Traitor American Caught Fighting for Jello-Back Taliban

[Kyle]

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.

Being on the business end of a B-52 is still being in conflict with the US (if you're the target, that is).

And he could've very well taken part in the battle at the fortress. US and British special forces took part in that battle.

[drake]

He should be treated exactly like other taliban. Because he was born in America he should get different priviledges?

His dad wants the US to send him back to the country that he hates (he approved of the cole bombing and 9-11). But that is bs. Let the little f*cker stay with his friends. He put himself in this mess, and his daddy, or his daddys lawyer shouldnt be able to bail him out.

[drake]

I'll respond to your point dissident.....even though its moronic as usual.

Guilt by association? The guy openly supports the taliban. Taliban is US enemy. Therefore he is enemy. Got it? Good.

He can't just quit now and say "oh, I changed my mind, take me back US! I need to come home and help my fanatic buddies plot another great event like 911!"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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?

Apparently not, since his full name is John Phillip Walker Lindh.

Still, you have to wonder. The US representitive in Yugoslavia was named William Walker, and he was one of the people who took the press to the aftermath of the battle of Racek, where the dead KLA had been laid out to look like they had been executed in a ditch and proclaimed to the world there had been a massacre of civilians in Kosovo.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lefty -

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

Wrong, wrong, and wrong, you amateur lawyers get tedious after a while, particularly the one who think their is a huge legal significance to a declaration of war. Waging war does not include declaration of war as a necessary element (12/8/41 no declaration pf war against Japan, a resolution that war had existed since the time of Pearl Harbor attack, rather than from the time the Japanese note {itself not even a D O W} was delievered, and authorizing the president all war powers). In the US declaration of war is primarily an internal power balancing matter matter, not creating a state of war with the emeny (which has most commonly occurs when hotilities were begun, ala 12/7/41 or 9/11/01), the declaration is a formal grant of additional war powers to the president by the congress. Another poster is coreect in saying that legally a war powers declaration does all that a D O W does. A state of war has existed since hotilities began 9/11 for most legal purposes, other than the formal of additional "war powers" to the president which occured with the congrssional act. Waging war against the USA, in this particular instance, would be doing or assisting any act of hostilities aginst the USA or it forces abroad. Merely remaining in with the forces of some entity we are egaged in open hotilities with, the Taliban, would likely be enough of a res. The Rosenbergs were not prosecuted for treason not because of the lack of delcaration, but because we were not engage in open hostilities with the forces they were helping. USSR & USA were not shooting at each other at that time. Overall, tTreason is a very broad crime and covers a very large number of acts. It is, however, rarely prosecuted. 99.99% of its instances in the USA have recieved amnesty or been prosecuted for other crimes. Constantly repeating amateur bull**** about some majic of a D O W, does not change it from being amateur BS. Most especially stupid is the misconception that that there is a special formula of words that congress must use to declare war. Congress has plenary power over D O W, if they say it is war, it is war, regardless of how they worded the resolution.

[chequita guevara]

He can neither be tried nor convicted of treason. The Constitution sets a very high standard both for the crime and the conviction thereof. He has to have either given aid and comfort to the enemy or waged war upon the US and there must be two witnesses willing to testify against him. It is unlikely that any of the conditions can be met.

He could be charged with seditious conpsiracy (wtf is that, btw?). I'm not sure I like the sound of that. I'm seditious most of the time. I'm even in an active seditious conspiracy (I act together with people who want to over throw the US government). Anyone know what the heck this law is? I thought sedition was legal.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He could be charged with seditious conpsiracy (wtf is that, btw?).

This is the best I could find for you, che.

(3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.
(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression "seditious intention", every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who
(a) teaches or advocates, or
(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates, the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

I assume there is a similar law in the US.

[drake]

So if he cant be tried for treason, what should he be tried for? Surely you can't suggest that such an obvious threat to society should go un-punished?

[chequita guevara]

Probably, except Canada doesn't have a guaranteed right to free speech. None of the Commonwealth countries do. One of those things I do love about the United States. I can't imagine having to shut up all of the time (as opposed to just while I'm at work).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Probably, except Canada doesn't have a guaranteed right to free speech.

Found the US law:

18 U.S.C. §2384, Seditious conspiracy (June 25, 1948)

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, drake, love the Botticelli. Definately one of my favorite painters.

[chequita guevara]

Well, that pretty much describes me, at least in general. I wonder if it requires a specific act, rahter than organizing to over throw the government sometime in the undefined future?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Che, what make you think that it will be difficult to get the testimony of two witness to Walker was maong the 300 odd persons in the taliban unit which was fighting aginst the Na & USA forces at Mazr I Sharif. We do not even not foreigners that were plenaty of USA Personel when he was pulled out of the basement, beside the millions who have seen his owm statement of TV, were corraberat much of what is neeeded. All that is needed is two witnesses saying that he was part of a Taliban unit which was egaged in hostilities with USA forces. Remaining with that unit would after hostilities began would be a sufficient res.

[drake]

I agree with lefty. I think he's in some pretty hot water. Daddy and his lawyer probably can't get him out of this.

(che- titian is my fave renaissance painter, but you gotta appreciate venus )

[chequita guevara]

I dunno, I'm thinking they won't rat on each other. Maybe I give them a little too much credit. But you know what, I don't know enough about the situation he was in, so I'll shut up and just seditiously conspire here in Jacksonville. . . .


Now if I could find someone around here to conspire with.