> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip]
> All of that, however, is immaterial. Walker apparently trained in an Al
> Qaeda training camp. He was a member of Al Qaeda, not just a supporter of
> the Taliban, to the extent that those things are distinguishable. He
> apparently fought as an Al Qaeda member in Kashmir, or at least
> that's what
> I've read. He was clearly an active member of an armed group whose
> explicit purpose was the destruction of the United States of America. It
> is, from what we know of the camps, impossible to go through them
> _without_
> learning this fact. Certainly, anyone who knew enough about Al Qaeda to
> join them knew enough about them to know that they were attacking the
> United States. He has publicly stated his support for the bombings of the
> World Trade Center and the USS Cole - both Al Qaeda operations carried out
> while he was a member. So he seems clearly to meet the legal standard for
> treason.
That's much more of the kind of answer I was looking for... and you've
convinced me that there's little likelihood that he was unaware of the
nature and actions of the organizations he decided to affiliate with. I
hadn't quite thought through the implications, especially, of being trained
by Al Qaeda... nor did I have any sense of what that might have been like.
But now that you say it, surely there was intense anti-Americanism at any
such training camp. Hard to imagine otherwise.
> It is, however, possible that he cannot be tried for treason. By fighting
> as a member of armed forces opposed to the United States, he may have
> forfeited his citizenship, and only citizens can be tried for treason.
I've wondered about that issue, too. Since we never recognized the Taliban
as a legitimate government, did he join a foreign armed force? Seems a
little sticky.
> Since Al Qaeda is not the armed forces of a state, however
> (again, they are
> illegal combatants under the laws of war, not soldiers), it is possible
> that this does not apply to him, and he remains a US citizen.
Whoops, here's your answer already...
> If
> he _is_ a
> citizen, then he should be tried for treason in a civilian court.
> If he is
> _not_ a citizen, then he should face a military tribunal that charges him
> for any war crimes that he might have committed. If it is true that he
> fought in Kashmir and he is not a citizen, I'm sure that the Indians would
> be happy to deal with him for us if we are averse to handling the
> situation. My own reading of the case - and I'm still in the midst of
> reading up on treason law, so this is a fairly unformed opinion - is that
> he probably is covered by the legal definition of treason and should be
> tried for such by American courts.
It's going to be interesting to see how this is handled. So far, I've been
happy to see that the administration has been cautious about declaring what
they'll do with him, since it is such an odd situation.
Thanks for the info.
Nick
