Quote:
Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot
LOL -- now you move to intent...
Is intent an element of the crime of treason???
Funny -- the constitution doesn't make any mention of intent when it comes to treason.
P.S. You are not talking about criminal or civil law here -- you are talking about Constitutional law... and it appears you are woefully unprepared as it pertains to the subject.
|
Once again your point is moot. He was not charged with treason. I believe that he was not charged with treason, because the prosecutors knew that there was not anyway they could make a resonable argument for a charge of treason.
You are apparently convinced that he should have been charged with treason. I assume that you are not a prosecutor, or a constitutional attorney, but if you are, maybe you should offer your services to the Justice Department, as you are clearly more learned than they are, about the constitution and the charge of treason.
I will admit that I am not an attorney, and I am not a constitutional scholar, and of the more than 10 million laws that exist in this country, I am only knowledgable about a few. I spent the largest portion of my life fighting in wars, or preparing to fight in wars, not the study of law.
What I believe about Walker, without knowing all of the facts, or knowing what was/is inside his head, is that he never intended to be an enemy of the United States, but he was caught up in events. If we had not made the Taliban an enemy, we probably would never have ever heard of John Walker.
At this point in time that is my final position on the subject of Walker. If, at a later point in time, I learn more facts about the actions of Walker that are more sinister than what few facts I have garnered from the media, I may decide that he was something other than just a "dumb fuck".