Traitor American Caught Fighting for Jello-Back Taliban

[Ted Striker]

.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What is it with Americans named Walker going off and getting involved in foreign civil wars?

Do you think he's related to the Captain Walker who went to Central America in the early 19th century to set up his own kingdom?

[sachmo71]

This is a very stickey situation. Everyone here has made good points, but if we do try him and execute him for this, the backlash from the Muslims of the world may be more than we can handle. Plus, isn't it part of his religion to allow him to fight to defend the holy land? That's another can of worms we don't want to open...

IMHO, this guy should disappear for a while...

[Adam Smith]

waaaaaiiit a minute.....

Anybody heard from EVC lately???

[Ted Striker]

.

[Rogan Josh]

It is actually a bit tricky because he is a white muslim.

If you are lenient, people will say you are only being lenient on him because he is white.

If you are harsh, people will say you are being harsh because you want to stamp out islam in the US.

[The Mad Monk]

Considering how the NA has treated Afghani Taliban versus foreign Taliban, they may well be expecting us to give Walker a gun and uniform...

[Berzerker]

First, the Congress never declared war on anyone so he can't be guilty of treason. And I heard the guy did renounce his citizenship so he may not even be an American citizen. Furthermore, we don't the situation, there was an American who surrendered in Kuwait as part of the Iraqi army - he had been conscripted while visiting relatives and we all know what would happen to a guy who tried to escape that situation. He was never charged with anything, just allowed to return home to the Chicago area I believe.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
First, the Congress never declared war on anyone so he can't be guilty of treason.

What the hell does declaretion of war have to do with anything?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
First, the Congress never declared war on anyone

Legally, they did.

[kittenOFchaos]

To quote Rogan Josh:
"The odder thing is, what is definied as treason in the UK? I believe that defacing the Queen's piccy on a banknote counts..."

I better spend the evidence!

[Berzerker]

Lonestar -

What the hell does declaretion of war have to do with anything?

If we are to charge and convict a US citizen of treason, they have to be convicted of waging war against us - the Congress never declared war.

DinoDoc -

Legally, they did.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Constitution says the Congress has the power to declare war - it hasn't declared war, it passed a "resolution" authorizing the President to wage war. At most, this guy can be charged with sedition. That was what the Rosenburgs were charged with since the Congress never declared war against the USSR.

And a charge of sedition requires that this guy is a citizen and a conviction requires proof he actually fired upon US troops. The only other option is claiming he conspired to rebel during the prison revolt that led to the death of the CIA operative and that will require proof he was in on it rather than just being in a prison where other Taliban members revolted and possibly the added burden of proving that he had knowledge there was a CIA operative there in the the first place - good luck. It'll take a Kangaroo Court to convict this guy of anything...

[Lefty Scaevola]

Declaration of war is legally irrelevant to treason. The res is waging war against the USA by a citizen, whether declared, undeclared, police action, rebelion, or what ever. 99.9% of treason aginst the US has not been in declared wars, mostly rebellions, of which the most was in the US civil war. A blanket pardon was made by Lincoln after the war, as was done for most rebelions.

[Berzerker]

Lefty -

Declaration of war is legally irrelevant to treason.

It is if the accused lives in another country and is defending that country and it's government from US attacks.

The res is waging war against the USA by a citizen, whether declared, undeclared, police action, rebelion, or what ever.

The act of treason requires that the accused is waging war against the US and/or aiding and abetting the enemy - no declaration of war, no enemy. Since he cannot be charged with aiding and abetting an enemy absent an actual declaration of war, the accused must be actively waging war against the US, but this guy was only defending himself from attack - from the NA and if the US was a participant, illegal attacks. Otherwise anyone who resists an unlawful (or lawful) arrest would be guilty of treason. Again, the Rosenburgs were not charged with treason because no war had been declared against the USSR.

99.9% of treason aginst the US has not been in declared wars, mostly rebellions, of which the most was in the US civil war. A blanket pardon was made by Lincoln after the war, as was done for most rebelions.

First, what has happened since the Constitution's ratification is not a constitutional endorsement of those later actions. However, these are domestic matters where the accused has actually taken part in the rebellion, not when someone overseas is defending themself in an undeclared war.

[Dis]

nobody responded to my point.

this guy never actually fought the U.S. He was being bombed by the U.S. but he did not retaliate (mostly because he couldn't ). He then retreated with other Taliban soldiers. He never fired a shot at a U.S. citizen.

let him go free I say. He just wanted to see some action. And he got it.