Excuse me but...

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
As far as him being in the US instead of Cuba - this has been explained numerous times. He's an American citizen. As such, he's granted the rights that all American citizens have - a trial with a jury of peers. Do you think we're going to get those in a military tribunal? No. Hence his trial in the US.

There is one school of thought (which I'm somewhat sympathetic with, and which nobody in the government seems to be interested in trotting out), that taking up of arms as part of a foreign army to do battle against the United States amounts to a renunciation of US citizenship, in which case he is NOT an American citizen and should be treated exactly the same as his al-Qaeda colleagues.

[Undertoad]

<i>John Walker was just in a room of undesireable people.</i>

This is a peculiar and telling understatement. From the accounts I've heard, he was in a flooded prison basement (tw's "room") of Taleban and possibly al Queda (tw's "undesireable people"), who were armed, resisting, and conspiring to kill (tw's "just in") US forces.

I'm not willing to try and convict him on the basis of what little we know. But what little we know is pretty damning.

I think he's a pathetic case, a combination of youthful energetic idealism and pure stupidity.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by kbarger


There is one school of thought (which I'm somewhat sympathetic with, and which nobody in the government seems to be interested in trotting out), that taking up of arms as part of a foreign army to do battle against the United States amounts to a renunciation of US citizenship, in which case he is NOT an American citizen and should be treated exactly the same as his al-Qaeda colleagues.

I've wondered about that, too. I'm not sure what the rules are for revoking an American's citizenship. I guess Walker didn't bother to read the small print on the fourth page of his passport. For those who don't have one:

Loss of Citizenship Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing any of the following acts: 1) being naturalized in a foreign state; 2) taking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state; 3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state; 4) accepting employment with a foreign government; 5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer overseas. For detailed information, consult the nearest American Embassy or Consulate, or contact the Office of Citizens Consular Services, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-4818, or call (202) 647-3444

I'm not clear about the circumstances of Walker's capture, or the nature of his activities before he was captured. Has anybody heard for certain that he was "under arms", as the saying goes?

[russotto]

Originally posted by tw

Putting those detainees in Cuba makes them subject to neither US nor International law. Does this thread suggest that Americans are finally hearing what has been headline news in Europe?

The detainees in Cuba are still subject to all the US treaty requirements with respect to prisoners of war.

[Nic Name]

ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICE

Excerpt from the official website of the Department of State of the U.S. Government.

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Loss of U.S. nationality was almost immediate consequences of foreign military service and the other acts listed in Section 349(a) until 1967 when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253. In that decision, the court declared unconstitutional the provisions of Section 349(a) which provided for loss of nationality by voting in a foreign election. In so doing, the Supreme Court indicated that a U.S. citizen "has a constitutional right to remain a citizen... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship."

Further confirmation of the necessity to establish the citizen's intent to relinquish nationality before expatriation will result came in the opinion in Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980). The Court stated that "expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct." The Court also indicated that a person's intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship may be shown by statements or actions.

Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. Service as a high-ranking officer, particularly in a policy-making position, could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

They may not consider him to have served in the armed forces of a foreign state, simply because the US did not recognize the Taliban as a government (and of course, it didn't recognize al Qaeda either). So what we have may just be the equivalent of some dude kicking a cop, but doing it on foreign soil.

As for Tony's comment... I think a lot of it has to do with religion and the ridiculous ideals which it promotes. Think about how many deaths religion has been responsible for... and then think about why he joined up with al Qaeda in the first place.

I'm not saying Islam is worse than any religion, nor am I saying it's any better. Just something to think about - religion is responsible for the 9/11 catastrophe and millions of other deaths over the course of human history. Pretty awful...

[Nic Name]

originally posted by russotto
The detainees in Cuba are still subject to all the US treaty requirements with respect to prisoners of war.

The important moral concern is only whether the detainees, by whatever legal characterization, are being treated humanely in accordance with the standards of international law, including the Geneva Convention.

Reading the Geneva Convention, it seems to me to be quite inapplicable for the detainees to be designated PoW for all the purposes of the GC, in the context of the current conflict. The Geneva Convention is not natural law, but a contractual agreement between signatories that provides mutually binding rules that govern how each will treat the opposing armed forces captured during a conflict. There is even a provision that non-signatories should be afforded the rights for their forces, if they agree to reciprocity with the signatory nation. This is clearly not the deal with the Al Qaeda or the Taleban. Afghanistan is a signatory to the GC, of course, but the UN recognized only the Northern Alliance as the official government, in any event.

There are clearly many "rights" of PoWs in the GC that should not be extended to these detainees, especially the right to release and repatriation, and the right to financial compensation while imprisoned.

I don't think the GC should be read loosely, or interpreted broadly, to advocate greater entitlement for these detainees than generally humane treatment, which they should be afforded even without reference to the GC. Not that Allied forces would be given the same, if captured.

Everyone is entitled to form their own differing opinions, and opposing international lawyers might debate the fine points of interpretation of the Geneva Convention, but it's certainly worth reading.

[warch]

Powell is pushing for POW status, understanding the importance of clarifying the detainees'legal status and helping the US maintain some semblance of high ground. How would such a designation further muddle the declaration/nondeclaration of war? Do you think he can sway the Cheney and the rest?

[jaguar]

I don't think he can, and its such a loss. Firstly because it will really piss off many member of the fragile "war agains't terror" group, secondly from a broader perspective of international legitimicy of what the US is doing.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
From the accounts I've heard, he was in a flooded prison basement (tw's "room") of Taleban and possibly al Queda (tw's "undesireable people"), who were armed, resisting, and conspiring to kill (tw's "just in") US forces.

He was in a basement prison and being held by Northern Alliance when his peers started an armed uprising. He was found, still in that basement prison and without weapons. To make a case against him, we must prove he participated in the uprising or at least was in possession of weapons. Neither has been proven nor even stated. From his own testimony, he apparently did not participate in the uprising nor takeup weapons.

John Walker was simply a soldier in a civil war when others in his 'army' attacked the US. We have no reason to believe that John Walker physically supported or participated in any military or terrorist action against the US. That's the rub. Regardless of how we may emotionally feel, emotion is irrelevant. Logic must prevail. Until we have evidence of crimes, John Walker is innocent. That is the problem. Too many people have convicted him only based upon emotion or based upon who his peers were. There is a severe shortage of incriminating facts.

As things stand today, it is likely that John Walker is guilty of no crimes against America. That's the logic of it when the emotion is removed.

[tw]

Originally posted by warch
Powell is pushing for POW status, understanding the importance of clarifying the detainees'legal status and helping the US maintain some semblance of high ground. How would such a designation further muddle the declaration/nondeclaration of war? Do you think he can sway the Cheney and the rest?

Powell is in company with some very scary right wing extremists. These are people who are not what George Jr represented himself as during the election. It is why cooler head were necessary to avoid a possible armed standoff with China. It is why we have been discussing unilateral and unprovoked attacks on Iraq. It is why we are wasting massive funds for a nuclear tips missile attack from Indonesia when the forces necessary to prevent another WTC are under equipped - something like 48 out of 50 in the world. It is why we will spend $800 million to convert $222 million luxery liners for a miliatary that does not want or need them.

Why do we call it 'Homeland Security' as if is was a department of the Third Reich? It does not stop there. These extremists now want to create a military joint command for domestic security. Are the FBI, US Marhsall service, US Secret Service, ATF, State Police, and local authorities sufficient? Not according to right wing extremists who now want to bring the military into crime fighting.

It was bad enough that MBA concepts were enacted to solve what was really a management problem in the Attorney's General office. This Homeland Security is just another layer of bureaucracy created because information was not being properly exchanged by various law enforcement - a White House and Justice Dept problem at highest levels.

The military has many joint commands such a Southern Command for operations in South America, Central Command for military operations in central Asia, space command for military operations in space, AND now a military command for domestic operations? This could be a violation of the Constitution. But these same right wing extremists are no longer worried about the Constitution now that they are in power.

It is scary that Powell appears to be one of only a few moderates in an administration so right wing that Powell appears to be a left wing liberal.

Remember many of the people responsible for the political fubar that permitted Saddam to massacre his rebels are also now the same people calling for a unilateral attack on Iraq. Scary that Ashcroft is only another right wing extremist in this administration. A man who even makes curtain decisions based upon his religion rather than upon the secular requirements of his job.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw

Powell is in company with some very scary right wing extremists...

Ya know, I'd be careful about flinging the term "right wing extremists" about so much in this context. Hanging out in right-to-keep-and-bear-arms (RKBA) space as much as I do, I know a lot of people who I consider to be "right wing extremists". But a lot of them find ATF and the "Office of Homeland Security" to be scary too. "Right wing extremists" seems like too mild a term sometimes.

Maybe "Nightwatch" and "Ministry of Peace" would be better...:-)

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Ya know, I'd be careful about flinging the term "right wing extremists" about so much in this context. ... But a lot of them find ATF and the "Office of Homeland Security" to be scary too. "Right wing extremists" seems like too mild a term sometimes.

That is also characteristic of extremist groups. They find anyone who thinks differently to be scary. Michigan militia, for example, who thought everyone would be against them. Extremists have intolerance. They fear others who think (and sometimes others who look) different. It is this intolerant attitude in George Jr's inner circle that almost got us into a military standoff with China. Thank goodness there were a few moderates, voices of tolerance, in George Jr's administration.

BTW, because of those moderates, George Jr will be visiting China soon in what is expected to be a warm welcome.

Tonight we have another example of problems created by the intolerant. First a parallel example: Since the US is a primary source of IRA arms, then the US an enemy of Ireland? Of course not. But because Iran is a source of arms for some terrorists, then Iran is an American enemy?

We have our mafioso and Iran has their's. But tonight, George Jr painted Iran with a broad brush. He is undoing years of slow careful fence mending with Iran - a country we really do need to find common and friendly ground with. Ditto with N Korea - a country that was slowly being brought back into the world as a contributing nation.

Extremists paint everyone either black or white. Iran is neither. Work to open N Korea has been destroyed. Until we get more moderate thinking from our current White House staffers, we will see a slow degradation of relations with all Arab nations. But then the Saudi crown prince was trying to tell us that when he offered a $10million check to the WTC fund. Did anyone here what he said?

Extremists will not see what the Saudi Crown prince said in an interview in yesterdays NY Times. Extremists see enemies everywhere. Therefore extremists are so dangerous.

What contibuted so much to our VietNam fiasco? Another extremist called McCarthy (R-WI).