A Uniquely Treasonable Act?
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday a federal grand jury in Anaheim, CA indicted Adam Gadahn, aka “Azzam the American” for treason. This is the first time an American has been indicted for this offense since the end of World War II.
In order to indict Gadahn, the grand jury presumably had to find that the Article III elements of treason have been met:
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.
There is no doubt that Gadahn is a detestable creature. But is he really so uniquely guilty of treason to merit the first indictment in 60 years? What of the aging sex kitten who romped about on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun? Or the Navy reserve officer who met with officials of North Vietnam? Or John Walker Lindh who actually bore arms against his countrymen? Why Gadahn? His lawyer should and most probably will ask that question if he is ever brought before an American court. I don’t know that any answer is possible.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Another Cold War parallel. — Comments (4) »
A Uniquely Treasonable Act? 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
in 60 years doesn't mean there's any fault with Article III. I believe others have qualified. Jane Fonda most definitely violated the Logan Act at the very least, yet those who could have pressed the case did not.
the fact that he is the first in 60 years is not a failure of cause but simply symptomatic of the ever widening weakening of America; 'speak softly and leave your stick at home'. There are lots of people who should have received this treatment over the years: Jane Fonda, 'Pinch' Sulzberger, and scores of others.
Kumbayah; 'war never settled anything'; 'can't we all just get along'; 'we are no better than they are'; 'who are we to judge them'. Bleech.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
Why aren't you worried that if a moonbat become president, that right wing speech will get labeled treason?
We are not worried about treason, but with the utter failure if left-wing radio, we are worried about leftists (like you) shutting down free speech When it come to the debate of ideas, the only way those on left can win is by silencing those who don't agree, and thus keeping voters uninformed.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Give me an example of 'right wing speech' that could be construed as treason to the same extent as standing with your nation's avowed enemy and exhorting his followers to kill your countrymen.
I suppose the lefties could label what we say treasonous but unlike what they say and do that wouldn't make their label true :-)
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
You are just as dead when shot by the firing squad if your speech was really treasenous or not. Since you clearly think lefties are morally bankrupt, it really does not not make sense to why you would not to limit government power and make individual rights a bedrock legal principle. When thinking about government power to curtail individual rights, it makes to sense to think about how such power can be abused regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum.
In all seriousnes, you have must be operating under one of two faulty assumptions. 1) that such power can't be abused in this country 2) political power will always be held by people you support. Neither can be guaranteed over the long run.
Speech, no matter how odious is not in itself treason. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is another thing, Exhorting combatants to kill Americans, and even raising money for them is certainly giving aid and comfort.
So your argument is not appropriate.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Ah yes, that magic word 'speech'. It's almost like a sacrament to the left, if they were capable of holding absolute standards like that.
And then I guess that makes 'hate speech' the Black Mass to them...
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The censorship loving left will make sure we can't get into any trouble by being able to speak our minds. Youtube is already on the case.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
...bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" November Rain
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
Could it be that you have no interest in either debate or the truth?
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
and was more than willing to use it.
How much you want to bet that FDR is still an icon to the left only because he is safely dead ?
but I would also point out that the circumstances are different. When the enemy was Marxist, there were hundreds of thousands of ideologically sympathetic persons, perhaps several hundred of whom undertook activities that could legitimately be termed treasonous. It would be difficult to differentiate and damned near impossible to prosecute them all. In this case, there are few non-Muslims ideologically sympathetic to Islamists, even if far too many abide the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' principle. To seek out these organizations to join and to record messages calling for acts against America and its troops is a level of participation that few opponents of war have obtained in this conflict, thus it is far easier to single him out than, say, Jane Fonda.
an ideology of Marxism but she plopped her big fanny down on a turant of a gun used to kill U.S. airmen and took the notes that were handed to her by U.S. pow's and handed them to the enemie. So Ann, we can differentiate her from the rest
She should be sent down the same path as the Rosenburgs.
"Peace had a chance"
is that you had dozens of Americans protesting our involvement on the soil of hostile nations, and Fonda was only the highest profile visitor to North Korea. Don't get me wrong, I would shed no tears for Hanoi Jane if the Vietnam Vets ever got their wish. I'm just pointing out that there were plenty of idiots just like her. Azzam, however, seems to be in a class by himself.
Its still against the law to seek to lower the morale of serving officers and enlisted men in the armed forces during time of conlict.
I have no problem with people saying we should do things differently or not at all. If you don't have ideas of your own though it makes you look foolish. Cavorting with the enemy and then allowing yourself to be used for their propaganda is a different story.
We were at war with Vietnam, Korea and now we are at war with nations using terrorist organizations as proxies. During the prior eras you would certainly be within your right to say that the communist nations had achieved something we might want to emulate. You would be hard pressed to find facts to back up the statement but you could certainly say it. Defaming our troops who are at war and have their lives on the line is another matter.
I have no idea why Jane wasn't prosecuted maybe those on the left felt sympatico and those on the right felt she was usefull. I do know this the time for that kind of game is gone.
look on it as the start to a new era! Now maybe we can start prosecuting those who give aid and comfort to the enemy instead of debating them on Hard[or should that be Soft?]Ball with CM.
it's probably not too late, is there a statute of limitations on treason?
I have rope I've been saving.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You asked:
But is he really so uniquely guilty of treason to merit the first indictment in 60 years?
No, he's simply the first person who committed treason while there was someone with balls in the White House.
should have been tried and executed on the battlefield.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I think charging Adam Gadahn with treason on the basis of his Al Qaeda video performances is appropriate, and consistent with precedent like Axis Sally. The fact that he made the statements with intentional and overt cooperation with Al Qaeda is what raises his conduct above the properly high bar for treason.
When for example some college professor here spouts the same nonsense, that's different and should never be prosecuted as treason. Even though such statement's could be reasonably construed as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy, they can also be construed as free speech expressions of opinion. You need intent to aid and comfort, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, before it becomes treason. When Adam Gadahn and Axis Sally worked hand in hand with those waging war against us, that removed any doubt about their intent.
I agree that John Walker Lindh's conduct was far worse. I still can't understand why Bush & Ashcroft didn't charge him with treason.
But I would imagine Lindh would simply contend that he renounced his American citizenship and became an Afghan. There's a difference between fighting in the service of another country and using your status as an American to convey propaganda to your fellow Americans. I would think they'd probably plead Azzam down anyway if he ever entered custody.
I looked into it further and nowhere does statute or case law suggest that such a crime is mitigated by one's becoming a citizen of another country.
I'm all for it. Pull him out of jail, send him to Eastern Europe and question him about his associates. Forever.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
It points out that the lefties even back then were pulling stunts for those they considered their friends. Ezra Pound was a spokesman for the fascists but they managed to slip him past justice with a temp insanity defense.
[Whoah, a veteran of the Reagan Wars! Did you also fight in the Cola Wars? And, which is better: Coke, Coca-Cola, or New Coke? -Thomas]
Or what about the Marine colonel who helped to illegally sell weapons to Iran and then divert the profits to the Contras, also illegally?
...to which he does not already know the answer:
As an adherent of Islam, Adam Gadahn is violently opposed to the Church of Global Warming.
Any more questions?