posted
The guy has been quoted (he talked to reporters) as saying he supported the terrorist attacks on the WTC.
You CAN'T say that, and NOT be 'fucked up.'
Anyway, I'd like to see him spend some jail time in a military prison, in a cell with a few guys from New York.
Give 'eating pork' a new meaning.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
I don't think this is one of those "black or white" case where you can just say that he is most definately a traitor or committed treason.
This dude clearly cut all of his ties with the U.S. long ago and therefore, he's a U.S. citizen only by definition of law (because he's born in the state, and have an American passport). But the report sounds like he's been there for a very long time, he study in Middle East, and joined up with their military, so in reality, he's really more "Taliban" then "American".
Also, if he joined up with the Taliban, wouldn't that mean he requested sanctuary with the Afgan government and therefore cutting all ties with his formal statues with U.S.?
So, to accuse him of being a traitor would be unfair because the only thing left that define him as an American is the passport and the fact that he's born in the U.S.
I think the worst the U.S. will probably do on him is to banish him by revoking his citizenship and treat him like any other Taliban POW.
[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, if he joined up with the Taliban, wouldn't that mean he requested sanctuary with the Afgan government and therefore cutting all ties with his formal statues with U.S.?
The Taliban government no longer exists. He's therefore fair game.
So, to accuse him of being a traitor would be unfair because the only thing left that define him as an American is the passport and the fact that he's born in the U.S.
And since that's the legal definition of being an American, he is therefore legally classified as a traitor, seeing as he committed treason, and he legally can be executed.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
I belive it all depends on whether or not he has renounced his US citizenship, something he'd actually be required to do if he'd taken Afghan nationality; do we have any information on this?
What do you mean by "fair game" Omey? That as his chosen nationality no longer exists, he could be said to revert to being a US citizen and therefore liable to trial for treason?
I also overheard a conversation the other day between my father (a former Foreign Office diplomat) & grandfather about the disparity between US & Uk lists of British citizens killed in the WTC attacks: seems the rule over US citizens not holding dual nationality means that each has a different definition of what consitutes a Brit.
posted
That's true, he shouldn't be treated differently.
But we're arguing if he's guilty of treason or not.
If he did joined the Taliban military or request sanctuary from the Taliban government (while they were still the offical governement of Afganistan), AND if he willingly give up his U.S. citizenship, which is probably a reasonable step for him to joined Taliban, then he's no longer U.S. citizen right?
Also, I don't think U.S. allow people with "dual-citizenship" statues, therefore, if he did joined up with Taliban, therefore accquiring an Afganistan citizen statues, then he's no longer U.S. citizen under U.S. regulations.
So he's no longer a U.S. citizen in both cases, therefore he shouldn't be guily of treason.
-------------------- "George Washington said, 'I cannot tell a lie.' Richard Nixon said, 'I cannot tell the truth.' Bill Clinton said, 'I cannot tell the difference.'"
-- comedian TOM SMOTHERS, from his latest stage act with brother DICK SMOTHERS.
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I'm not sure, but i havent heard anything about him officially renouncing his citizenship.. i wonder if hes going to say 'well, thats what i meant to do'
Thats like walking into a stock exchange and saying 'Well, I meant to buy that stock yesterday' and expecting to get it at the old price.
Just because he no longer considers himself an American doesnt mean he isnt. Thats why we have the treason laws.. so that people here wont go and pick up guns and stand with our enemies..
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't really think it would work for that purpose. I mean, if someone's going to "pick up a gun" and go to war, they obviously aren't all that worried about being killed.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not saying that he should be treated differently, just that his exact status should be determined. Either he is held to be first and foremost a US citizen, who has therefore committed treason; or, he is a Taliban fighter and should be treated however the rest of them will be. Given there's no war per se, that rules out straight internment without trial as a POW. And with the current plans for the proposed powersharing goverment, it's unlikely that massive trials against people at his level will occur, rather it's the leaders who'll be put on trial.
Well, I say that, but then again, it's the leaders of the Taliban who will likely be called to serve in the powersharing government, so maybe they'll try to appease the people of Afghanistan by using their own soldiers as scapegoats. . .
It's EXTREMELY difficult to renounce your citizenship. You have to be outside the US to do it, in one of our embassies. We don't have an embassy in Afganistan. I suppose he could have made a stop somewhere on the way, though.
And the US DOES allow dual citizenship. It just discourages it, and it's a total pain in the butt. In fact, most people who renounce their US citizenship are dual citizens because they happened to be born here while their parents were traveling from somewhere else.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- often called the "citizenship clause" -- reads as follows:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The original intent of this provision was to guarantee citizenship to the former slaves and their descendants following the Civil War. However, the Supreme Court held in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas (1980) that the "citizenship clause" prevented Congress from revoking a person's US citizenship without evidence of his or her intent to give up said citizenship.
"...although intent to give up citizenship had to be proved, Congress was free to establish the standard of proof. Specifically, it was OK for such intent to be established via a "preponderance of evidence" standard (as in a lawsuit). It was not constitutionally necessary for a loss-of-citizenship case to be treated like a criminal trial, requiring intent to be proved by "clear and convincing" evidence."
The US did not allow dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had US citizenship by birthplace), but a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1967.
quote:The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized in individual cases. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they'll usually say it's OK.
quote:But doesn't serving in a foreign army result in automatic loss of US citizenship?
No. As explained above, essentially nothing causes automatic loss of US citizenship any more. If you join a foreign army, you can lose your US citizenship if you acted with the intent of giving it up. Otherwise, you can still keep it.
Current US law says that foreign military service result in loss of US citizenship if the person served as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) or the foreign military force is engaged in hostilities against the US; the service was voluntary; and (most importantly) the person intended to give up his US citizenship.
Current US policy goes further. Unless a dual citizen is serving in a "policy level position" in a foreign government, commits treason against the US (e.g., by fighting the US voluntarily during wartime), or acts in a manner considered totally inconsistent with any possible intent to keep US citizenship, the State Department is unlikely to take any action. Further, the current policy statement on foreign military service recognizes that dual citizens sometimes find themselves legally obligated to participate in the military forces of their other country of citizenship, and can do so in such situations without endangering their US status.
[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
