posted 12-07-2001 05:33            

Should We:

A-Strip him naked and tie him to a pole and then let the widows of about 20 NYFD members have at him while armed with sharp little penknives to torture him until he slowly bleeds to death from all the painful little cuts.

Or

B-Strap him to a gurney and and perform a sex-change operation on him and then once he appears somewhat like a woman dump him off in another one of those countries that treats women the way that women were treated under the Taliban regime.

Or

C-Beat him to death with fly swatters on a special PPV for only $4.95.

Please make your vote now!

posted 12-07-2001 07:06            

BTW, membership in the Taliban does not equal membership in AlQueda- though Bush would like you to think so. And if he's been there for a couple years- well, what boy didn't dream of joining the Afghans in driving out the Russians after watching The Beast, Rambo 3 or Red Scorpion?

Sucks to be him, and I think Taliban social values rate a kick in the head, but don't let emotion cloud reality.

posted 12-07-2001 12:01            

quote:

---

whatever happened to treason?

---

That would be a tough charge to make stick. Boy Wonder signed up before the Taliban was declared an enemy, and didn't really have an opportunity to come back until he'd surrendered. Plus, no formal declaration of war was made, we just decided to bomb a sovreign government out of existance, even though they were willing to surrender Bin Laden to an international court. Boy Wonder never (at least that has been proven) levied war on us- he ran around doging bombs (poorly, apparently) with the rest of his buddies in a defensive battle against an invading force.

So then, onto the U.S. Sedition Act...

"United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff.
A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917.
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the
military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . .
or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing
of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both...."

Again, no formal declaration of war was made.

Sure, he should be conemned to wearing a full-legth veil for the rest of his short life, and tied to a post while the various men and women the Taliban mutilated for minor religious offences have their way with him - but there's no legal ground in the above laws for the U.S. to punish him- not that that will stop Bush & Ashcroft.

posted 12-20-2001 06:46            

What Are The Charges?
John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, could face penalties as severe as execution or as minor as the legal equivalent of a spanking. So far he has not been charged with any crimes, but his legal situation is murky--especially since his alleged crimes most likely occurred on foreign soil.

Possible charges, in order of likelihood:

Terrorism/conspiracy to murder Americans
The most straightforward case is to accuse Walker of attempting to kill Americans. But prosecutors must prove that he was consciously trying to hurt U.S. citizens, not just Northern Alliance Afghans. CIA agent Mike Spann's death could present the strongest evidence against Walker. Merely joining the Taliban probably wouldn't be enough proof of terrorism, but joining Al Qaeda may be close.
Maximum penalty: death.

Sedition
Similar to treason, but doesn't require two witnesses. Prosecutors would have to prove that Walker was under American authority while he attempted to violently undermine the U.S. government. Because he was in an Afghan prison ostensibly under Northern Alliance control, sedition may not apply.
Maximum penalty: death.

Fighting for a foreign state
Walker could lose his U.S. citizenship for fighting on behalf of a foreign state. But this is extremely unlikely, and the process takes years. Courts are very reluctant to deprive native-born Americans of their citizenship, but if Walker knowingly fired on American soldiers, the case would be stronger. Without U.S. citizenship Walker couldn't be charged with treason or sedition, but if he was a member of Al Qaeda, he could be tried in a military tribunal.

Violation of the Neutrality Act
Legal calisthenics could support a weak case: Americans mustn't violate United States' neutrality by entering a foreign combat zone. But the decision to join the Taliban military must have occurred while Walker was in the United States, and neither Congress nor the President declared the U.S. to be neutral.
Maximum penalty: $50,000 fine and five years in jail.

Treason
Treason would be the hardest to prove. The U.S. Constitution says American citizens may be convicted of treason if two eye witnesses testify or Walker confesses in court to fighting against the United States of America or supporting the enemies in their fight against the U.S. But without a formal declaration of war, the case is complicated.
Maximum penalty: death.

Minor charges
Almost all other minor charges, such as carrying an unregistered Kalashnikov, would not apply because they did not happen on U.S. soil. But reduced sentences are likely based on Walker's cooperation with U.S. intelligence.

posted 12-20-2001 07:07            

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshy:
[QUOTE][b]whatever happened to treason?

---

Again, no formal declaration of war was made.

[/B][/QUOTE]

There is no longer such thing as a "declaration of war" as it has been in the past (that is why Vietnam/Gulf/This is not a war). War has not been declared since WWII, after that they abolished the system because it was too umm I don't know but it's not there anymore. So even though we have not declared war, this is still wartime.

And let me save you the time:

posted 12-20-2001 09:26            

but here is relevent link pertaining to information I was talking about:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/641394.asp?cp1=1

maybe we did declare war on korea, i know vietnam was never declared and i don't iraq either

but that is not to take anything away from those who fought in either war

posted 12-20-2001 09:55            

quote:

---

There is no longer such thing as a "declaration of war" as it has been in the past (that is why Vietnam/Gulf/This is not a war). War has not been declared since WWII, after that they abolished the system because it was too umm I don't know but it's not there anymore. So even though we have not declared war, this is still wartime.

---

Did you actually READ the article? It confirms that this is not a declared war, although the War Powers act allows the President to initiate military actions for 60 days, and Congress has already voted to extend that.

It also mentions that some Congressman are pushing for a declaration of war- which would certainly be a silly thing to pursue if such declarations had been "abolished".

But you shouldn't feel too bad about your poor retention, considering the stunning certainty of Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. “This resolution authorizes the use of force by America. As a matter of law, the War Powers Act may not even require this resolution. The president likely already has the legal authority needed.”

If a member of the House Judiciary Committee doesn't know the specifics of the law on this, who the hell does?!?

And whether you like it or not, the government aggrees with me; according to the article above, they're not prosecuting him for Treason, because they lack the witnesses and the declared war.

------------------
What may sound to some like anger is really nothing more than sympathetic contempt.
- George Carlin

(edited because "too", "to" and "two" are not the same)