treason convicts

[Arturas]

The topic of the prisoners in Guantanmo came up in the Mercenary thread currently open.
Any prisoners in Guantanamo who could prove US citizenship were sent to the mainland and tried for treason in a federal court, presumably so that they would have no right to complain. Think I would prefer Guantanamo myself. No need to be involved in the prison gangs. Anyone know how those convicted of treason are being treated by their fellow inmates? Is it a mark of prestige to have been trained to kill Americans in 10 different nasty ways or are they lower than child molesters?
You realise that having a passport issued is a privilege, not a right. Does anyone know if people convicted of treason can obtain a passport in the future?

[sleestak]

I don’t know for sure but this is my guess.

I’d bet that those who were convicted of treason would not want to go to a US Federal Pen. My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that even in US prisons some crimes and criminals are viewed as worse than others. IIRC, child molesters are open prey in prisons. Child molesters are viewed, by the rest of the prisoners, as people who need to be a)hurt or b) killed.[#1]

I would be very suprised if people convicted of treason would be treated well by other inmates. In fact I’d bet they would get thier asses kicked quite often.

As far as the passport issue goes, I have no clue. I’d bet that they cannot get a passport but I really don’t know.

Slee

#1. I worked with a man, Dave, who lived through the New Mexico prison riot. Dave admitted his crime and served his time (He killed a schoolmate when he was 18. The schoolmate, according to Dave, had been picking on him for years. Dave finally lost it and hit the guy in the head with a hammer in shop class. The guy died). Dave was honest about his crime and what life was like in the Penn. Dave saw child molesters and other lower forms of life hurt and tortured in the riot. Dave told me that he saw a child molester held down while a blowtorch was put to his head. Dave, who was actually a very nice guy, ended up killing himself.

Slee

[Duckster]

Less than 30 treason convictions have ever happened in United States history. Since World War II, no successful prosecution has occurred.

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june02/walker_john_1-2.html

In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were pardoned by George Washington. The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807, resulted in acquittal. Politically motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed.

In the 20th century, treason has become largely a wartime phenomenon, and the treason cases of World Wars I and II were of minor significance. Most states have provisions in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.

Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

You would have to do some hard core research because there are no individuals alive today who were convicted of treason in the USA. I also suggest you study up on the constitutional requirements to secure a conviction of treason. You may find the government will never pursue such a case with Gitmo prisoners because the evidence is just not there.

[Arturas]

First, my condolences to Slee for Dave’s death. Wish I could say I saw a better alternative to the prison system, which I also do not like, but don’t know what it would be.

As to Duckster, it seems I have been caught on a technicality. There was one young man, a US citizen, who travelled to Afganistan, saw no action, but was convicted in the US rather than being interned in Guantanamo. What he was specifically convicted of, I don’t know. I thought it was bearing arms against the US, which I, in my ignorance, thought of as treason. I doubt the inmates in prison will be as picky (as a lawyer). Would you please explain the difference for us uneducated souls? Second was a man who had been born in the US but never claimed his US citizenship. There was talk of shipping him to the US to stand trial but I never heard how that ended. Any information anyone? And last was the shoe bomber who I presume was convicted of so many counts of attempted murder. However, in prison, I would suspect he would be considered as having committed treason, although I guess he is only a UK citizen. (Anyone able to correct my misconceptions?)
And then we have the DC sniper and the latest fragging incident, which, while they wouldn’t be convicted of treason, do have at least nuances of treason.
Thanks for the website.
Now that the question has been made more specific, shall we continue?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

There was one young man, a US citizen, who travelled to Afganistan, saw no action, but was convicted in the US rather than being interned in Guantanamo.

John Walker Lindh. He wasn’t charged with “treason”.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/02/05/ret.indictment.walker/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A federal grand jury Tuesday indicted John Walker Lindh on 10 counts, charging him with being a terrorist trained by al Qaeda who conspired with the Taliban against Americans, Attorney General John Ashcroft said.

< snip >

The grand jury, from the Eastern District of Virginia, added six charges to the original four against Walker Lindh, including conspiracy to contribute services to al Qaeda, contributing services to al Qaeda, conspiracy to supply services to the Taliban and using and carrying firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence.

The grand jury, however, did not indict the California resident for treason or any other capital offense.

The indictment includes charges from the original criminal complaint alleging he provided material support or resources to terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, conspired to kill U.S. nationals abroad and engaged in transactions with the ousted Taliban regime.[bolding mine]

He eventually plea-bargained his way down to a 20 year sentence, again, not for “treason”.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/04/lindh.statement/index.html

Last July, Walker Lindh changed his plea to guilty to one count of supplying services to the Taliban and a criminal charge that he carried a rifle and two hand grenades while fighting on the Taliban’s front lines in Afghanistan against the Northern Alliance.

If he had gone to trial and was found guilty of the government’s original indictment, Walker Lindh could have spent the rest of his life behind bars.

In return for the guilty plea, the government dropped all but one count of a lengthy criminal indictment including one of the most serious charges – conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

I think we need to discuss the legal definition of “treason”.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm

TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, 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.

It implies actions on the part of citizens against their own country. None of the prisoners in Guantanamo are U.S. citizens, so they can’t be charged with treason against the U.S.

**a man who had been born in the US but never claimed his US citizenship. There was talk of shipping him to the US to stand trial but I never heard how that ended.

**You’re probably thinking of Yaser Esam Hamdi. When last heard from, he was still being held while the lawyers squabble.

http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V0972.AP-Attacks-Hamdi.html

AP-NY-03-21-03 1306EST
Gov’t Defends Extentions of Detentions
WASHINGTON (AP)–The extended war on terrorism in Afghanistan justifies the detention of an American-born Taliban fighter without most legal rights, the Bush administration told an appeals court.

The administration urged the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to stand by its January ruling that the government may detain U.S. citizens captured overseas as enemy combatants without filing charges or allowing them to see attorneys.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the court involved Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana native apprehended in Afghanistan in November 2001. He was transferred to a naval brig in Norfolk, Va., last April after authorities learned he was born in the United States to Saudi Arabian parents.

Hamdi’s attorneys are trying to persuade the full appeals court in Richmond, Va., to review the case. They argued that the conflict in Afghanistan has ended, which the government disputed.

I don’t see how the DC Snipers had any “nuances of treason”. It was a fairly straightforward serial killer event. Crazy Persons obtain gun, Crazy Persons start killing people, Crazy Persons are eventually caught.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/29/sniper.shootings.affidavit/index.html

The Shoe Bomber had nothing to do with “treason”. He was a British citizen, so how could he be charged with treason against the U.S.?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/30/shoebomber.sentencing/index.html

Reid, a 29-year-old British citizen, was sentenced to life in prison on three counts: one of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. nationals outside the United States and two of interference with flight crew and attendants using a dangerous weapon.

As for the “recent fragging incident”, by which I presume you mean the soldier who lobbed grenades into his comrades’ tents in Kuwait…

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/25/sprj.irq.granade.attack/index.html

…soldiers who kill their own comrades are charged with murder (homicide), not treason. Treason does not mean “any act of violence against federal employees like soldiers, or against buildings or instruments of the federal government”. If that were true, then Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma City Bomber who blew up the Federal Building) would have been charged with treason. And he wasn’t.

[Duckster]

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.

Article III., Section 3 of the US Constitution.

I suggest you read up on http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html#1 for some history on treason and why is difficult, if not impossible to get a conviction for it under the constitutional definition.

[Arturas]

Isn’t 20 years for John Walker Lindh a little long for what he did? I would say ‘treason’ consequences are already dogging him.
Yes, I understand the the US legal system works by pursuing the easiest convictions (for financial reasons, if nothing else), but there is also such a thing as being convicted by public opinion, which part of my question refers to.
It was stated that the DC bomber was Muslim and sympathetic to the fate of fellow Muslims in the Middle East, but not connected with El Quaeda. The same was mentioned once or twice on CNN initially about the fragging suspect, later reports saying they had no idea why he did it.
All these people will be held in US prisons, not foreign prisons, so they will have to deal with the public opinion of their fellow inmates.
And while they have not been convicted of ‘treason’ I suspect they will receive ‘special’ treatment by many officials the rest of their lives in the US.
I remember there was a big problem with the draft dodgers in Canada, who also ‘committed treason’ in the eyes of many.

Another interesting sidelight, when you renounce US citizenship, you lose all US granted rights and privileges but you are still required to serve in the US armed forces, if they so demand. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what they would want to do with someone who has already said s/he is not loyal to the US. This was to keep young people from switching nationalities just to avoid the draft.
Therefore, there should be people out there who have encountered a person convicted of ‘treason by public opinion’ and the problems s/he encountered.

[Duckster]

*Originally posted by Arturas *
Another interesting sidelight, when you renounce US citizenship, you lose all US granted rights and privileges but you are still required to serve in the US armed forces, if they so demand.

Cite?

[Arturas]

Personal experience. Foreign countries do not always allow one to accept their citizenship unless you renounce your previous citizenship.
‘Statement of Understanding’ paragraph 4. ‘My renunciation may not affect my military or Selective Service status, if any, and may not exempt me from income taxation. I understand any problems in these areas must be resolved with the appropriate agencies.’

You sign this when you renounce your citizenship and I have the actual document before my eyes as I write. It, unfortunately, bears no form number or letter.

[Ice_Wolf]

Interesting.

Here’s an html version of the document Arturas refers to. It’s also in .pdf format.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=cache:NsOJ6b3oJ6IC:cyberatlantis.com/library/citizenship/renounce_us/us_renounce.pdf+"Statement+of+understanding"+%2B+citizenship+"+"Selective+service+status"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Tradnor]

That’s not the same thing, though.

Resident aliens in the U.S. are required to register for the draft if they are male and age 18-25, not just U.S. citizens. They may be drafted just like citizens, and are also allowed to join the armed forces voluntarily. But like citizens, after joining they must complete whatever length of service they signed up for. And they must pay income tax.

Thus the Statement of Understanding acknowledges that renouncing your citizenship does not change your status with regard to any of the above, if you remain in the United States. It is a far cry from:

*Originally posted by Arturas *
you are still required to serve in the US armed forces, if they so demand

which implies you may be called back if you renounce your citizenship and move to, say, Italy.

[Arturas]

Excuse me. Where does it say that one has to be in the US? The ambassador explained to me that one could be called up no matter where one was in the world. But some countries have extradition treaties with the US on this matter and others do not. On the other hand, if you are wanted by a country and step into their embassy, which is the same as the sovereign territory of the country itself, then you can be taken prisoner. Have not heard of the US doing this but I would not recommend any known el Quaeda trying it.