What’s the precedent for treatment of POW’s who had “crossed over” to fight for the other side? Here we have John Walker, a bay area man who was fighting for the Taliban:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/03/ret.american.taliban/index.html
What will happen to him? Has this happened in the past?
Well, likely he’ll be executed for treason. Maybe imprisonment though.
He is a traitor and should be dealt with accordingly. Since he was a combatant against the US I believe the proper protocol would be execution.
Could someone help me out with the legal definition of treason? Is it treason for a civilian to leave the country and fight for the enemy or just for a soldier that swore an oath to defend the country to leave and fight for the enemy?
What happened to the German-Americans that returned to the fatherland to fight in WWII?
I am not sure legally what should be done, but if I had my way he would be dancing at the end of a rope.
This guy is in big trouble. It is treason no matter who you are, if you are a US citizen.
Not only is it a forfeit of your citizenship to join a foreign military, but he actually took up arms against the United States.
Sounds like he could be executed. I mean, jeez, the people he was hiding with in that cellar were killing Red Cross workers who were trying to clear the bodies from the compound on Thursday! This guy was in an Al-Quaida (sorry about the spelling) training camp with bin Laden, listening to him extoll the virtue of the attack on the USS Cole! He heard all about bombing Americans and did nothing.
So, his heart is with the fighters, huh? Fine. No problem.
Well, as Dubya has started to actually give a damn about what the rest of the world thinks, my guess is that he won’t be on trial for treason. He’ll likely just be treated like all other, non-american soldiers.
No, because he’s not a non-American soldier!
And this has nothing to do with Dubya, as we have a seperation of branches! At least, we do at the moment.
Huh?! This is just a WAG, but I would be shocked if a single country in the world doesn’t consider treason a crime.
Further, assuming he gets turned over to the US (which I think is likely), he will decidedly not be treated like the non-American Taliban and al-Qaeda. First, he cannot be brought before a military tribunal - as a US citizen, he is entitled to full due process. Second, the other Taliban cannot be charged with treason against the US - only US citizens can.
Sua
I believe the guy is now in the hands of the US military, and will be turned over to a civilian authority (federal) as soon as is feasible.
He will face charges in federal court, for the most heinous of crimes.
Sorry, I’m probably wrong.
I thought to myself how horribly unfair it is that he’ll be judged differently from every other soldier just because of his citizenship – I assumed that having him executed but letting all other soldiers off the hook would be a bad PR move. I believe that if the administration wanted the court to let him off relatively easy (essentially, anything but execution) they WOULD have the means, separation of powers or not.
Still, now that I think about it I don’t think I’m right after all. I should’ve thought about it for just a minute more or two before hitting submit.
It’s possible he may have gotten himself into more than he realized. It was said that he left the US six months ago, before all this had taken place. He may have tagged along with Taliban members thinking it was great way to study Islam at its most extreme end. Once he was in he could not get out. It’s just a possible theory. I’m not supporting the guy at all, but there may be more to the story than just him running out on his country. Sounds to me like in the prison situation, they had no clue who they were fighting, other than Pakistan military. I think his fate could be a bit complicated depending on his story. To me it doesn’t matter much, he was stupid enough to get mixed up in it. Sorry about your luck John, you really messed up. He will more than likely die because of this.
FWIW, I found the following statute:
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2381
So he might also be facing a $10,000 fine. 
Anyway, I agree that there are a lot of issues here.
“owing allegiance” maybe the most operative words. Is allegiance voluntary, or no? I think it is.
When this guy swore an oath of allegiance to Afghanistan, and subsequently entered thier “armed forces”, he ceased to be an American citizen. Hence, he is an ordinary Afghan Taliban fighter with a very unusual birthplace. As such he is a non-citizen and therefore subject to the “military tribunal” approach.
To my mind, “treason” implies treachery, the continued pretense of allegiance while conducting activities injurious etc. Kim Philby is a traitor, an German-American born in Berlin who fought against the Nazi’s is not.
A change in national allegiance is a legitimate choice, worthy of respect. If he was open in his change of allegiance, his choice should be respected.
He should be treated no differently than any other surrendered Taliban fighter.
PHOOEY!
This guy did not go into a US Embassy & renounce his citizenship, so he is a US citizen.
He bore arms against his own nation, & against our Northern Alliance comrades-in-arms.
To Hell with him.
Note To Moderators–this is not swearing, this is giving directions to the guy’s new home address.
By the way, **elucidator **, from your profile–
Underlining by Me.
You’re “generously sharing your wisdom” so I’ll generously share my spelling skills. S-T-E-I-N.
Correct & re-deliver. 
Well I have a legal definition of treason. The following is the argentinian penal code:
ARTICULO 214.- Será reprimido con reclusión o prisión de diez a veinticinco años o reclusión o prisión perpetua y en uno u otro caso, inhabilitación absoluta perpetua, siempre que el hecho no se halle comprendido en otra disposición de este código, todo argentino o toda persona que deba obediencia a la Nación por razón de se empleo o función pública, que tomare las armas contra ésta, se uniere a sus enemigos o les prestare cualquier ayuda o socorro.
The important part is that traitors could only be argentinians or foreigners who working for the nation or holding a public office “took arms against the nation, joins their enemies or helps them”.
That is why, at least in our eyes, that man is not a traitor
Anyway you slice it, he is in deep.
It’s not that easy to renounce your citizenship (See Cecil on this matter, of course) and I doubt he did that.
Even though he may be under US control, it’s not entirely out of the question he will be killed by the Northern Alliance at some point.
Treason would require a trial before the Senate, yes?
Or, a military tribunal. In any case, hopefully execution. Oops.
I remember asking someone (not here) why Jane Fonda was never charged with treason when she went to Hanoi and made her broadcasts on their radio to American troops, and was filmed frollicking on heavy guns. Basically the answer I got was since North Vietnam was not recognized as a legitimate government, and there was no “declared” war, she could not be tried for treason…
I don’t know if that’s really true. But since this guy actually took up arms, so his case is different anyway.
I don’t see much good in executing him, not because I am a bleeding heart, but because in doing so we would be giving him exactly what he wants. Put him in prison (but with no “luxuries” and required labor) instead.
The entire thing is quite astonishing.
If he hasn’t renounced his US citizenship, he’ll be tried for treason.
Imagine the publicity that would surround such a trial.
His estate will get a fortune for the publishing rights to his biography.
Right now I wonder if he truly realises the problems he has, and the fame he will acquire over the next year or two.
In the U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-1848, some recent Irish immigrants to the U.S. defected to the Mexican side, forming the San Patricio Brigade. There is a monument to these guys in Mexico City today.
The U.S. government, on capturing them, hanged the ones who had defected after war was declared and branded the ones who had defected before war was declared.
My own preference would have been to not punish them, and let them live their lives in Mexico. They were defending fellow Catholics against an imperialist war of aggression, and incidentally probably trading the ill-treatment and discrtimination they experienced in the U.S. Army for the higher status and gratitude they got in Mexico.
Second example: the American defectors in Laos, killed by U.S. deployment of nerve gas according to the controversial CNN documentary “Blowback.” They didn’t get any trial or tribunal, they were simply killed and their existence covered up.
In this case, I would prefer not to have punished them either, since the U.S. shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Third example: at least two Americans died fighting for the guerrillas in El Salvador. It was revealed during the Iran-Contra hearings that U.S. forces were secretly active in combat there, although it is doubtful that these two ever encountered them.
Not only would I not want to punish those two American guerrillas, I would have celebrated them as heroes. They were fighting against a government controlled by death squads and oligarchs. The U.S. was definitely on the wrong side in that one.
John Walker is the defector whose actions I approve of the least, and his cause is definitely less sympathetic than the others. But just because I like his cause less, I don’t advocate anything harsher for him than what I would want for the others. He should be allowed to stay in Afghanistan, or if the Afghans don’t want him, some fundamentalist country more to his liking.
Since he joined up before war was declared, maybe he could benefit from the “San Patricio” precedent.
By the way, I’m also against the death penalty in general, and opposed to military tribunals and Bush/Ashcroft’s constitutional power grabs. So maybe my opinion doesn’t count anyway.
Nope. The Rosenbergs, for example, were tried and convicted of treason by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, and sentenced to death by judge Irving Kaufman. Their appeals to the US Appeals Court for the Second Circuit and request for certiori from the US Supreme Court were denied.
As far as I know, the Rosenbergs did not hold any official position in the US government.