Pathfinder

I am concerned about the suspension of constitutional rights, and some of the other proposals, that are being considered.

Just the Village Idiot

So you admit that "he was a soldier in the al Qaeda" -- let me help you out...

--------------------

trea·son Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

--------------------

While you are arguing that he didn't wage war (I personally disagree), you can't possible argue that he did not purposely act to aid enemies.

--------------------

Let's move on to Article III --

Section 3. 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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

--------------------

Do I really need to define adhering, aid, or comfort?

By his own admission he "provided services as a soldier to the Taliban last year."

He should be put to death according to the Treason Act of 1939 -- he's lucky as hell he was allowed to plea!

Pathfinder

Your point is moot. He was never charged with treason.

Just the Village Idiot

...but he should have been!



And my point was not mute -- nor was it moot.

Pathfinder

That is a personal opinion. Do you think the Admistration would have hesitated to charge him with treason, if a case for treason could have been made?. So yes, your point is moot.

In addition, I did not argue that he didn't wage war. I assume that he did wage war against the "Norhtern Alliance". When he entered Afganistan the Taliban was not an enemy, and he wanted to assist the Taliban in their war against the "Norhern Alliance". In 1999 the al Qaeda was declared to be a terrorist organization, but I don't know what, if anything he knew about the al Qaeda, or Bin Laden.

Just the Village Idiot

He could have been brought up on treason charges and convicted... the reasons are all in my previous post.

The reason that he wasn't brought up on treason charges is because the "administration" didn't want to be the first to convict and sentence an American citizen for treason since 1952...

that would be bad PR!

The case could and should have been made.



It does not matter what he knew about anything -- he took up arms or assisted others in taking up arms against US soldiers and CIA agents. -- at least on US fighter died.

End of story!

Ignorance is not (nor ever has been) a defense for breaking the law!

If anyone had any balls they would have tried and convicted him for treason!



Your original point was "I personally do not understand why Walker is guilty of any serious crime, if any crime."

He was -- if you don't want to see it -- I guess you never will.

ChrisH

The reason he wasn't charged with treason was because you need 2 witnesses to the act. They didn't have two witnesses.

At this point I don't think the Admin would worry about PR with treason. Everytime Bush's approval rate falls a little they pick up someone else. I.E. Jose Podia.

Why did they pick him up? They should have tailed him and seen who he was with, where he went etc....

But it looked better for them to arrest him. I just wish they would charge the guy already!!

Just the Village Idiot

Well -- if infact they couldn't find two soldiers in the firefight that witnessed the act... they should charge him with treason now!

once again...

Article III section 3 --

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.

Pathfinder

I repeat if the government could have made a case for treason, it is my opinion that they would have.

I think not.

I don't know that. I don't know that he fired his weapon at US forces, as for that matter I don't know if he fired his weapon at any forces, at any point it time.

He wanted to assist the Taliban, at the time he was shipped to the front in Agust of 2001, the Taliban was not our enemy. We were providing ecomonic aid to the Taliban prior to 9/11 and if I remember correctly sent them an aid package in October.

He is guilty of being a soldier when the USA decided to make an enemy of the Taliban and invade Afghanistan.

I repeat, I view him as a "dumb fuck" that was caught up in events, not of his making.

As for firing a weapon: In combat one of the problems encountered is to get the troops to fire their weapons, and only around 30% engage. Another problem encountered is to get the troops to stop firing their weapons.

Just the Village Idiot

You just don't get it do you???

He didn't have to fire a weapon -- if he carried any of the weapons to the site he's guitly of treason... now that he's admitted to such in open court.

Pathfinder

The Taliban was not an enemy of the USA when he was sent to the front in August 2001 to fight against the "Northern Alliance". What was he to do when the USA decided to begin bombing and invading Afghanistan, which in effect made him an enemy.

What do you think you would have done if you suddenly found yourself to be on the opposite side of your country?

Just the Village Idiot

"The Taliban was not an enemy of the USA when he was sent to the front in August 2001 to fight against the "Northern Alliance"."

I'd like to see where you found when he was set to the front lines...

Pathfinder

Just the Village Idiot

Once again --

Ignorance of the law is not nor ever has been an excuse or a defense to breaking it.

Pretty simple -- heh???

Pathfinder

Well...that is exactly why they brought charges against him, but proving those charges, would have been a different story, though I personally think that he would not have stood a chance with any jury, any where.

Prosecutors file as many charges against a person that they can, it is common practice, knowing that they cannot get a conviction on all of them. It is the theory "throw enough mud against the wall and some of it will stick".

They will offer a plea bargin and agree to drop their weakest charges. In Walkers case they offered to drop 8 of the ten charges, 3 of which carried life sentences. His attorney told him to take the deal, instead of risking a conviction in front of a jury.

An attorney will tell you that anytime you choose to be tried by a jury, truth or innocence is immaterial, it is a dice roll.

About twenty years ago, nationally, there were over 10 million city, county, state, federal laws, and ordinances (I would not like to know how many more there are now). Unfortunately ignorance of the law will not prevent one from being charged, but once in trial intent has to be proven.

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.

Mr.Fiction

Do you also believe Bush and Clinton should be charged with treason for giving money to the Taliban? The money was more help to them than this one little guy. Bush gave them money only months before 9/11, that money may have been used to finance the 9/11 attack. Using your logic, wouldn't Bush also need to be charged with treason?

I'm not saying that Clinton and Bush should be, I'm just asking about your thinking process on this issue.

Pathfinder

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".

Just the Village Idiot

So you want to know my thought process about the whole issue?

My thought process is based on constitutional law. Do I really have to quote Article III Section 3 again?

Using my logic neither Clinton nor Bush (though I wish I could hang Clinton with it) could be charged with treason.

Neither levied war against the US -- nor did either adhear to or give comfort or aid to enemies -- by Pathfinder's admission, neither were enemies when aid was provided.

Using Pathfinder's findlaw article...

"8. In or about July 2001 to November 2001, during the commission of a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, namely, Supplying Services to the Taliban as
charged in Count Nine of the Indictment, the defendant knowingly carried with him an AKM rifle and two grenades."

If is was July or August, Pathfinder's comments may have some merrit... but I doubt Lindh was in Mazar-e-Sharif since July, August, or early September waiting for US troops to turn the place into a POW camp.

Regardless -- in mid-November, he was discovered fighting US forces alongside the Taliban/Al Qaeda -- key words "fighting alongside" and "against US forces".

Just the Village Idiot

I've already given you the point that it's possible that he could not be charged with treason... apparently not two soldier involved in the firefight could make statements regarding him. I'm sure they had alot of other things on their minds at that point.

But now that he's admitted to treason in open court... he should be charged.

P.S. Don't give me double jeopardy... he was never charged with treason.

AcidMax

Simple:

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
Date: 13th century
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family


He took up arms against the United States and betrayed the trust and loyalty of the US government, inmy opinion he should be kissing someone's ass that he didnt get the chair, because if he knew that if he was to go to court and have jury of his peers hear his case he would never see daylight. In my opinion we should ship his ass back over there.

-AJ

__________________
Latest MMA news. http://www.mmawrapup.com

Pathfinder

"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."

I take the above to mean that he would have to confess to being a traitor and his plea arrangement did not involve being a traitor.

Educate me.

Just the Village Idiot

No the above does not mean he has to confess to being a traitor... only to commiting the crime in open court -- which he did.

"I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban last year from about August to November. During the course of doing so I carried a rifle and two grenades."

What are you talking about again?

Pathfinder

"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."

If there are not two witnesses, I take it to mean that he has to confess to being a traitor in open court, or there will not be a conviction.

I understand that you are not going to read it that way. It is something that I have already seen constitutional scholars argue, just as they argue the meaning of the second admendment.

chodadog

This just reminded me of the headline i saw on the New York Post while i was watching letterman..

"JOHNNY JIHAD COPS A PLEA"

Hahahah!

Just the Village Idiot

Do those two witnesses have to say the word traitor... or do they have to testify to actions???

As a witness, you don't have to have to say murderer... just I saw him kill her.

If you are pleaing... you don't have to say I'm a murderer -- just I killed them.

Any different???

Pathfinder

I assume that the two witnesses could testify as to actions, but without the two witnesses, I take it to mean that Walker would have to testify not too his actions, but would have to confess to being a traitor.

Like I stated I have seen the point argued on TV between two constitutional scholars, so there would be little point to my arguing what it actually means.

I personally think that it is ambiguous, just as the second admendment is, and is open for interpretation.

Just the Village Idiot

What section of Article III Section 3 does that interpretation come out of???

Pathfinder

As I stated, constitutional scholars, cannot agree to the meaning, so it is pointless for me to argue the meaning.

Constitutional scholars, do not agree on the meaning of the second admendment, and many don't agree on the meaning of the first admendment.

It would have been less ambiguous if it would have been written as:

Section 3. 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 acts as outlined above, or on confession in open court of the acts as outlined above.

letshunt

Pathfinder-

Generally speaking I agree with most of your posts. This fella engaged American led forces in a firefight. Pretty simple, he should never made it out of Afganistan. Those SF boys must be getting soft. He deserved a bullet in the head the second they found him. Period.

War is war, and he betrayed his country by taking up arms against the US.

Treason? I don't know...but he aimed his AK at US forces, that makes him statistic for the day.

Too bad, he sounds like just a confused guy trying to make some sense out of his life, it was a bad choice to join a militia that we are currently engaged with. When he learned US forces were involved, he should have laid down his arms and given up...not after the Taliban had lost the battle. One .223 would have solved the problem...The guy is scum in my book. Maybe I been shot at too many times, I just don't coddle guys shooting at me.

__________________
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -George Patton

Pathfinder

letshunt:

If you can point me to a reliable source that verifies he fired upon our troops, I will not have a problem with what ever penalty (other than the death penalty) is imposed upon him.

I know that he was captured, apparently with a rifle and two grenades, but he may not have fired his weapon, at any point in time, after the United States began engaging the Taliban and al Qaeda forces.

Some say he should have deserted, or surrendered himself, but I suspect, for various reasons, this would have been suicidal.

I too do not have a great appreciation for people that shoot at me. I also do not have alot of sympathy for Walker, but I do not think he is "an important victory in our war on terrorism", or the outrageous traitor that some believe him to be.

ChrisH

There really is now way to come up with two people to confim his actions. The people that could where on the opposite side.


As for his fate.. Fuck Him, let him spend the next 17 years at hard labor. Better yet, make him spend his time at Git-Mo!

Just the Village Idiot

None of that matters now that he has confessed to his treasonous crimes in open court !