a case of treason?

what do you think, is that american guy who was fighting with (alongside) the taliban guilty of treason? (the taliban are indirectly our enemies, the terrorists are directly our enemies, but the taliban wouldnt give over the terrorists, so they then became our enemies, right)


'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.' -- constitution


brad


p.s. and what about hanoi jane?

Both the American Taliban and Hanoi Jane are traitors. Jane should have been prosecuted, make that should be, I don't think there's a statute of limitations on treason. (I have never researched any law on treason, it doesn't come up often. So if I'm wrong...)

Sec. 2381. Treason


"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. "


I think the key phrase is "levies war against them". The US has not declared war, but the Taliban has called for war against the US. Is a US declaration of war required? I don't know.

It's ancient history, but surely the traitors of the Vietnam era were not those who tried to stop the killing, the lying, the criminal behavor of our leaders, but those leaders themselves, who, by violating the principles on which our country had become great, gave aid and comfort to the enemies of America. Hanoi Jane didn't deliberately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and continuously lie about it. Hanoi Jane didn't claim we were defending "democracy" by supporting thugs like Diem, Ky, ahnd Thieu. No, the evils ones were running the show. Those who tried to stop it should be given medals. I'd much rather see Henry Kissinger tried.

when someone does something that causes hurt to you, it may need to be stopped at whatever is the appropiate response. so we do need to keep this idiot from continuing his assault on the u.s.a.

but when you are faced with someone or people that truely believe that what they are doing is right and what you are doing is wrong, and you believe the opposite. punishing may be wrong as well, unless it is used as a deterrent to future events.

punishment maybe should be thought of as something you do to people that intentionally commit an act that they know is wrong.

i guess what im trying to say is that there is a difference bewteen punishment and stopping a situation from continuing or happening again.

What Jane did is different from just trying to stop it. It is one thing to try to pressure our government to change its policy; it is another to endanger American servicemen while supporting an enemy overseas. Hanoi Jane crossed the line and kept running. Student protesters who just protested were not traitors. The ones who sent supplies to the VC were.

This is a good point. In general I don't care much for the idea of punishment and think it can even be counterproductive at times, but stopping truly bad and harmful acts from continuing is important.

I think you have ventured into a difficult area philosophically. The questions of punishment and the morality behind it are it difficult ones. I think there may be two different things we're talking about. When it comes to what the U.S. is doing to the Taliban to prevent future aggression and to retaliate for what was done, I don't think any of that falls under the concept of "punishment." Violence between sovereigns has nothing to do with punishment and usually not much to do with justice. What a sovereign does to its citizens who commit particular crimes does fall under the category of punishment. So what we do to stop the situation right now is a different thing from what we will do to certain individuals after the immediate hostilities are over. Once we get to that point, the question of what can justify the use of governmental force against a citizen kicks in. Punishment is, and has been, used as a justification for this. Deterrence of others is also used as a justification. The protection of society from dangerous people is another, and perhaps makes the most sense. Our criminal justice system mixes and matches various ideas about the use of governmental force against criminals and arrives at some general, uneasy compromises. Speaking of the theory behind punishment of citizens in this context is interesting and necessary to improve our system, but it is also a murky and confusing area. I've given a lot of thought to the question and don't have any easy answers. A lot depends on your view of the nature of humans and morality. No dispute about those easy topics, eh?

Jane did not endanger our servicemen overseas. Our government endangered our servicemen overseas.

The war we fought in Vietnam was illegal and immoral, a cruel criminal invasion, a continuation of France's ugly colonial policy. Virtually everything we were told about it was a lie, from the very beginning to the very end. More people should have "crossed the line" to do whatever they could to stop it.


By the way, the hawks always claimed that the student protestors were indeed hurting our servicemen overseas by giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Democracy was apparently not important to those who prosecuted the war either here or in Vietnam.

I don't think there's any question that he was guilty of treason in the technical sense. The question is what the appropriate punishment should be. I don't think we know enough yet about this young man's attitudes or involvement in Taliban and Al Qaida activities to make an accurate assessment of whether he actually fought or plotted against the US, or was merely caught on the wrong side of the lines when the war broke out.


TRLS

Just adding that above I was discussing the concept of punishment in general, not specifically with regards to the question of treason on the part of the American Taliban.


Treason must be treated very seriously because it has the potential to harm so many in our country. We don't yet have enough of the facts in this specific case to determine just whhat was going on, or to what degree he may have been an active participant, or whether he just ended up going along for the ride when things came to a head, so to speak.

the fair thing to do would be to have the american POWs (that fonda visited in captivity) be the judge. (and jury)


brad

'I don't think there's any question that he was guilty of treason in the technical sense.'


because he fought against the northern alliance?


of course if he went over there *after* US hostilities broke out then i think youre probably right.


brad

I'd be in favor if we could have a simultaneous trial of Henry Kissinger with Vietnamese villagers who lost family members to American bombing as the judges (and jury).

gee, i think kissinger (and the rest - McNamara made money selling faulty equipment to army (which killed our soldiers) ) is a scumbag. id have no problem trying him (spelling?) as a war criminal. (according to chomsky, all american presidents since WWII could be found guilty)


brad

Andy,


You can argue the merits of the war itself all you want, but actively supporting the killing of American troops is inexcusable. Having one's picture taken in an anti-aircraft gun targeted at US warplanes and patroinzing American troops was not the way to stop the war. If she had been a North Vietnamese citizen and had done anything even remotely comparable to what she did as an American, she would have been tortured/executed without trial. Since she went there and supported the killing and torture of Americans, then returned to her posh lifestyle made possible by those very troops, there is no way anyone can justify her actions. It was just another example of an idiotic, pompus celebrity showing how worthless she actually is. She should have been put on trial. It's not even close.


-Glenn

It is hard to prove treason, they need witnesses, and it might look bad (especially as I listen here) and his family will defend him vigorously.


I am rather liberal, most of this forum would consider me a pinko I think, but I cannot believe what I hear.


Listen in people:


1. He went to terrorist school run by people who killed 4000 American civilians. That school was training him to kill American civilians.

2. He fought for these forces against a coalition

led by America, after we declared war (I know unofficially) against his terrorist leaders.

3. He was in the compound, with a Kalishnikov, when the American CIA guy was murdered.

4. He told CNN that he thought the WTC bombing was a good thing; he 'worked' for the mastermind killers.


Let's just tell him what a bad ideology he picked up in prep school, slap his wrist, and send him home.


RIGHT


Ok, what do I think? Let's try him for sedition, not treason. Let's put him away for 30 years, maybe he'll grow up. And I am not opposed to the death sentence: If they have a shred of proof he

was in any way responsible for the CIA guy's death, we should fry him.


He is worse than most of the German and Japanese troops during WWII who committed atrocities: HE CHOSE TO BE THERE, FIGHTING WITH OUR ENEMY!


Mark

"He went to terrorist school run by people who killed 4000 American civilians. That school was training him to kill American civilians. "


if thats true then i guess he is guilty of treason.


as an aside, the cia officer who was killed was a professional torturer. poetic justice there.


brad


p.s. i guess its been said so many times by now that if it wasnt true to begin with, it is now, that bin laden al-kada whatever masterminded the wtc massacre.

But the merits of the war are what's important. Let's reverse the situation. Suppose the Vietnamese decided to come here and intervene in our Civil War. Suppose they had the technology to drop more bombs on civilians than had been dropped in the history of the world. Suppose a famous Vietnamese celebrity thought that this was criminal action. Suppose that celebrity visited the Americans and had her picture taken with an anti-aircraft gun targeted at the Vietnamese warplanes.


I would say that celebrity had done the right thing. I would say the killing of the Vietnamese troops was the right thing to do. I see no difference in the way things actually happened. It is precisely because the war was a criminal act that supporting the enemy was not a criminal act.


Her posh lifestyle was not made possible by those troops. She was a famous actress whose father had been a famous actor. He had been a big moneymaker; she was a big moneymaker. The troop who fought in World War II made her posh lifestyle possible. That was an honorable battle to fight that was a defense of democracy against evil. Vietnam was nothing of the sort.


I agree with you that had the fictional Vietnamese celebrity I spoke about above done what I described, she indeed would have been treated as a traitor. This convinces me that it is the wrong thing to do.

it seems to me you can be against one thing (your own goverment policy) without being for another ( a foreign government).


brad

"You can argue the merits of the war itself all you want, but actively supporting the killing of American troops is inexcusable."


How do you figure that those that urged the return of the troops from Vietnam supported the idea of them being killed but the ones that sent them there didn't? If U.S. citizens had helped the Indians shoot back at Wounded Knee, Sand Creek or Powder River would that be inexcusable, and if they had helped the soldiers make ovaries into hatbands would that be patriotic? Doesn't it depend on the merits of the cause and the nature of the fight?


I think Jane Fonda's record on the war is clear: she wanted to stop the killing of everyone at risk by ending it immediately.


My own opinion is that the Vietnamese had at least as much right to fight the U.S. bifurcation and invasion of their country as the Afghans had to resist the Soviet invasion. Am I a traitor for thinking that, or only if I say it? What if I believe it secretly but tell my political representatives to keep sending troops to die in an unworthy unwinnable war because I don't want people to think I'm unpatriotic. If I then run for office against Jane Fonda, would it be right for me to denounce her for failing to "support" the troops like I did?


Give this woman a parade.

You might be confusing McNamara with Secretary of War Alger (no relation), who profited from the selling of deadly tainted meat to the troops during the Spanish-American war.

no.


brad

(insert appropriate ad hominem here)!


brad

Brad,


Well, what was he doing at 'Terrorist Training Camp', roasting hotdogs around the campfire and singing camp songs? No, I guess not, seems that they were learning how to shoot Kalishnikovs, hang people from trees and soccer posts, take over planes (only in the Iraqi camps with their old 707, I grant you that) and cook up batches of chemicals to kill people. Oh, and buy and deliver dirty nuclear material here. I can see this fellow coming home in an alternate universe, where Bin Laden *waited*..."Hi Mom, hi Dad, home from summer camp", says Little Johnny Lindt. "Johnny, it's so wonderful you're home," Mom says, "what's in the suitcase." "Oh, only a nice Osamarama Mom", says Little Johnny, "Watch me push the little button, see 100,000 dead". Kaboom.


It is pretty clear what those camps were for, and now that I think about it, I am in favor of a Treason trial, not by Military Court, just by a nice old OPEN federal court, so he can tell us what he was doing. If he was aiding and abetting those responsible for Sept 11th, which it SOUNDS like he bragged about to the newspeople on tape, then he should be tried for Treason, and if guity, he should be given his just deserves.


Oh, and how do you personally know what Spann was doing in Mazur-e-Sharif? A professional torturer. Yeah, I guess we have some. Sure glad YOU know so much about CIA assignments and share it with us.


Mark

I think that your views are very anti-American, obviously pro Arab, and potentially militant.

well, it was on the news that the cia person was an interrogator who was working to extract information from tabliban prisoners. do you think he asked nicely?


also, i think it remains to be seen whether he was actively involved in terrorism, or just some fanatical moslem who wanted an all moslem state.


i suppose that adds to the reason for a treason trial (public)


brad