These statements are false. You do not forfeit your U.S. citizenship by joining a foreign army. The supreme court upheld this view in Wiborg v. U.S., 163 U.S. 632 (1985). The U.S. government is usually not happy about U.S. citizens serving in foreign armed forces, but there is not much they can do about it. You do not abandon your citizenship by joining foreign militaries, nor is it considered a criminal offence under U.S. law to do so.
There are two exceptions to this rule. One is that if you a) willingly join a foreign army that is already engaged in hostilities against the United States or U.S. forces, AND b) do so with the intention of abandoning your citizenship, THEN you may lose your citizenship. (I am not sure about criminal penalties.) The other exception is if you serve in a foreign armed force as an OFFICER. That could also put your U.S. citizenship in jeopardy.
None of these conditions seem to have been fulfilled in this case, since the guy supposedly joined the Taliban forces well before the start of the war (and, as far as I understand, was not an officer). However, IF he is convicted for treason, then his citizenship could be stripped from him under U.S.C. Sections 1481 to 1489. Not that it would matter much at that point, since a conviction for treason would most likely result in the death penalty.
What if you join the military forces of a terrorist organization that was working with foreign military forces, and were among those who actively engaged non-combatants?
This guy broke a hell of a lot of Federal statutes. One way or another, he’ll be rightfully put to death.
Treason against the Unites 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.
Well, I’m too lazy to look up cases defining the contours of treason, but based on the sketchy facts we already know, I would be troubled if the guy was charged.
There are two reasons for this:
First, it seems to me that the USA is a (relatively) free country, and people should be free to abandon their allegience to the US if they do so openly. It would be nice if those people formally renounced their U.S. citizenship, but I don’t see any harm in not requiring formal renouncement in this case, anyway.
Second, it seems to me that U.S. Citizens are arguably entitled to very clear notice of what groups and nations are considered “enemies” of the U.S., such as a formal declaration of war.
This is incorrect. It is a violation of US neutrality laws to join a foreign military force or rebel organization, either as an officer or an enlistee, and it is a criminal act. We had this debate about six months ago, and I pulled down the relevant statute sections at that time - I’ll try to find the thread.
These laws are very often ignored by law enforcement officials, particularly where the foreign military you join is that of an ally. But the law does exist.
Just saw in NYT that his parents are on the case and working with the authorities to get their adventurous, albeit somewhat different, little boy back home safely. Seems it was Malcolm X’s autobiography that tipped him over the edge.
I’ll bet Dave Stewart (above) has it right about his legal and financial future:
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
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to this point of view, and in fact I might support it depending on the facts that eventually come out. But let’s not be too hasty! After all, he went over to Afghanistan before 9/11, and might not have had a chance to hear about it. Many Afghans didn’t, and he’d know only what his superiors told him in any event.
Also, he was steeped in propaganda and likely believed that OBL was not a terrorist, but actually a good Muslim, and was not responsible for any of the acts attributed to him. Believing this is pretty feckless, but doesn’t prove that he knowingly aided the country’s enemies. (I’m assuming that you have to have the proper mindset to commit treason – a deliberateness.)
If he committed war crimes with the foreign Al-Queda troops, I’d actually be more in favor of his execution. But I think we should judge him on what he actually did, not just bark to have him killed on what we know now.
I’d like to see that thread and the statute sections. I was under the impression that Wiborg v. U.S. explicitly stated that it is NOT a crime to joing foreign militaries. In the State Department notice about foreign military service, it is said that “in Wiborg v. U.S., 163 U.S. 632 (1985), the Supreme Court endorsed a lower court ruling that it was not a crime under U.S. law for an individual to go abroad for the purpose of enlisting in a foreign army”. So, that is the stand that is being taken by the State Department. Are you saying that the Supreme Court has reversed its 1985 ruling, or that the State Department is misreading Wiborg v. U.S.?
This is false. The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear that US citizenship, once acquired by birth or naturalization, is permanent and cannot be revoked. The courts have so ruled:
Congress may, within its power, make it a crime to participate in a foreign military action without the approval of the Government, but under no circumstance may the United States Government strip citizenship from a person who has legitimately acquired it.
I believe the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage, not treason. Also, the Rosenbergs were convicted prior to recent death penalty jurisprudence which now holds that for the death penalty to be applicable, the criminal conduct must have resulted in death. (I believe, however, that there is evidence that at least one intelligence officer died as a result of the Rosenberg’s actions.) Whether this applies to the crime of treason is unclear, but I suspect the Court would permit death as a penalty for treason even in the absence of proof that the criminal conduct led to death. In any case, if Mr. Walker cannot be convicted of treason in accordance with the Constitution, the Government should be required to show that he engaged in some form of criminal conduct within the jurisdiction of the United States (including its extraterritorial jurisdiction, as defined by law) which is directly related to at least one death. Otherwise, the application of the death penalty would be a mockery of the very principles upon which this country was founded. And under no circumstance should he (or anyone else) be tried before one of Bush’s kangaroo courts.
Sua, I remember participating in that thread and you might want to look it up. If I remember correctly the statute said it was illegal for a US citizen in US soil to enroll in a foreign army or to leave the country with the specific intent of enrolling in a foreign army but we agreed that, once having left the country, it was not illegal to do so. Also there was no loss of citizenship in any case. I think it was mentioned that the object was to prevent recruitment by foreign armies in the US and not to specifically prevent anyone from enrolling.
I agree with one stipulation. Mr. Walker is a kid. He is a 20 year old impressionable kid. Granted he took his leave way too late. But I do think he did in fact show reasonable evidence he fought for the Taliban against the Americans. He reportedly condoned and supported 9/11 and in an interview stated this. I also agree is should not be submitted to a military captain kangaroo court, he will surly swing if that happens.
Most likely he will be tried for treason against the US and be found guilty. This is punnishable by death, or life in prison. I feel for this kids father. Poor guy was on CNN saying his son is a “good boy”. Operative word here is boy. This guy is going to have to spend thousands on a lawyer, and then I believe it is still a futile venture.
He is a member of the Taliban and did time at Bin Laden’s terror camps. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are two seperate (although seemingly merged) militant groups that have declared war against the United States. The Northern Alliance, regardless of their past history, are allied with the United States in a joint military operation. An attack on the Northern Alliance thus is an attempt to disrupt the neccessary military operations of the United States.
This man (he is not a boy; if Nathaneal Brazill is an adult then so is this joker) made a conscious decision to join the enemies of the United States and was involved in combat against the United States. He is a traitor. Hang him.
He is a traitor to the US. He took up arms against US allies and therefore, the US itself. He should be dealt with as a turncoat and at the very least serve many, many years in jail. The US could simply turn him over to the Northern Alliance and let them deal with him, at which point he would probably be shot or tossed in one of their filthy jails to slowly rot away.
Either way, the fanatic should not be allowed to walk free again.
It quite likely will. I’m actually quite excited over the prospects of this potential prosecustion (which, as Sua notes re: citizenship, will most likely be handled by actual courts as opposed to Bush’s lynching tribunals). Depending on the crime they charge him with and how willing he is to walk away from any deals, this case could bring up all kinds of interesting issues, like the the President’s powers as commander-in-chief versus Congress’ exclusive power to declare war, not to mention the constitutional requirements for the crime of treason.
I would also add that anybody who purports to know what will happen here is speaking out of the wrong end of their digestive tract. This is very much uncharted legal territory, and my suspicion is that public opinion will play a large role in what the prosecutors decide to do. I would be very surprised to see Mr. Walker executed, however, since there is zero evidence that he ever raised arms against American forces. And contrary to what Mambo suggests, it is emphatically not a crime merely to have gone through one of bin Laden’s training camps.
And just 'cause I got curious, I ran over to findlaw.com to see if there was anything in the Supreme Court applying the constitutional and statutory treason provisions. There is.
CRAMER v. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1 (1945): “Questions of intent in a treason case are even more complicated than in most criminal cases because of the peculiarity of the two different elements which together make the offense. Of course the overt acts of aid and comfort must be intentional as distinguished from merely negligent or undesigned ones. Intent in that limited sense is not in issue here. But to make treason the defendant not only must intend the act, but he must intend to betray his country by means of the act.”
Is that right? I’ve been pondering this myself, since it seems to be the only thing the US could stick on him. By participating in activities held at a terrorist camp, isn’t that evidence of an intention to “commit terrorism”?
Sure, it might be construed as evidence of an intent to commit terrorism (although I believe the majority of the guys who went through those camps merely ended up becoming soldiers in support of the Taliban forces). But intent alone isn’t a crime. For instance, I intend to speed on my way to work this morning, but the highway patrol can’t write me a ticket right now. To be convicted of an “attempted” crime, the defendant has to have taken some significant step in the commission of a crime. Boot camp isn’t the type of thing that will support a charge of attempted murder or whatever–it’s just not a tangible step on the way to any specific crime.