Walker could face military court-martial
Earl
I have commented before that Walker is considered popularly as
a criminal. However, the "system" is having a hard time finding a crime
the criminal is guilty of. So the "system" is scrambling. Now the
suggestion is a military court-marital. It must never be forgotten
that the body of the "law" is vast, so a crime will be found to fit
the criminal. Once the crime and the method of trial is decided, the
trial can go ahead and Walker will be found guilty. Perhaps executed.
The whole socio-political scene will be play to the end.
Earl
**********************************************
Walker could face military court-martial
American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh could be tried by a military
court-martial in a death penalty case even though he is not a member of
the U.S. armed forces, according to sources close to the Bush
administration's deliberations on Walker's fate.
The sources say Walker, the 20-year-old Californian captured in
Afghanistan in November, could be charged under a little-known provision
of the U.S. military code of justice that prohibits "aiding the enemy"
with "arms, ammunition, supplies, money or other things."
Walker converted to the Muslim faith as a teen and traveled to the Middle
East in 1998. He moved to Afghanistan in May, according to his parents.
Most provisions of the military code apply only to members of the armed
services. But part of the code - namely a rarely used provision called
Article 104 - applies to "any person," meaning that it could be used to
help U.S. officials answer the vexing question of how to bring Walker to
justice.
Because Article 104 charges carry the death penalty, charging Walker with
"aiding the enemy" in a military court-martial would be a way for U.S.
authorities to subject him to a potential death sentence while avoiding
legal issues that would accompany any plan to try him in a civilian court.
A military court-martial is one of several legally complicated options
being considered in the Walker case by the Defense and Justice
Departments, sources close to the discussions on the case say.
U.S. officials have said publicly that Walker, as a U.S. citizen, would
not be subject to Bush's Nov. 13 order creating military tribunals to try
foreigners accused of terrorism. But military law experts say Bush could
issue another order to create a tribunal that would deal only with Walker.
If Walker were charged in a civilian court, 2 of the most viable criminal
charges that could be brought - treason and murder of a U.S. government
employee - would be difficult to prove. Both carry the death penalty.
Treason charges are rarely used, largely because of the high standard of
proof required for conviction: a "confession in open court" or the
testimony of two witnesses to the same treasonous act.
Charging Walker with murdering a U.S. government employee also would pose
a high hurdle for prosecutors. It would require proof that Walker - who
goes by his mother's maiden name - played a role in the death on Nov. 25
of CIA officer Johnny "Mike" Spann during an uprising by Taliban captives
at a prison in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. Spann tried to interview
Walker shortly before the rebellion; U.S. officials have not said whether
they believe Walker had a role in the uprising.
H. Wayne Elliott, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who has taught war
crimes courses to Army lawyers, says the laws of war recognize the right
of prisoners of war to try to escape. Walker, he says, likely would raise
that as a defense if he were charged in Spann's death.
Other possible charges Walker could face in a civilian court trial
include providing support to terrorists, which carries a maximum
punishment of 15 years in prison. Several public opinion polls have
indicated that most Americans are outraged by Walker's alleged actions,
and believe he should be punished more severely. Bush administration
officials appear determined to bring serious charges against Walker, or
at least to use the threat of such charges to get Walker to tell them
everything he knows about Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorism network.
Shortly after his capture, Walker told a CNN television news crew that he
sympathized with al-Qaeda, which U.S. officials say carried out the
attacks Sept. 11 on New York and Washington.
Legal analysts, citing reports that Walker has told U.S. authorities that
he once met bin Laden, say Walker could be valuable to U.S. military
intelligence and law enforcement. They say he could be given leniency if
he can help identify al-Qaeda members and describe how he infiltrated the
terrorist network.
A tribunal - also known as a military commission - would allow
prosecutors more leeway in admitting evidence at trial than they would
receive in a traditional military or civilian court.
To put Walker before a military commission, authorities would have to
charge him with a war crime, such as killing civilians, Elliott says. The
most logical way Walker could be charged with a war crime, Elliott says,
is if he were linked to al-Qaeda.
The president is expected to make the final decision about Walker's
prosecution. If he opts for a military court-martial, Elliott says,
Walker could argue that he joined the Taliban before the United States
went to war in Afghanistan and that he could not leave.
Trying a U.S. civilian in a military setting - even one accused of taking
up arms against the United States - also raises tough political issues
for the White House, analysts say.
"I don't think the administration would want to take the political heat
of putting a U.S. citizen before a court-martial or a military tribunal,"
says Michael Nardotti, a retired former Army judge advocate general.
"They may just deal with him in the U.S. (civilian) courts. But I don't
think they will let him walk."
(source: USA Today)
James Chamblee
"Earl " <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>I have commented before that Walker is considered popularly as
>a criminal. However, the "system" is having a hard time finding a crime
>the criminal is guilty of. So the "system" is scrambling. Now the
>suggestion is a military court-marital.
It would be a miscarraige of justice to try a U.S. citizen in a U.S.
military court.
Charles Galbach
news:a1fnan$est$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Jim - please quit taking whatever meds are making your brain do that. Almost
every single person ever tried in a U.S. military court has and no doubt
will continue to be a U.S. citizen. Military courts were created for the
purpose, mainly, of applying military justice to members of the military
under the military laws and regulations - which differ somewhat from civil
laws and regulations. Military courts have, infrequently, been the
appropriate court for non-citizens and/or non-members of the military.
Chuck
Diego
James Chamblee wrote:
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
Earl
----------
Dans l'article <u3n31q9...@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles Galbach"
<galb...@pgh.net> a écrit :
> Military courts have, infrequently, been the
> appropriate court for non-citizens and/or non-members of the military.
Are there any concrete cases, names, charges, dates, decisions.
So far Walker`s crime has not been spelled out in any detail. I have
not doubt that a charge will be made, of some sort. Most people are
talking about executing the SOB but haven`t figured out what for.
Perhaps America can return to its old tradition of lyching and be done
with the nicities of law. I think that is what left wing radicals like
William Safire is exactly afraid of.
Earl
Charles Galbach
No I don't have exact case history at my disposal at the moment. You can get
that on your own time. I found the following information regarding
citizenship and the military through a simple google search.
BEGIN QUOTE
Citizenship. While there is a statutory requirement that only a United
States Citizen may become a commissioned officer, this is not true for
enlistment. Certain non-citizens can enlist in the United States Armed
Forces. To be eligible to enlist, a non-citizen must:
(1) Entered the United States on a permanent residence visa or has an Alien
Registration Receipt Card (INS Form 1-551/I-551 greencard or stamped I-94),
and
(2) Established a bona fide residence, and
(3) Established a home of record in the United States.
(4) The visa and/or "greencard" must have sufficient time remaining on it
(expiration date) to be valid during the entire term on enlistment. While
non-citizens may enlist in the U.S. Military, they are not allowed to
reenlist (stay in beyond their first term of service), unless they first
become U.S. Citizens. However, after serving for three years, any additional
residency requirement for citizenship eligibility can be waived.
I should note here that the United States Military cannot and will not
assist in the immigration process. In order to join the U.S. Military, one
must legally immigrate first, and then apply to join the military.
For enlistment purposes, citizens of the United States include citizens of:
Guam, Puerto Rico, The U.S. Virgin Islands,The Northern Marianas Islands,
American Samoa, The Federated States of Micronesia, and The Republic of the
Marshall Islands.
Not all non-citizens may be eligible to enlist. Applicants who have been
residents of countries considered hostile to the interests of the United
States require a waiver. These countries include:
Afghanistan Kurile Islands and South Albania
Sakhalin (Karafuto) Angola
Laos Gulgaria
Latvia Cambodia
Libyan Arab Republic China (Including Tibet)
People's Republic of Lithuania Mongolian People's Republic
Cuba Nicaragua
Estonia Romainia
Ethiopia Southern Yemen
Hungarian Peoples Republic (Hungary) Syria
Iran Commonwealth of Independent States (Former USSR)
Iran Iraq
Vietnam Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
Former Yugoslavian Nation
Note: The above list is subject to change at any time. One should consult a
local military recruiter for the latest policies.
While non-citizens may enlist, they will find their job choices extremely
limited. DOD policy prohibits granting security clearances to non-U.S.
Citizens. Therefore, non-Citizens. who enlist in the United States military
will be limited to those jobs which do not require a security clearance
END QUOTE
The above information explains the how the presence of non-citizens in the
US Military may occur. I can tell you from memory that some non-citizen US
Army servicemen have faced courts martial over various "crimes". One I
recall involved a Philippine citizen member of the US Military being courts
martialed for attempted murder of another member of the military. There have
actually been quite a few courts martials of these and other kinds of cases.
In the case of non-members of the military, the only military court
processing I recall involved spying.
Chuck
Jim Depfer
before a military court. I, like many other millions of
ex-military came under the UCMJ. Actually I would
let a few sailors show him how sharks feed off garbage
thrown off the fantail
Jim
"Earl " <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a1espc$h5f$1...@quark.noos.net...
Gaston
> I really don't see anything wrong with bringing Walker
> before a military court. I, like many other millions of
> ex-military came under the UCMJ. Actually I would
> let a few sailors show him how sharks feed off garbage
> thrown off the fantail
> Jim
The last sentence might pretty much be the reaction of most
Americans.
But first, what are the charges against him exactly? If he
had killed somebody, no problem, murder. If he had been
on the radio spounting enemy propaganda like Lord Haw Haw
during WWII, we might try him for "aid and comfort" abd treason.
Tokyo Rose got a prison sentence for her broadcasts for the
Japanese during WWII, she was a US citizen. Still the Government
did not execute here.
Walker so far comes out as some low level sucker in the system,
a sad sack of the WWII kind. The public reactions smacks of
scapegoatism. During WWII there were some US born Germans who
returned to Germany and fought with the Germans. Speaking excellent
English, some were involved in the Battle of the Bulge. I have
never heard of the fate of them who after all played a direct
role in the death of Allied solders in that battle. There the issues
are clear. But with Walker, nothing is clear at this moment.
The Government appears on a fishing expedition to find something
to charge him with, even stacking the deck using military "justice".
Earl
Earl
----------
Dans l'article <u3p370h...@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles Galbach"
<galb...@pgh.net> a écrit :
> "Earl" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:a1hrco$7g$1...@neon.noos.net...
>>
>> ----------
>> Dans l'article <u3n31q9...@corp.supernews.com>, "Charles Galbach"
>> <galb...@pgh.net> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> > Military courts have, infrequently, been the
>> > appropriate court for non-citizens and/or non-members of the military.
> I found the following information regarding
> citizenship and the military through a simple google search.
I did not see right off how any of the following applied to Walker
For instance:
> Citizenship. While there is a statutory requirement that only a United
> States Citizen may become a commissioned officer, this is not true for
> enlistment. Certain non-citizens can enlist in the United States Armed
> Forces. To be eligible to enlist, a non-citizen must:
Enlisting in the US armed forces is not involved in this case.
The issue is trying him before a military court. Why? Why
not a civilian court? What are the charges?
More obvious sins have occurred in living memory, like American
born Germans returning to Germany and fighting for Germany during
WWII, some of them were involved in posing as US soldiers in the Battle
of the Bulge and deaths of Americans were involved in cases they were
directly involved in. Tokyo Rose sang for the Japanese and was eventually
prosecuted for it as an American citizen.
Right now, I have seen nothing mentioned in Walker`s case which pins him
down to specific crimes. His involvement was in a civil war situation in
Afghanistan. His direct role in the death of a special forces soldier is
unclear. What illegal acts he carried out against the US are unclear.
Again, we apparently are in a situation of having the criminal and digging
up a crime to fit our political needs. Until the Government gets very
specific and the charges are clear, they will look like they are fishing
around for some sort of charge to satisfy the popular will for a lynching.
That is the danger I am alerting people to. Does anybody understand this
point?
Earl
Troy
Earl wrote:
An appropriate solution could be one suggested by Jim Depfer, "Actually I would
let a few sailors show him how sharks feed off garbage thrown off the fantail."
The deck is usually very slippery back there.
Ronald Lawrence
Earl wrote:
"That is the danger I am alerting people to. Does anybody understand this
point?"
Perfectly! When or If he is charged then I will make up my mind (with the
jury) whether the charges are appropriate and going to stick or not. In the
meantime, speculation of a cover-up, conspiracy, or any other Government
shenanigans is just that - speculation. Whether or not he is tried in a
civilian or military court doesn't make any difference to me.
Warm Regards,
Ron Lawrence, Canberra, ACT, Australia