patterson <n...@mail.fidalgo.net> wrote in message
news:3C0EE3D9...@mail.fidalgo.net...
> Sam, where in the world did you ever get a fool idea like that? This
> person was taken prisoner while serving as an illegal mercenary or
> volunteer for a non-sovereign criminal organization committing acts of
> war against sovereign nations and war crimes in a civil war.
He's not a mercenary, and the Taliban wasn't criminal, and what exactly
makes his act any more criminal than the US pilots flying in the Battle of
Britian in 1940?
If it's an act of war, as you say, then he's protected
After
> surrendering at discretion, this person then participated in an armed
> rebellion against his captors, American officers, and medics.
Prove it, he seems to have been in a cellar somewhere hiding while his
comrades were murdered.
>His
> participation in the prisoner revolt led to the deaths and wounding of
> many people, including American military personnel. He is not entitled
> to status as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.
Yes he is. He openly carried arms and so is a combatant due protection.
>He is a
> citizen of the United States with a presumably valid U.S. passport. He
> has violated so many laws carrying the death sentence or very long
> felony punishments, it's not funny.
No he didn't, and if he was in the Taliban before September 11 then he's
certainly got no case to answer.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
M.J.Powell
>> participation in the prisoner revolt led to the deaths and wounding of
>> many people, including American military personnel. He is not entitled
>> to status as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.
>
>Yes he is. He openly carried arms and so is a combatant due protection.
A civilian carrying arms in a war zone?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
George Z. Bush
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message news:3C0FB102...@earthlink.net...
>
>
> MH_ wrote:
> >
> > In article
<6691dfe1.01120...@posting.google.com>,
oferg...@hotmail.com (ofergneezy) wrote:
> > >iceb...@my-deja.com (Mark J) wrote in message
> > >
news:<ba107a46.01120...@posting.google.com>...
> Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines
And don't forget to come up with two witnesses to the same
act. They would undoubtedly have to be Taliban POWs, and
Allah would also surely frown on them if they tell a lie.
What do you think the odds might be of finding two Taliban
who observed this American numbnuts firing his weapon at
Americans in an offensive manner and be willing to testify
to that in a far distant foreign court.
Realistically, I think we need to be looking at something
other than treason. It might make us feel good to pursue
it, but I don't think it'll fly very far in a US court.
George Z.
Mark J
There's no such thing as an "official" ally of the US. We're
providing air cover for Northern Alliance ground attacks, and US
military advisors have been with the Northern Alliance since October,
if not before. What do you call that if not a military alliance?
Besides the point, the fact that he was fighting against the Northern
Alliance instead of directly against US troops doesn't matter, because
aiding an enemy is an act of treason apart from levying war against
the US. Hurting the Northern Alliance strengthens the Taliban's
ability to resist the US attacks. That's aiding an enemy.
As for your other point, the US doesn't have to declare war on a
country for it to be an enemy. Enemies are foreign countries in a
state of "open hostility" with the US. We never officially declared
war on Afganistan, North Vietnam, or North Korea, but during the time
that US troops are/were present in those areas, they were enemies.
Anyone know if there were any cases of Americans who fought alongside
the Viet Cong and were then captured? What happened to them?
Mark
Sam Sloan
And what exactly was he supposed to do when the US forces joined the
Northern Alliance? Should he have run out with his arms up yelling "I
surrender".
If he had done that, he would have been killed on the spot.
It appears that he is the only one left alive from his entire group.
This in itself proves that his primary objective was to stay alive.
How can you convict him of that?
And where are you going to get the two witnesses to testify against
him, when everybody else is dead?
Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/escape.htm
MH_
Says who?
I don't recall a declaration of war over the
Taliban. Or invading Panama, or Grenada, or
Beirut, or bombing Libya, or planting mines
in the harbors of Nicaragua. At what level
of US military action does a "war" happen?
>
>It does *NOT* require that the enemy be a foreign government.
So who is the enemy? Bin Laden? The Taliban?
The Saudis who financed them?
MH_
By that standard Nixon was guilty of treason
because he aided an ally (Russia) of our enemy
(NVietnam) during the Vietnam war by selling them
the very oil technology they needed to fuel Hanoi's
war machine.
>
>As for your other point, the US doesn't have to declare war on a
>country for it to be an enemy. Enemies are foreign countries in a
>state of "open hostility" with the US. We never officially declared
>war on Afganistan, North Vietnam, or North Korea, but during the time
>that US troops are/were present in those areas, they were enemies.
>
Was Grenada a war? How about Somalia, and Kosovo,
and Beirut? And if these actions were "wars" because of
the "open hostilities", where are the peace treaties that
ended them? How much action equal "war", and what
reduction of it equals "peace"?
Steven Litvintchouk
Docky Wocky wrote:
>
> The obvious solution to this whole dilemma is to tattoo a big American flag
> on his chest, then throw him out the door.
>
> Even if his present keepers have to tip his room up to full vertical to
> actually boot him out, once he slips out into that Muslim paradise forming
> outside, he can take his chances with the New Afghani government he so
> wanted to be involved with. I am sure the NA will come up with a nice dose
> of justice.
The Northern Alliance would likely treat him according to the Islamic
law of "sharia".
I believe (I admit I'm no expert) that according to "sharia," he will be
given an opportunity to repent his past behavior and return to the ways
of righteousness.
In order to lead him back to righteousness, he will be tortured.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Rusty Mullin
1. One who opposes or inflicts injury on another; an antagonist.
Seems to apply to individuals only
2. An opposing military force.
Does not seem to apply to an individual.
3. A state with which another state is at war.
Hmm... The definition of enemy seems to favor a declaration of war.
Kind Regards,
Rusty Mullin
--
I am not giving you legal advice.
You would have to pay me in silver dollars first.
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:3c1008dc...@ca.news.verio.net...
D. Patterson
>
> D. Patterson <n...@mail.fidalgo.net> wrote in message
> news:3C0EE3D9...@mail.fidalgo.net...
>
> > Sam, where in the world did you ever get a fool idea like that? This
> > person was taken prisoner while serving as an illegal mercenary or
> > volunteer for a non-sovereign criminal organization committing acts of
> > war against sovereign nations and war crimes in a civil war.
>
> He's not a mercenary, and the Taliban wasn't criminal, and what exactly
> makes his act any more criminal than the US pilots flying in the Battle of
> Britian in 1940?
>
It would be interesting to see you prove he is not a mercenary. He is a
U.S. citizen in the armed force of an non-sovereign and insurrectionist
organization waging war upon the lawful goveernment of the state and
upon other sovereign states. Whether or not he can be ajudged a
mercenary, he is an illegal foreign volunteer in an illegal
insurrection.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda are criminal organizations by pronouncement of
the United Nations, the United States, and other sovereign member states
of the United Nations.
The U.S. citizens who swore allegiance to other sovereign states while
serving as members of these foreign armed services during a specific
period of World War Two forfeited their U.S. citizenship. It required a
special act of the U.S. Congress to enact a Public Law which permitted
these former U.S. citizens to reclaim their lost U.S. citizenship by
completing a specialized procedure for naturaalization. Such an
opportunity to naturalize was prohibited to those individuals who served
in armed forces hostile to the United States.
The American Taliban is a U.S. citizen who voluntarily enlisted and gave
his allegiance to al-Qaeda, who trained him in terrorism. He
subsequently served with al-Qaeda contingents in the Taliban armed
forces. Al-Qaeda declared war against the United States in 1996 and
again in 1998. He joined al-Qaeda and the Taliban sppecifically because
they were at war with the United States and its non-Islamic government
and society. This is evidenced by his approval of the attack upon the
U.S.S. Cole and the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. His
subsequent training as a terrorist, acts of war and terrorism against
the civilian populace of Afghanistan, acts of war and terrorism against
the civilian populace and government of India, material support of
terrorists and terrorist organizations by voluntary service in their
armed forces evidences his criminal conduct of treason and terrorism.
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this
title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any
office under the United States."
"(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means activities that - (A)
involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or
that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy
of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the
conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and (C) occur
primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or
transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are
accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce,
or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; (2)
the term ''national of the United States'' has the meaning given such
term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and NationalityAct; (3)
the term ''person'' means any individual or entity capable of holding a
legal or beneficial interest in property; and (4) the term ''act of
war'' means any act occurring in the course of - (A) declared war; (B)
armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or
more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any
origin."
"Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries (a) Prohibited Acts.
- (1) Offenses. - Whoever, involving conduct transcending national
boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b) - (A)
kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily
injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United
States; or (B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to
any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or
other real or personal property within the United States or by
attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance,
or other real or personal property within the United States; in
violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be
punished as prescribed in subsection (c). (2) Treatment of threats,
attempts and conspiracies. - Whoever threatens to commit an offense
under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be
punished under subsection (c). (b) Jurisdictional Bases. - (1)
Circumstances. - The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are -
(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used
in furtherance of the offense; (B) the offense obstructs, delays, or
affects interstate or foreign commerce, or would have so obstructed,
delayed, or affected interstate or foreign commerce if the offense had
been consummated; (C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United
States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official,
officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial
branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States; (D) the
structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property is, in whole
or in part, owned, possessed, or leased to the United States, or any
department or agency of the United States; (E) the offense is committed
in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and
subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected
thereon) of the United States; or (F) the offense is committed within
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
(2) Co-conspirators and accessories after the fact. - Jurisdiction shall
exist over all principals and co-conspirators of an offense under this
section, and accessories after the fact to any offense under this
section, if at least one of the circumstances described in subparagraphs
(A) through (F) of paragraph (1) is applicable to at least one offender.
(c) Penalties. - (1) Penalties. - Whoever violates this section shall be
punished - (A) for a killing, or if death results to any person from any
other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by imprisonment
for any term of years or for life; (B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment
for any term of years or for life; (C) for maiming, by imprisonment for
not more than 35 years; (D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or
assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more
than 30 years; (E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance,
or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25
years; (F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any
term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had
the offense been completed; and (G) for threatening to commit an offense
under this section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years. (2)
Consecutive sentence. - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation
of this section; nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this
section run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment. (d) Proof
Requirements. - The following shall apply to prosecutions under this
section: (1) Knowledge. - The prosecution is not required to prove
knowledge by any defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the
indictment. (2) State law. - In a prosecution under this section that is
based upon the adoption of State law, only the elements of the offense
under State law, and not any provisions pertaining to criminal procedure
or evidence, are adopted. (e) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. - There is
extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction - (1) over any offense under
subsection (a), including any threat, attempt, or conspiracy to commit
such offense; and (2) over conduct which, under section 3, renders any
person an accessory after the fact to an offense under subsection (a).
(f) Investigative Authority. - In addition to any other investigative
authority with respect to violations of this title, the AttorneyGeneral
shall have primary investigative responsibility for all Federal crimes
of terrorism, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall assist the
Attorney General at the request of the Attorney General. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to interfere with theauthority of the United
States Secret Service under section 3056. (g) Definitions. - As used in
this section - (1) the term ''conduct transcending national boundaries''
means conduct occurring outside of the United States in addition to the
conduct occurring in the United States; (2) the term ''facility of
interstate or foreign commerce'' has the meaning given that term in
section 1958(b)(2); (3) the term ''serious bodily injury'' has the
meaning given that term in section 1365(g)(3); (4) the term
''territorial sea of the United States'' means all waters extending
seaward to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States,
determined in accordance with international law; and (5) the term
''Federal crime of terrorism'' means an offense that - (A) is calculated
to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or
coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a
violation of - (i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or
aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international
airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction), 175 (relating to biological weapons), 351 (relating to
congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and
assault), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating
to plastic explosives), 844(e) (relating to certain bombings), 844(f) or
(i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain property), 930(c), 956
(relating to conspiracy to injure property of a foreign government),
1114 (relating to protection of officers and employees of the United
States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials,
official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating
to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to injury of Government property or
contracts), 1362 relating to destruction of communication lines,
stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or
property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States), 1366 (relating to destruction of an energy facility),
1751 (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination,
kidnapping, and assault), 1992, 2152 (relating to injury of
fortifications, harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 (relating
to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities),
2156 (relating to production of defective national defense materials,
premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime
navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed
platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence
against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States),
2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating
to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2332c, [1] 2339A
(relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating
to providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A
(relating to torture); (ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear
facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284);
or (iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) or section 60123(b)
(relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline
facility) of title 49."
"War crimes (a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United
States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in
subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life
or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall
also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) Circumstances. - The
circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person
committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States
(as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). (c)
Definition. - As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any
conduct - (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international
conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such
convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by
Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV,
Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and
which deals with non-international armed conflict; or (4) of a person
who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of
the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines,
Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996
(Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a
party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to
civilians."
The American Taliban has conspired, committed acts as an accessory after
the fact, and provided material aid and support to acts of terrorism
transcending interntional boundaries by his acts of faith and allegiance
to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, war crimes against the civilians of
Afghanistan, and treson against the United States of America.
> If it's an act of war, as you say, then he's protected
>
An act of war by a civilian without the lawful sanction of a sovereign
is illegal and a felony. However, the current Geneva Convention affords
a very limited protection to "Members of the armed forces of a Party to
the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming
part of such armed forces." Nonetheless, this protection is very limited
with respect to the American Taliban. A courts-martial or military
commission is empowered by the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Code to
terminate his temporary status as a prisoner of war upon a judgement of
treason, terrorism, or war crimes. Such a judgement is extremely likely
in his case.
"1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer
corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
Party to the conflict an operating in or outside their own territory,
even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person
responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive
sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d)
That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess
allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the
Detaining Power."
The American Taliban is currently held by the U.S. armed forces as a
prisoner of war, pending his trial and judgement by a courts-martial or
military commission.
> After
> > surrendering at discretion, this person then participated in an armed
> > rebellion against his captors, American officers, and medics.
>
> Prove it, he seems to have been in a cellar somewhere hiding while his
> comrades were murdered.
>
The proof is self-evident. His presence in that cellar is direct
evidence of participation in the prisoner revolt.
> >His
> > participation in the prisoner revolt led to the deaths and wounding of
> > many people, including American military personnel. He is not entitled
> > to status as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.
>
> Yes he is. He openly carried arms and so is a combatant due protection.
>
He is being treated as a prisoner of war in compliance with the current
Geneva Convention, until a courts-martial or military commission ajudges
him guilty of acts of treason, terrorism, and/or war crimes which will
terminate his Geneva Convention privilege and initiate his qualification
as a convicted criminal. So, he is not entitled to status as a prisoner
of war under the Geneva Convention following his conviction as a
criminal.
> >He is a
> > citizen of the United States with a presumably valid U.S. passport. He
> > has violated so many laws carrying the death sentence or very long
> > felony punishments, it's not funny.
>
> No he didn't, and if he was in the Taliban before September 11 then he's
> certainly got no case to answer.
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> On time, on budget, or works;
> Pick any two from three
By his own admission, the American Taliabn enlisted with al-Qaeda, a
self-acknowledged international terrorist organization who has declared
war against the United States and committed grave acts of war upon the
United States resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. citizens and
members of the armed forcces and resulting in the destruction of
hundreds of millions of dollars of property. His conduct constituted
treason against the United states the same day and hour of his
enlistment with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, before the events of 11
September 2001. His continued allegiance to al-Qaeda and the Taliban
after the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 implicates him
as an accessory and material supporter of the crimes after the fact.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
D. Patterson
>
> Black's law dictionary definition of an enemy:
>
> 1. One who opposes or inflicts injury on another; an antagonist.
>
> Seems to apply to individuals only
>
> 2. An opposing military force.
>
> Does not seem to apply to an individual.
>
> 3. A state with which another state is at war.
>
> Hmm... The definition of enemy seems to favor a declaration of war.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Rusty Mullin
You are dead wrong. It has been repeatedly demonstrated in this
newsgroup that a lwaful state of war does not and never has required a
formal declaration of war. Read the posts for extracts of the relevant
constitutional, Federal, and international articles, statutes, Public
Laws, and international charters and treaties.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
John Lamont
after leaving the US, if that is the case he cannot be tried for
treason however he could possibly face justice at the hands of the
northern alliance. This is a case I believe where we are hurt by not
having declared war against the Taliban, if we haven't declared war
can we legally try him for treason? Only if he works directly towards
the harm or destruction of the US, which is a stretch. Personally I'd
hand him over to the Northern Alliance and tell them he's no longer a
citizen of ours.. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<3c1008dc...@ca.news.verio.net>...
D. Patterson
>
> I have heard that he actually renounced his US citizenship sometime
> after leaving the US, if that is the case he cannot be tried for
> treason however he could possibly face justice at the hands of the
> northern alliance. This is a case I believe where we are hurt by not
> having declared war against the Taliban, if we haven't declared war
> can we legally try him for treason? Only if he works directly towards
> the harm or destruction of the US, which is a stretch. Personally I'd
> hand him over to the Northern Alliance and tell them he's no longer a
> citizen of ours.. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
>
We are officially at war with the Taliban. The Taliban are
insurrectionists and not a sovereign against whom the U.S. Congress can
make a formal declaration of war. Such a formal procedure is reserved
for the formal procedure required between two sovereigns. The less
formal procedures of a Congressional resolution and a Presidentail
Proclamation were made on 14 September 2001 to recognize a state of war
between the United States versus al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and any other
parties harboring and supporting international terrorists and designated
terrorist organizations.
If the American Taliban is no longer a U.S. citizen, he can still be
prosecuted as a criminal for terrorism and war crimes.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
Mark J
> Northern Alliance? Should he have run out with his arms up yelling "I
> surrender".
>
> If he had done that, he would have been killed on the spot.
Well, other Taliban seemed to have no problem surrendering or
deserting. You're arguing here that he basically wasn't "voluntarily"
aiding an enemy. The coercion issue was raised in several of the WWII
treason cases. I think his obligation once he found out that the US
had attacked was to do whatever he could to extricate himself from
that situation. He may even have known the US was going to attack
given that the US and the Taliban postured for about a month before
the US entered the conflict.
Whether coercion would be a reasonable defense depends on the facts
and circumstances surrounding his military service, including whether
he had any desire to surrender at any point. I doubt he wanted to,
given his actions after he was captured. If he had wanted to leave,
he probably would have been eager to see Americans, and be cooperative
& thankful once he came into contact with them. That doesn't appear
to have been what happened, according to the latest reports.
> It appears that he is the only one left alive from his entire group.
> This in itself proves that his primary objective was to stay alive.
You assume that what is is what was intended to be. That isn't
necessarily so. His survival proves only that he is alive. The fact
that he is alive doesn't prove that he wanted to live, or even moreso
that it was his "primary" objective. He may just be lucky--or perhaps
even unlucky, if he had in fact wanted to die.
> And where are you going to get the two witnesses to testify against
> him, when everybody else is dead?
This is an evidentiary issue. If you recall my first post on the
subject, I indicated that this was the primary problem with a treason
prosecution. Whether the Taliban are an "enemy" for purposes of the
statute is also a complex question, but I think that if the witnesses
are found, and he is in fact charged with treason, a conviction is the
most likely outcome.
Mark
Sam Sloan
>sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<3c1008dc...@ca.news.verio.net>...
>>
>> And what exactly was he supposed to do when the US forces joined the
>> Northern Alliance? Should he have run out with his arms up yelling "I
>> surrender".
>>
>> If he had done that, he would have been killed on the spot.
>
>Well, other Taliban seemed to have no problem surrendering or
>deserting.
The Taliban who voluntarily surrendered were all Afghans who were
switching sides. The Arabs and other foreigners could not do so
because they knew that they were going to be killed immediately. Also,
many of the Afghans who deserted or surrendered were killed by the
Taliban while attempting to surrender. Even some of the women trying
to escape from the fighting were killed.
You will never have enough evidence even to charge Mr. Walker, much
less convict him, unless of course you can get a confession out of
him.
Sam Sloan
Rusty Mullin
I am not giving you legal advice.
You would have to pay me in silver dollars first.
Hi Dallas,
I have read every post in this discussion. I cannot be dead wrong, because I
was not making any declaratory statements. I was simply offering more
information to our discussion. The lexicography that lead to the
definitions within Black's come from judicial decisions, specialist legal
scholars, legal realism, and legal studies.
You cite no material other than a vague reference to look elsewhere. You
make a declaratory statement which seems to be at least somewhat angry. More
importantly you said, "that a lwaful state of war does not and never has
required a formal declaration of war." I was talking about the legal
definition of an enemy not the legal definition of war.
The reason being that to lawfully convict one of a crime, the prosecution
must prove every point of the law. I was pointing it out to prompt
discussion about whether or not Afghanistan is our enemy. The Northern
Alliance are not considered our enemy and they have been part of Afghanistan
all along. Also, numerous people have made reference to the fact that the
Taliban are not and never were recognized by much of the world as the legal
authorities in Afghanistan. I think it is fairly safe to say that we are not
at war with a state. It is also seems (although not decided) that the
Taliban are not considered a legal state. So I was prompting discussion
about whether or not the charge of treason will hold water due to the fact
that we are not engaged in hostilities with a state or at war with a state.
Kind Regards,
Rusty Mullin
William Black
M.J.Powell <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i4caE8AO...@pickmere.demon.co.uk...
Yep, like the CIA guy.
Openly carrying arms makes you a combatant. The rules got changed in 1948
or 49 to allow for people like the French Resistance
JCarew
"John Lamont" <mlem...@home.com> wrote in message:
>I have heard that he actually renounced his US citizenship sometime
>after leaving the US, if that is the case he cannot be tried for
>treason however he could possibly face justice at the hands of the
>northern alliance. This is a case I believe where we are hurt by not
>having declared war against the Taliban, if we haven't declared war
>can we legally try him for treason? Only if he works directly towards
>the harm or destruction of the US, which is a stretch. Personally I'd
>hand him over to the Northern Alliance and tell them he's no longer a
>citizen of ours.. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
Why not handle it the way the Crusaders handled there Muslim prisoners
if they wanted to get rid of them. They had the prisoner dig a grave they
then killed a couple of pigs next they had him sit on the edge of the grave
cut his head off or slit his throat and pushed him in.
Jim
Tom Klem
Clearly, Walker comes under that heading here.
Tom Klem
"Rusty Mullin" <rusty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u10jmij...@corp.supernews.com...
D. Patterson
That is a false statement. You wrote:
> > > Hmm... The definition of enemy seems to favor a declaration of war.
Your above statement is a conclusion, and an false one. Ballentine's Law
Dictionary, Third Edition says, "enemy...including the individuals and
corporations of a nation with which the country is at war...Reasonably,
a person engaged against the United States in a rebellion or a civil war
is an 'enemy.'"
> The lexicography that lead to the
> definitions within Black's come from judicial decisions, specialist legal
> scholars, legal realism, and legal studies.
Yes, but you did not provide a verbatim quote from Black's Law
Dictionary, and your interpretation of what Black's Law Dictionary had
to say is entirely faulty. Finally, any law case will be ruled upon the
basis of statutes, treaties, and case law in precedence to the law
dictionaries, which use customary case law for their definitions. In
other words, your interpretation of the legal definitions of 'enemy' are
incomplete, misinterpreted, and dead wrong as evidenced by Black's Law
Dictionary, Ballentine's Law Dictionary, and customary law.
> You cite no material other than a vague reference to look elsewhere.
You characterize my directions as a "vague reference." For my purposes
of brevity, it was necessary to summarize the comprehensive sources
which address your concerns about the definition of an 'enemy' and the
existance or not of a state of war against an enemy other than a
sovereign state. Reading each of the sources I broadly mentioned
contributes to an understanding of how the United States is actually in
a state of war against the terrorist organizations and the individual
terrorists. Since relevant exttracts from these specific documents have
been repeatedly posted in <soc.history.war.misc> over recent weeks, I
was not going to burden my response with yet another recapitulation of
those same sources.
> I was talking about the legal
> definition of an enemy not the legal definition of war.
On the contrary, your statement assumes a declaration of war against a
nation is required for the definition of an 'enemy' to apply to citizens
of a foreign nation. Beside your incorrect interpretation of the
definition for the word, 'enemy', your statement, "The definition of
enemy seems to favor a declaration of war" also implies an undeclared
war against private individuals engaged inan insurrection has no legally
defined 'enemy'. Customary practice, customary law, constitutional law,
law dictionaries, and a multitude of other legal authorities contradict
your statement. In addition to the previous quotes from Ballentine's Law
Dictionary, the U.S. Constitution says the U.S. Congress has the power
to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offences against the Law of Nations...[and] To make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof." The U.S. Congress has so defined the al-Qaeda and Taliban as
terrorists, terrorist organizations, and enemies in a state of war
against the United States of America in its war resolution on 14
September 2001. "That the President is authorized to use all necessary
and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons/HJ 64 ATH." Obviously, the U.S. Congress
specifically included individual persons as the enemies of the United
States against who the United states is in a state of war, "the
President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force."
> Taliban are not considered a legal state. So I was prompting discussion
> about whether or not the charge of treason will hold water due to the fact
> that we are not engaged in hostilities with a state or at war with a state.
"U.S. Code, Title 18 - Crimes and Punishments, Part I - Crimes, Chapter
115 - Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities, Sec. 2381. Treason.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this
title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any
office under the United States."
The U.S. Congress has authorized the U.S. President to designate the
al-Qaeda and Taliban as terrorist organizations, and the individual
members of those terrorists organizations are designated as terrorists
and enemies of the United States by authority of HJ 64 ATH and the U.S.
Constitution. Any U.S. citizen who "owing allegiance to the United
States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them
aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of
treason."
Consequently, any attempt to deny liability for treason on the basis of
a definition of 'enemy', a non-existance of a state of war, or the
absence of a solemn war evidenced by a public declaration of war is dead
wrong.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
Rusty Mullin
I am not giving you legal advice.
You would have to pay me in silver dollars first.
"D. Patterson" <n...@mail.fidalgo.net> wrote in message
seems. Any statement containing the word seems is not a conclusion. Ask an
English teacher.
Ballentine's Law
> Dictionary, Third Edition says, "enemy...including the individuals and
> corporations of a nation with which the country is at war...Reasonably,
> a person engaged against the United States in a rebellion or a civil war
> is an 'enemy.'"
Your later concern for verbatim quotes from legal dictionaries seems weak
since you do not quote Ballantine's verbatim.
>
> > The lexicography that lead to the
> > definitions within Black's come from judicial decisions, specialist
legal
> > scholars, legal realism, and legal studies.
>
> Yes, but you did not provide a verbatim quote from Black's Law
While I abbreviated the definitons, the words I quoted from Black's are
verbatim. I started at the beginning of the definitions and only abbreviated
at the ends. I did not leave out anything pertinet. Your quote however,
appears to start somewhere besides the beginning and then it skips portions
of the definition before you finish.
> Dictionary, and your interpretation of what Black's Law Dictionary had
> to say is entirely faulty.
Here you go with absolutes again. Why do you insist on declaring me wrong
when all I was doing was providing a differing point of view for discussion?
Had I said, "This is not treason, period." I would understand a claim of my
inaccuracy whether I agreed with it or not, but I made no decalarations.
Finally, any law case will be ruled upon the
> basis of statutes, treaties, and case law in precedence to the law
> dictionaries, which use customary case law for their definitions.
That seems pretty cyclical to me. You are discounting the importance of the
legal dictionary by saying that, "statutes, treaties, and case law" will
take precedence over the legal dictionaires. Yet, these source are where
the definitons within legal dictionaires come from. Also, why quote another
legal dictionary to prove me wrong if they do have much validity in your
opinion?
In
> other words, your interpretation of the legal definitions of 'enemy' are
> incomplete, misinterpreted, and dead wrong as evidenced by Black's Law
> Dictionary,
You like absolutes, huh?
Ballentine's Law Dictionary, and customary law.
>
> > You cite no material other than a vague reference to look elsewhere.
>
> You characterize my directions as a "vague reference." For my purposes
> of brevity, it was necessary to summarize the comprehensive sources
> which address your concerns about the definition of an 'enemy' and the
> existance or not of a state of war against an enemy other than a
> sovereign state. Reading each of the sources I broadly mentioned
> contributes to an understanding of how the United States is actually in
> a state of war against the terrorist organizations and the individual
> terrorists. Since relevant exttracts from these specific documents have
> been repeatedly posted in <soc.history.war.misc> over
My original post was not placed in that newsgroup as I am not subscribed to
it. So maybe your statement that, "It has been repeatedly demonstrated in
this newsgroup..." was not referring to the newsgroup in which I have been
participating. So from my point of view, that would make it a vague
reference.
recent weeks, I
> was not going to burden my response with yet another recapitulation of
> those same sources.
>
> > I was talking about the legal
> > definition of an enemy not the legal definition of war.
>
> On the contrary, your statement assumes a declaration of war against a
> nation is required for the definition of an 'enemy' to apply to citizens
> of a foreign nation.
I see your point. That statement did assume a declaration of war was
necessary. I agree that assumption does not hold water. What seemed
necessary was that we be at war with a state, regardless of how we got there
(declaration or other legal method filling the bill for war).
Beside your incorrect interpretation of the
> definition for the word, 'enemy', your statement, "The definition of
> enemy seems to favor a declaration of war" also implies an undeclared
> war against private individuals engaged inan insurrection has no legally
> defined 'enemy'.
Insurrections come from within, usually against an oppressive governemnt, do
they not? It seems that the insurrectionists in this case are the NA rising
up against the Taliban.
There you go with another absolutist staement. I feel they stifle
discussion. Do you honestly believe in this quagmire which has prompted so
much discussion between so many people that there is no possibility that any
of these arguments may prove to have merit? Myself, I am open to the
possibility either way. I am simply engaging in a debate to gain knowledge.
Kind Regards,
Rusty Mullin
> Dallas Patterson
> n...@fidalgo.net
ofergneezy
> Why not handle it the way the Crusaders handled there Muslim prisoners
> if they wanted to get rid of them. They had the prisoner dig a grave they
> then killed a couple of pigs next they had him sit on the edge of the grave
> cut his head off or slit his throat and pushed him in.
An excellent suggestion for bin Laden's fate. I shall forward it to my pal Dubya.
Mark J
> --
> I am not giving you legal advice.
> You would have to pay me in silver dollars first.
> "D. Patterson" <n...@mail.fidalgo.net> wrote in message
> news:3C105239...@mail.fidalgo.net...
> > Rusty Mullin wrote:
> > >
> > > Black's law dictionary definition of an enemy:
> > >
> > > 1. One who opposes or inflicts injury on another; an antagonist.
> > >
> > > Seems to apply to individuals only
> > >
> > > 2. An opposing military force.
> > >
> > > Does not seem to apply to an individual.
> > >
> > > 3. A state with which another state is at war.
> > >
> > > Hmm... The definition of enemy seems to favor a declaration of war.
This isn't the definition of "enemy" in sec. 2381. In order to truly
understand what "enemy" means in this statute, you're going to have to
do some serious historical research, because the relevant statutory
language is borrowed from the Constitution, which itself borrowed it
from a 14th Century English statute. This means that you have to
first figure out how English courts interpreted the Statute of Treason
between 1352 and 1789, then figure out how American colonial courts
dealt with treason pre-1789. Next you'll have to look to see what the
leading English law commentators of the 17th and 18th Century had to
say about treason. Then check to see if the framers of the
Constitution have anything to say about this. Finally, look to see
how American courts have interpreted it since 1789.
This is a massive amount of work. When I posted before on this I just
cut to the chase and tried to see what Federal courts have said, and
the answer is not much. The definition I gave was a paraphase of the
definition of enemy presented to a jury in In re Greathouse, 26 F.
Cas. 18, 22 (C.C.Cal 1863), by Justice Field acting as Circuit
Justice. Here's the full quote, in which he's explaining why "the
aiding and comforting an enemy" part of the treason statute was not
relevant in the prosecution of Confederates:
"The term 'enemies,' as used in the second clause, according to its
settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies
only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility
with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own
government. An enemy is always the subject of a foreign power who owes
no allegiance to our government or country."
The million dollar question here is whether Field is right about
whether this is the "settled meaning at the time the constitution was
adopted."
> > You are dead wrong. It has been repeatedly demonstrated in this
> > newsgroup that a lwaful state of war does not and never has required a
> > formal declaration of war. Read the posts for extracts of the relevant
> > constitutional, Federal, and international articles, statutes, Public
> > Laws, and international charters and treaties.
> >
> > Dallas Patterson
> > n...@fidalgo.net
>
> Hi Dallas,
>
> I have read every post in this discussion. I cannot be dead wrong, because I
> was not making any declaratory statements. I was simply offering more
> information to our discussion. The lexicography that lead to the
> definitions within Black's come from judicial decisions, specialist legal
> scholars, legal realism, and legal studies.
Yes, but when interpreting a statute, black's is interesting, but not
so influential. What is important is not what a word means now, but
what a word meant to the people who enacted the law. When judges who
are fixated on dictionaries interpret the Constitution, as we
basically need to do here, then we would need a dictionary from the
18th century to figure out what enemy meant generally, and the
analysis above to see if the word had any specially connotations in
the treason statute.
> I was pointing it out to prompt
> discussion about whether or not Afghanistan is our enemy. The Northern
> Alliance are not considered our enemy and they have been part of Afghanistan
> all along. Also, numerous people have made reference to the fact that the
> Taliban are not and never were recognized by much of the world as the legal
> authorities in Afghanistan. I think it is fairly safe to say that we are not
> at war with a state. It is also seems (although not decided) that the
> Taliban are not considered a legal state. So I was prompting discussion
> about whether or not the charge of treason will hold water due to the fact
> that we are not engaged in hostilities with a state or at war with a state.
There doesn't seem to be any reason to limit "enemy" to legitimate
foreign governments. The constitution will not be read to allow
citizens to go fight on behalf of illegitimate governments against the
United States. That's nonsense. We are in a state open hostility
with the Taliban, a group that claims to be the rightful government of
Afghanistan. Legitimate or not, they are a foreign power. We can be
at war with entities that we don't consider to be legitimate states.
Mark
JCarew
>"JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote in message:
>>Why not handle it the way the Crusaders handled there Muslim
>>prisoners if they wanted to get rid of them. They had the prisoner
>>dig a grave they then killed a couple of pigs next they had him
>>sit on the edge of the grave cut his head off or slit his throat and
>>pushed him in.
>
>An excellent suggestion for bin Laden's fate. I shall forward
>it to my pal Dubya.
Know problem be my guest! From what I,v been told
it really activates there bowels(they shit all over
themselves) something about not being able to enter
there heaven because of being in contact with the pigs.
Its also so I,m told a good way to get information
from a Muslim prisoner before you cut there throats.
Have fun
Mark J
> On 7 Dec 2001 07:15:49 -0800, iceb...@my-deja.com (Mark J) wrote:
>
> >sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<3c1008dc...@ca.news.verio.net>...
> >>
> >> And what exactly was he supposed to do when the US forces joined the
> >> Northern Alliance? Should he have run out with his arms up yelling "I
> >> surrender".
> >>
> >> If he had done that, he would have been killed on the spot.
> >
> >Well, other Taliban seemed to have no problem surrendering or
> >deserting.
>
> The Taliban who voluntarily surrendered were all Afghans who were
> switching sides. The Arabs and other foreigners could not do so
> because they knew that they were going to be killed immediately. Also,
That didn't happen at Kunduz, though. Did they go kill all
non-afghans immediately? I know they mistreated the non-afghan
prisoners, but they didn't execute them all on the spot. In some
cases they held non-afghans for the CIA to look at, didn't they?
Since he didn't try to escape, we don't know what would have happened
if the Northern Alliance found him and he said "I'm an American
citizen, take me to the Americans!" For all we know, they might
actually be grateful that the Americans are helping them and they
might have taken him to the local American advisor.
>
> You will never have enough evidence even to charge Mr. Walker, much
> less convict him, unless of course you can get a confession out of
> him.
The evidentiary issue is separate from the voluntariness issue. We
don't know what evidence they can gather about Lindh's actions. We
don't need Taliban to prove he fought the Northern Alliance. Northern
Alliance members may have witnessed him fighting against them. And,
as you've said, he might confess.
Mark
Mark J
> > many people, including American military personnel. He is not entitled
> > to status as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.
>
> Yes he is. He openly carried arms and so is a combatant due protection.
Assume that Lindh is a US Citizen. If so, at the very least he
appears to have violated the Neutrality Act. Does the Geneva
Convention apply if you catch one of your own citizens on the other
side? I thought the GC only applied to treatment of foreign
citizens. If Lindh did brake some law of his country, does that
change the result?
>
> >He is a
> > citizen of the United States with a presumably valid U.S. passport. He
> > has violated so many laws carrying the death sentence or very long
> > felony punishments, it's not funny.
>
> No he didn't, and if he was in the Taliban before September 11 then he's
> certainly got no case to answer.
Some WWII treason cases dealt with the issue of persons who in Japan
and Germany when the war broke out. Basically, the fact that you were
there before doesn't matter if you voluntarily committed treasonous
acts after.
Mark
Rancy Snyder
> actively aiding and abetting an enemy to make war against the U.S.
>
> The Taliban was clearly our "enemy," since we're attacking them. The
> Constitution does not require that the "enemy" be a foreign GOVERNMENT.
> (Back then, pirates were a major threat, just as international
> terrorists are today.)
>
> And so the remaining question is whether this American guy, Walker,
> aided them in their combat against the U.S.
> When they found Walker, he was carrying an AK-47. If witnesses can be
> found that will testify that he SHOT AT U.S. soldiers with that rifle,
> then he's guilty of treason.
>
>
> --
"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C0FAF7F...@earthlink.net...
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
>
> 9-11.
> Answer the call!
Mike Spann, the cia agent tried to interrogate Walker. All of the news
reporters and talking heads seem to have missed an important point. The
other prisoners knew he spoke English. He was being asked questions in
English and not Arabic. Thus if he had responded to Mike Spann, the other
prisoners would no longer have trusted him. The other prisoners were close
enough, maybe 200 feet away, to hear Walker if he had spoken in English or
to see if Walker was talking to Spann. If Walker had talked, he would have
been killed by his fellow prisoners the first chance they got. Why didn't
Spann and the CIA take Walker or other prisoners into a tent or private
place where they could have talked freely without their fellow prisoners
knowing about it? Notice that when Walker was interviewed after being
wounded, and his fellow prisoners were also wounded and dyeing around
him, he was then free to talk and did so and said he was an American.
Sam Sloan
<ra...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Mike Spann, the cia agent tried to interrogate Walker. All of the news
>reporters and talking heads seem to have missed an important point. The
>other prisoners knew he spoke English. He was being asked questions in
>English and not Arabic. Thus if he had responded to Mike Spann, the other
>prisoners would no longer have trusted him. The other prisoners were close
>enough, maybe 200 feet away, to hear Walker if he had spoken in English or
>to see if Walker was talking to Spann. If Walker had talked, he would have
>been killed by his fellow prisoners the first chance they got. Why didn't
>Spann and the CIA take Walker or other prisoners into a tent or private
>place where they could have talked freely without their fellow prisoners
>knowing about it? Notice that when Walker was interviewed after being
>wounded, and his fellow prisoners were also wounded and dyeing around
>him, he was then free to talk and did so and said he was an American.
This is a very good and very important point. And, after he crawled
out of the hole beneath the fort, apparently one of the first things
he said was, "I am American."
Sam Sloan
JCarew
>Mike Spann, the cia agent tried to interrogate Walker. All of the news
>reporters and talking heads seem to have missed an important point. The
>other prisoners knew he spoke English. He was being asked questions in
>English and not Arabic. Thus if he had responded to Mike Spann, the other
>prisoners would no longer have trusted him. The other prisoners were close
>enough, maybe 200 feet away, to hear Walker if he had spoken in English or
>to see if Walker was talking to Spann. If Walker had talked, he would have
>been killed by his fellow prisoners the first chance they got. Why didn't
>Spann and the CIA take Walker or other prisoners into a tent or private
>place where they could have talked freely without their fellow prisoners
>knowing about it? Notice that when Walker was interviewed after being
>wounded, and his fellow prisoners were also wounded and dyeing around
>him, he was then free to talk and did so and said he was an American.
Then there is also the possibility that Walker was an American agent
sent by the US to work among the Taliban and they were giving him a
cover story for "bring him in" Doing it "on camera" as they did puts
it out there for the whole Arab world to see which makes it just that
much more plausible, if this be the case the whole thing will probably
just fade away to nothing as it seems to be doing.
Jim
Paul Onstad
> Some WWII treason cases dealt with the issue of persons who in Japan
> and Germany when the war broke out. Basically, the fact that you were
> there before doesn't matter if you voluntarily committed treasonous
> acts after.
What if you'd gone to Columbia to collect butterflies? You'd been there
three years and had made some friends. They were leftists but not active
guerillas yet they (and you) carried guns for self-defense (against
para-militaries). This particular day you were nearby some actual guerillas
and a gun battle broke out. You knew the U.S. opposed the guerillas but you
did not know some members in today's force included U.S. troops.
It was a "police action."
The guerilla group was subdued and you were captured and turned over to your
countrymen...
-Paul
Sam Sloan
wrote:
One important point which I know from having been a prisoner myself is
that talking to the prison guards especially under circumstances where
the other prisoners cannot hear your words will get you killed in
prison. The other prisoners will decide that you are a snitch and kill
you.
If walker had spoken to the two CIA agents in English which the other
prisoners did not understand that would almost certainly have gotten
him killed and he certainly must have known that.
Sam Sloan
ofergneezy
> Then there is also the possibility that Walker was an American agent
> sent by the US to work among the Taliban and they were giving him a
> cover story for "bring him in" Doing it "on camera" as they did puts
> it out there for the whole Arab world to see which makes it just that
> much more plausible, if this be the case the whole thing will probably
> just fade away to nothing as it seems to be doing.
>
> Jim
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. NOT!
What you're suggesting then is that the CIA recruited him as a
15-year-old kid a few years ago, got him to pretend to convert to
Islam, sent him over to Afghanistan several months before we had any
idea that we would be involved in such a mess, and now is letting him
take the heat as a national traitor just to keep his cover up.
I haven't heard anything this ridiculous since Bill Clinton's denials.
They certainly wouldn't send some rank amateur to a place where he'd
be found out in a New York minute.
Get a grip on reality. This kid is nothing but a weasely traitor who
deserves to be executed by hanging. With piano wire.
Mark J
There's no intent to aid the rebels here, and no aid to the rebels
either. But I don't think Mr. Walker Lindh was in Afghanistan to
smell the poppies.
JCarew
Who said anything about the CIA?
William Black
> Get a grip on reality. This kid is nothing but a weasely traitor who
> deserves to be executed by hanging. With piano wire.
Well apart from your desire to commit what must be an unconstitutional cruel
and unusual punishment on the guy, who's to say he's a traitor.
If he started as a Taliban (yes I do know what it means, and I can see the
courts having some fun with that one as well) before September 11 then he
was already in and shooting and no real way out.
Then there's the definition of treason.
Then there's shooting at US forces.
And, of course, then there's the exact status of the CIA man who got killed.
As he's a spy he's a legitimate target.
William Black
Mark J <iceb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ba107a46.01120...@posting.google.com...
> But I don't think Mr. Walker Lindh was in Afghanistan to
> smell the poppies.
I'm inclined to agree, but watching a federal prosecutor convincing a jury
going to be entertaining.
JCarew
>>Get a grip on reality. This kid is nothing but a weasely traitor who
>>deserves to be executed by hanging. With piano wire.
>
>Well apart from your desire to commit what must be an
>unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment on the guy,
>who's to say he's a traitor.
>If he started as a Taliban (yes I do know what it means,
>and I can see the courts having some fun with that one as well)
>before September 11 then he was already in and shooting and
>no real way out.
>Then there's the definition of treason.
>Then there's shooting at US forces.
>And, of course, then there's the exact status of the
>CIA man who got killed. As he's a spy he's a
>legitimate target.
Just a little point here, and I,m not a US Constitution legal
expert, this morn they had a bit about John Walker
on "This Week" that showed a part of the Constitution
that says in order to be convicted of treason your act of
treason has to be witnessed by two persons. Question
be this true, and if so *who* are the witness to the
treason of John Walker?
Jim
William Shapiro
any NA troops who captured him, CIA agents who may have seen him, any Afghan
civilians, or U.S. troops can be witnesses. Just have to have 2. However, he
likely has a defense of duress. Duress, however, is a limited defense and I
do not know whether it covers Treason.
2) Art. 3 Section 3, Clause 1, defining treason in the U.S. Constitution,
can be read that the U.S. does not need to be at war with the opposing side,
only that they are at war with the U.S..
3) Hanging is still legal under the 8th Amendment. Actually, it always was.
Bill
"JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:5qMQ7.4803$sp3.23...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
JCarew
"William Shapiro" <we...@earthlink.net> wrote in message:
>1) Anyone can be a witness against this guy who actually saw him
>there. So any NA troops who captured him, CIA agents who may
>have seen him, any Afghan civilians, or U.S. troops can be witnesses.
>Just have to have 2.
Which doesn't answer my question which was "Who are the witnesses
to the treason of John Walker" Was it a CIA agent, an Afghan civilian,
NA troops etc. ? Or to put it another way it would *appear" that
know one has come forward who has seen John Walker commit
and act of treason against the United States. Or is he just guilty
by association?
Jim
>However, he likely has a defense of duress. Duress, however, is
>a limited defense and I do not know whether it covers Treason.
>2) Art. 3 Section 3, Clause 1, defining treason in the U.S.
>Constitution, can be read that the U.S. does not need to be
>at war with the opposing side, only that they are at war with
>the U.S..
> 3) Hanging is still legal under the 8th Amendment. Actually, it
>always was.
> "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
George Z. Bush
>
> "William Shapiro" <we...@earthlink.net> wrote in message:
>
> >1) Anyone can be a witness against this guy who actually
saw him
> >there. So any NA troops who captured him, CIA agents who
may
> >have seen him, any Afghan civilians, or U.S. troops can
be witnesses.
> >Just have to have 2.
>
> Which doesn't answer my question which was "Who are the
witnesses
> to the treason of John Walker" Was it a CIA agent, an
Afghan civilian,
> NA troops etc. ? Or to put it another way it would
*appear" that
> know one has come forward who has seen John Walker commit
> and act of treason against the United States. Or is he
just guilty
> by association?
Seems to me that it doesn't take too much to conclude that
being in possession of an AK47 at the time of his wounding
and subsequent capture reasonably infers that the weapon was
provided to him for use against the enemies of the group
furnishing the weapon, ie.- Al Qaeda and/or Taliban. Since
we seem to be at war with both those groups, the testimony
of any two people who observed this when he was loaded on a
stretcher and moved to a first aid station would be more
than sufficient.
But then, I am not a lawyer. Inevitably, some lawyer
somewhere will surface and try to sell the proposition that
the weapon in his possession was merely a "show and tell"
for his next lesson for the BSA (Boy Scouts of Afghanistan).
<G>
George Z.
Christopher Green
[snip]
> Seems to me that it doesn't take too much to conclude that
> being in possession of an AK47 at the time of his wounding
> and subsequent capture reasonably infers that the weapon was
> provided to him for use against the enemies of the group
> furnishing the weapon, ie.- Al Qaeda and/or Taliban. Since
> we seem to be at war with both those groups, the testimony
> of any two people who observed this when he was loaded on a
> stretcher and moved to a first aid station would be more
> than sufficient.
>
> But then, I am not a lawyer. Inevitably, some lawyer
> somewhere will surface and try to sell the proposition that
> the weapon in his possession was merely a "show and tell"
> for his next lesson for the BSA (Boy Scouts of Afghanistan).
> <G>
>
> George Z.
Treason requires two witnesses who will swear to the defendant having
committed a treasonable "act". So it would turn on whether JWL's
merely having been found in the company of Taliban militia and in
possession of a weapon could be construed to be something more than
just circumstantial evidence of a treasonable act.
Past treason trials have degenerated into hairsplitting over what is
or is not an act and whether or not that act was treason. Cramer's
WWII conviction for treason was overturned by the Supremes because no
two witnesses saw him do anything more "treasonable" than have a long
conversation on matters unknown with German saboteurs, and nothing
else that tied him to the saboteurs could be construed as an "act".
I'm sure they'll find something that JWL is guilty of, beyond being a
dupe and a fool, but we'll just have to wait to see what.
--
Chris Green
JCarew
>"George Z. wrote
>[snip]
>>Seems to me that it doesn't take too much to conclude that
>>being in possession of an AK47 at the time of his wounding
>>and subsequent capture reasonably infers that the weapon was
>>provided to him for use against the enemies of the group
>>furnishing the weapon, ie.- Al Qaeda and/or Taliban. Since
>>we seem to be at war with both those groups, the testimony
>>of any two people who observed this when he was loaded on a
>>stretcher and moved to a first aid station would be more
>>than sufficient.
>>But then, I am not a lawyer. Inevitably, some lawyer
>>somewhere will surface and try to sell the proposition that
>>the weapon in his possession was merely a "show and tell"
>>for his next lesson for the BSA (Boy Scouts of Afghanistan).
> > <G>
>>George Z.
>Treason requires two witnesses who will swear to the defendant having
>committed a treasonable "act". So it would turn on whether JWL's
>merely having been found in the company of Taliban militia and in
>possession of a weapon could be construed to be something more than
> just circumstantial evidence of a treasonable act.
If I might add a lot would depend on if the AK47 had been fired
or not
>Past treason trials have degenerated into hairsplitting over what is
>or is not an act and whether or not that act was treason. Cramer's
>WWII conviction for treason was overturned by the Supremes because no
>two witnesses saw him do anything more "treasonable" than have a long
>conversation on matters unknown with German saboteurs, and nothing
>else that tied him to the saboteurs could be construed as an "act".
>I'm sure they'll find something that JWL is guilty of, beyond being a
>dupe and a fool, but we'll just have to wait to see what.
Jim
Rich Wales
> > I thought I read somewhere once that serving in a foreign
> > military is a revocation of citizenship. It had something
> > to with taking an oath to a foreign country.
Christopher Green replied:
> Serving in a foreign military doesn't result in revocation of
> citizenship unless it is done with overt intent to relinquish
> citizenship.
At one time, a whole laundry list of actions by a US citizen would
have resulted in automatic loss of US citizenship. However, a series
of Supreme Court rulings pared down this list and added restrictions
which, for practical purposes, now mean that loss of US citizenship
almost always requires specific =intent= to give it up. The key court
rulings are summarized in: http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
Regarding treason in particular, the Supreme Court ruled back in 1952
that intimate involvement with a foreign enemy -- even claiming citi-
zenship in an enemy country -- did =not= necessarily mean loss of US
citizenship and resulting immunity from treason charges. Kawakita v.
U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Kawakita).
Rich Wales ri...@richw.org http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.
lvaughn
<n...@mail.fidalgo.net> wrote:
>William Black wrote:
>>
>> D. Patterson <n...@mail.fidalgo.net> wrote in message
>> news:3C0EE3D9...@mail.fidalgo.net...
>>
>> > Sam, where in the world did you ever get a fool idea like that? This
>> > person was taken prisoner while serving as an illegal mercenary or
>> > volunteer for a non-sovereign criminal organization committing acts of
>> > war against sovereign nations and war crimes in a civil war.
>>
>> He's not a mercenary, and the Taliban wasn't criminal, and what exactly
>> makes his act any more criminal than the US pilots flying in the Battle of
>> Britian in 1940?
>>
>
>It would be interesting to see you prove he is not a mercenary. He is a
>U.S. citizen in the armed force of an non-sovereign and insurrectionist
>organization waging war upon the lawful goveernment of the state and
>upon other sovereign states. Whether or not he can be ajudged a
>mercenary, he is an illegal foreign volunteer in an illegal
>insurrection.
>
>The Taliban and al-Qaeda are criminal organizations by pronouncement of
>the United Nations, the United States, and other sovereign member states
>of the United Nations.
>
>The U.S. citizens who swore allegiance to other sovereign states while
>serving as members of these foreign armed services during a specific
>period of World War Two forfeited their U.S. citizenship. It required a
>special act of the U.S. Congress to enact a Public Law which permitted
>these former U.S. citizens to reclaim their lost U.S. citizenship by
>completing a specialized procedure for naturaalization. Such an
>opportunity to naturalize was prohibited to those individuals who served
>in armed forces hostile to the United States.
>
>The American Taliban is a U.S. citizen who voluntarily enlisted and gave
>his allegiance to al-Qaeda, who trained him in terrorism. He
>subsequently served with al-Qaeda contingents in the Taliban armed
>forces. Al-Qaeda declared war against the United States in 1996 and
>again in 1998. He joined al-Qaeda and the Taliban sppecifically because
>they were at war with the United States and its non-Islamic government
>and society. This is evidenced by his approval of the attack upon the
>U.S.S. Cole and the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. His
>subsequent training as a terrorist, acts of war and terrorism against
>the civilian populace of Afghanistan, acts of war and terrorism against
>the civilian populace and government of India, material support of
>terrorists and terrorist organizations by voluntary service in their
>armed forces evidences his criminal conduct of treason and terrorism.
>
>"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
>or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
>United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
>or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this
>title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any
>office under the United States."
>
Exactly, many don't factor in the prior attacks on US Forces and
Embaseys or the declaration of war by Al Queda. Or the fact that under
the Clinton administration, a state of war existed when Clinton
ordered reprisal attacks against Al Queda bases in Afghanistan prior
to John Walkers enlistment into the Al Queda band of brigands.
There are those among the civil libertarians in the US gearing up for
a defense not unlike that of O.J. Simpson, and if they succeed it may
not be all bad. The OJ trial disgusted so many people so bad, it
moved many of them away from the liberal extremist agenda. If this
person has done what has been outlined in the media, he is in fact a
traitor, and any prevented trial defense that exonerates him on the
basis of perceived technicalities in the law, will engendered a much
larger and long lasting revulsion of the American people of extremes
and misuse of the law practiced by many.
My opinion is if he has done what I have heard through the media he
should be Shot, so as to set a clear example to those future
malcontents, that may be over horizon.
I wonder if some precedence could be found on Treason, in Civil War
cases?
PS your post was excellent!
>"(1) the term ''international terrorism'' means activities that - (A)
>involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a
>violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or
>that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction
>of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to
>intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy
>of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the
>conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and (C) occur
>primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or
>transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are
>accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce,
>or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; (2)
>the term ''national of the United States'' has the meaning given such
>term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and NationalityAct; (3)
>the term ''person'' means any individual or entity capable of holding a
>legal or beneficial interest in property; and (4) the term ''act of
>war'' means any act occurring in the course of - (A) declared war; (B)
>armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or
>more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any
>origin."
>
>"Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries (a) Prohibited Acts.
>- (1) Offenses. - Whoever, involving conduct transcending national
>boundaries and in a circumstance described in subsection (b) - (A)
>kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily
>injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United
>States; or (B) creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to
>any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or
>other real or personal property within the United States or by
>attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance,
>or other real or personal property within the United States; in
>violation of the laws of any State, or the United States, shall be
>punished as prescribed in subsection (c). (2) Treatment of threats,
>attempts and conspiracies. - Whoever threatens to commit an offense
>under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be
>punished under subsection (c). (b) Jurisdictional Bases. - (1)
>Circumstances. - The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are -
>(A) the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used
>in furtherance of the offense; (B) the offense obstructs, delays, or
>affects interstate or foreign commerce, or would have so obstructed,
>delayed, or affected interstate or foreign commerce if the offense had
>been consummated; (C) the victim, or intended victim, is the United
>States Government, a member of the uniformed services, or any official,
>officer, employee, or agent of the legislative, executive, or judicial
>branches, or of any department or agency, of the United States; (D) the
>structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property is, in whole
>or in part, owned, possessed, or leased to the United States, or any
>department or agency of the United States; (E) the offense is committed
>in the territorial sea (including the airspace above and the seabed and
>subsoil below, and artificial islands and fixed structures erected
>thereon) of the United States; or (F) the offense is committed within
>the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
>(2) Co-conspirators and accessories after the fact. - Jurisdiction shall
>exist over all principals and co-conspirators of an offense under this
>section, and accessories after the fact to any offense under this
>section, if at least one of the circumstances described in subparagraphs
>(A) through (F) of paragraph (1) is applicable to at least one offender.
>(c) Penalties. - (1) Penalties. - Whoever violates this section shall be
>punished - (A) for a killing, or if death results to any person from any
>other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by imprisonment
>for any term of years or for life; (B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment
>for any term of years or for life; (C) for maiming, by imprisonment for
>not more than 35 years; (D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or
>assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more
>than 30 years; (E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance,
>or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25
>years; (F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any
>term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had
>the offense been completed; and (G) for threatening to commit an offense
>under this section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years. (2)
>Consecutive sentence. - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
>court shall not place on probation any person convicted of a violation
>of this section; nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this
>section run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment. (d) Proof
>Requirements. - The following shall apply to prosecutions under this
>section: (1) Knowledge. - The prosecution is not required to prove
>knowledge by any defendant of a jurisdictional base alleged in the
>indictment. (2) State law. - In a prosecution under this section that is
>based upon the adoption of State law, only the elements of the offense
>under State law, and not any provisions pertaining to criminal procedure
>or evidence, are adopted. (e) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. - There is
>extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction - (1) over any offense under
>subsection (a), including any threat, attempt, or conspiracy to commit
>such offense; and (2) over conduct which, under section 3, renders any
>person an accessory after the fact to an offense under subsection (a).
>(f) Investigative Authority. - In addition to any other investigative
>authority with respect to violations of this title, the AttorneyGeneral
>shall have primary investigative responsibility for all Federal crimes
>of terrorism, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall assist the
>Attorney General at the request of the Attorney General. Nothing in this
>section shall be construed to interfere with theauthority of the United
>States Secret Service under section 3056. (g) Definitions. - As used in
>this section - (1) the term ''conduct transcending national boundaries''
>means conduct occurring outside of the United States in addition to the
>conduct occurring in the United States; (2) the term ''facility of
>interstate or foreign commerce'' has the meaning given that term in
>section 1958(b)(2); (3) the term ''serious bodily injury'' has the
>meaning given that term in section 1365(g)(3); (4) the term
>''territorial sea of the United States'' means all waters extending
>seaward to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States,
>determined in accordance with international law; and (5) the term
>''Federal crime of terrorism'' means an offense that - (A) is calculated
>to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or
>coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a
>violation of - (i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or
>aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international
>airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial
>jurisdiction), 175 (relating to biological weapons), 351 (relating to
>congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and
>assault), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 842(m) or (n) (relating
>to plastic explosives), 844(e) (relating to certain bombings), 844(f) or
>(i) (relating to arson and bombing of certain property), 930(c), 956
>(relating to conspiracy to injure property of a foreign government),
>1114 (relating to protection of officers and employees of the United
>States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials,
>official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating
>to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to injury of Government property or
>contracts), 1362 relating to destruction of communication lines,
>stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or
>property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
>United States), 1366 (relating to destruction of an energy facility),
>1751 (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination,
>kidnapping, and assault), 1992, 2152 (relating to injury of
>fortifications, harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas), 2155 (relating
>to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities),
>2156 (relating to production of defective national defense materials,
>premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime
>navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed
>platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence
>against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States),
>2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating
>to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2332c, [1] 2339A
>(relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating
>to providing material support to terrorist organizations), or 2340A
>(relating to torture); (ii) section 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear
>facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284);
>or (iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) or section 60123(b)
>(relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline
>facility) of title 49."
>
>"War crimes (a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United
>States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in
>subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life
>or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall
>also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) Circumstances. - The
>circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person
>committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of
>the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States
>(as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). (c)
>Definition. - As used in this section the term ''war crime'' means any
>conduct - (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international
>conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such
>convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by
>Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV,
>Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
>(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
>international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
>protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and
>which deals with non-international armed conflict; or (4) of a person
>who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of
>the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines,
>Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996
>(Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a
>party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to
>civilians."
>
>The American Taliban has conspired, committed acts as an accessory after
>the fact, and provided material aid and support to acts of terrorism
>transcending interntional boundaries by his acts of faith and allegiance
>to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, war crimes against the civilians of
>Afghanistan, and treson against the United States of America.
>
>> If it's an act of war, as you say, then he's protected
>>
>
>An act of war by a civilian without the lawful sanction of a sovereign
>is illegal and a felony. However, the current Geneva Convention affords
>a very limited protection to "Members of the armed forces of a Party to
>the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming
>part of such armed forces." Nonetheless, this protection is very limited
>with respect to the American Taliban. A courts-martial or military
>commission is empowered by the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Code to
>terminate his temporary status as a prisoner of war upon a judgement of
>treason, terrorism, or war crimes. Such a judgement is extremely likely
>in his case.
>
>"1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as
>members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed
>forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer
>corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
>Party to the conflict an operating in or outside their own territory,
>even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or
>volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil
>the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person
>responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive
>sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d)
>That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and
>customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess
>allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the
>Detaining Power."
>
>The American Taliban is currently held by the U.S. armed forces as a
>prisoner of war, pending his trial and judgement by a courts-martial or
>military commission.
>
>> After
>> > surrendering at discretion, this person then participated in an armed
>> > rebellion against his captors, American officers, and medics.
>>
>> Prove it, he seems to have been in a cellar somewhere hiding while his
>> comrades were murdered.
>>
>
>The proof is self-evident. His presence in that cellar is direct
>evidence of participation in the prisoner revolt.
>
>> >His
>> > participation in the prisoner revolt led to the deaths and wounding of
>> > many people, including American military personnel. He is not entitled
>> > to status as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.
>>
>> Yes he is. He openly carried arms and so is a combatant due protection.
>>
>
>He is being treated as a prisoner of war in compliance with the current
>Geneva Convention, until a courts-martial or military commission ajudges
>him guilty of acts of treason, terrorism, and/or war crimes which will
>terminate his Geneva Convention privilege and initiate his qualification
>as a convicted criminal. So, he is not entitled to status as a prisoner
>of war under the Geneva Convention following his conviction as a
>criminal.
>
>> >He is a
>> > citizen of the United States with a presumably valid U.S. passport. He
>> > has violated so many laws carrying the death sentence or very long
>> > felony punishments, it's not funny.
>>
>> No he didn't, and if he was in the Taliban before September 11 then he's
>> certainly got no case to answer.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>> ------------------
>> On time, on budget, or works;
>> Pick any two from three
>
>By his own admission, the American Taliabn enlisted with al-Qaeda, a
>self-acknowledged international terrorist organization who has declared
>war against the United States and committed grave acts of war upon the
>United States resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. citizens and
>members of the armed forcces and resulting in the destruction of
>hundreds of millions of dollars of property. His conduct constituted
>treason against the United states the same day and hour of his
>enlistment with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, before the events of 11
>September 2001. His continued allegiance to al-Qaeda and the Taliban
>after the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 implicates him
>as an accessory and material supporter of the crimes after the fact.
>
>Dallas Patterson
>n...@fidalgo.net