What is the future of the American-born soldier who fought for the Taliban?

Great Debates
41

Jonas Marainen - this exact thing happened in the last thread. The State Department web site is wrong. The Wiborg case does not say what the State Department website claims it said. The website even gets the date wrong - Wiborg is from 1885, not 1985.

sailor, you may well be right - my memory is hazy. I did a cursory search yesterday, but now I’m gonna track the freaking thing down. Be back soon.

Sua

42

found it. Using the word “Wiborg” turned the trick.

To sum up:

  1. The State Department website is indeed incorrect in its interpretation of Wiborg.
  2. It is illegal to join a foreign military on U.S. soil, or to travel outside the US with the intent of joining a foreign military.
  3. It is not illegal join a foreign military if you are in a foreign country when you first form the intent to join up. (good memory, sailor)
  4. However, it is illegal to join a foreign military, even if you are outside the US and form the intent to join the foreign military only after you leave the US, if the foreign military you join is at war with a nation with which the US is at peace.
  5. I shouldn’t start Pit threads when I’m drunk.

In this case, if what Walker says is true, that he decided to join the Taliban about six months ago while in Pakistan, it looks like he didn’t violate US neutrality laws. And personally, I believe him on this score - I strongly doubt he is aware enough of US neutrality laws to make up a nuanced lie.
'Course, he’s still screwed. :slight_smile:

Sua

43

I believe that if two or more people plan together to commit a crime that is a conspiracy which is a crime even if no action follows.

44

Nope, in most jurisdictions you need at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Your confusion may arise because said overt act need not be committed by all members of the conspiracy. If one conspirator acts, even those who have not yet acted may be charged with conspiracy.

Sua

45

You are right and thanks. At least one overt act by a conspirator is needed. However, it is possible to get nailed on a conspiracy rap pretty easily with a zealous prosecutor.

For example, if the plan of the conspiracy involves buying a set of socket wrenches in order to commit the crime of breaking and entering, and a conspirator buys them, that can be used as the overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The crime which is the aim of the conspiracy doesn’t ever need to be carried to completion.[http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=conspiracy+definition&hc=0&hs=0]