Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/10/2001 4:55:20 AM EDT
'F. Lee' Levin as Rush calls him, the resident legal scholar of the EIB Network and frequent contributor to Rush's show: [size=4]Trying Walker[/size=4] [b]What to do about John Walker.[/b] By Mark R. Levin December 10, 2001 8:35 a.m. Boy, what passes for "expert" legal commentary these days! From ex-judges and law professors, to ex-federal prosecutors and "constitutional scholars," one after another asserts that the United States government must have formally declared war against the Taliban regime for John Walker to be subject to treason charges. Well, their copy of the Constitution must be a different version than mine. Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in [u]levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort[/u]. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in Court." The issue, therefore, is [u]not[/u] whether the U.S. has declared war, but whether Walker has waged war against the U.S., or whether he has given aid and comfort to the enemy. And the analysis doesn't end here. A charge of treason can only be brought against natural born or naturalized citizens. Moreover, Title 8, Section 1481 of the U. S. Code provides that citizenship is lost by voluntarily performing certain acts with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality, including "entering in, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if ... such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States .…" Clearly Walker was born a U.S. citizen, but he also served in the armed forces of the Taliban government when that regime was engaged in hostilities against America. Therefore, it appears that Walker has renounced his U.S. citizenship by his own actions and, accordingly, would not be subject to treason charges. But if Walker is not a U.S. citizen, he could be tried before a military commission, which President George Bush's military order has reestablished for alien and non-citizen combatants. The problem for Walker, however, is that the full array of constitutional rights available to U.S. citizens/defendants would not be available to him as a non-citizen combatant. And although Walker couldn't be charged with treason, he could well be charged with, and more easily convicted of, other war crimes. Of course, Bush's order reserves for the administration the discretion to decide whether Walker or any combatant will face a military commission. - continued -
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 4:55:56 AM EDT
In advance of that decision, Walker's family and lawyer have been arguing in the media that Walker was "brainwashed" or he got caught up in the Taliban movement but that he had no intention of taking up arms against the U.S. In other words, they're trying to make the case that Walker did not have the mental capacity to voluntarily renounce his U.S. citizenship. And, unfortunately, Walker need only overcome a rather low legal threshold to be successful. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1481 states that "... Any person who ... has committed or performed any act of expatriation ... shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ... acts committed or performed were done voluntarily." In any event, the Bush administration is confronted with some dicey decisions. If it concludes — for political or "compassionate" reasons — that Walker should be tried before a U.S. civilian court, by implication it's conceding that Walker did not effectively, i.e., voluntarily, renounce his U.S. citizenship. If Walker didn't voluntarily renounce his U.S. citizenship, what's the basis for that conclusion — his mental incapacity? And if Walker didn't have the mental capacity to renounce his U.S. citizenship, it would likely follow that he couldn't have the mental capacity to commit treason, or perhaps other offenses against the United States. If the president chooses to treat Walker as a U.S. citizen, he must be mindful of the associated legal pitfalls and avoid them. [b]Walker's father is a lawyer[/b]. And his choice of San Francisco trial lawyer James Brosnahan to represent his son was no accident. Brosnahan's every bit as clever, flamboyant, and liberal as Johnnie Cochran. Brosnahan's also a vicious partisan, which is why former Iran-Contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh hired him nearly ten years ago to bring phony indictments against Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. See article at:[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin121001.shtml[/url] Eric The(QuiteALegalQuagmireHere,ISayKalashnikovAn­dSomeBaconBits)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:00:08 AM EDT
ETH, is there an "in-" or a "not" missing from your USC 8 quote?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:05:20 AM EDT
Hmmm, I'd better go get my United States Code Annotated and look it up - I copied it directly from the article by F. Lee Levin. Surely he didn't get it wrong, but the way that sentence reads, as 'ellipsed', sure sounds like it needs a negatory word there at the end! Eric The(WhatDoIPayThatGuyFor,Anyway?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:11:15 AM EDT
Here's the entire Section: "(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were [b]not[/b] done voluntarily." Yes, it does appear that Counselor Levin left out the 'not' in that last sentence. Way to go, Norm_G! Eric The(CanYouBeMyAttorneyNow?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:42:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2001 5:35:32 AM EDT by EOD_Guy]
The Supreme Court has stated that joining a foreign military force is not, in itself, a cause to revoke the citizenship of a native born citizen. They have stated that native born Americans have a constitutional right to citizenship and that it can only be revoked by the individual renouncing their citizenship. See the link for a State Dept explination. [url]http://travel.state.gov/military_service.html[/url]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 5:54:12 AM EDT
This should be proof positive of the detrimental effects that bastion of anarchist thought, Berkley, has on American patriotism, politics, and morality. Hollywood isn't too far behind. Liberals are the enemy. They raise ignorant children who literally become the enemy, but are so mentally inept they cannot even renounce their citizenship.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 6:29:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BenDover: Liberals are the enemy. They raise ignorant children who literally become the enemy, but are so mentally inept they cannot even renounce their citizenship.
View Quote
Can I use this as my signature line?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 6:44:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Torf:
Originally Posted By BenDover: Liberals are the enemy. They raise ignorant children who literally become the enemy, but are so mentally inept they cannot even renounce their citizenship.
View Quote
Can I use this as my signature line?
View Quote
Indeed, Ben. One of the more poignant and insighful comments ever made in this forum. Even better than many of my own. [BD]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 7:52:04 AM EDT
Use whatever you want. I am just ranting. I always understood that liberals wanted to absolve themselves (and you) of responsibility. But this is just MIND BLOWING! They are going to try and make the legal loophole case that because he is still a citizen that he should not be tried in a military tribunal. When are these people going to wake up and realize that eventually a person runs out of loopholes and new legislation to use as a defense for criminal actions. The Taliban was defined as a military enemy. Though they may argue that this is not an 'official act of war', the President indeed has power to dispatch military force under Executive powers. But their liberal legal scheme is oh, so evident. We may not be at 'war' but only 'at war' as defined by court ruling. Since we are 'at war' (to yet be defined by court ruling), an American citizen is not 'warring' against the United States on the side of the enemy, since there is no 'enemy'. Therefore he cannot be subjected to the military tribunal, even under the current Executive order. He SPOKE to a CIA operative. Reminds me of the legal circus who spent millions of tax dollars to define 'is'. What makes me even angrier about all of this is... this guy was trying to kill American troops in the prison uprising. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is no justice in this sick, twisted world. There is no logic. There is no reason. People like this are evil as they show no regard for a sense of good or evil. It's only about doing whatever you please and scheming to legalize it. That is why they want our guns. Those are the only tools that can keep them from pushing their twisted reality onto us all. Of course it is ironic that they raise a poster child and send him 1/2 a world away to use guns against US troops.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 7:58:10 AM EDT
Yeah.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 8:01:52 AM EDT
I think it's time for another prison revolt. [X]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:31:08 AM EDT
There is one point that I have never seen brought up in this case. If he was captured and considered a POW, under the Geneva Convention he immediately became a non-combatant. As such, his participation in the prisoner uprising constitutes a criminal act for which he can face a military court. Under the Geneva Convention he could be put on trial for murder.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 10:00:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2001 10:10:19 AM EDT by Cummins_4x4]
The silver spoon for little Johnnie just never stops. James Brosnahan is maybe a gold spoon. The little fellow does look a little shell schocked though. LOL, looks like he just didn't figure on this coming down the pike. I figure he will have alot of sleepless nights before this is all over. I feel his parents need to be tried as well. It seems his genetics show in all this. By that I mean if you take two POS's and cross them you get an even bigger POS,poor Little Johnnie.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:18:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2001 11:12:39 AM EDT by trickshot]
Hey, don't dis the anarchists, that guy Walker is no anarchist. Most anarchists I know are real peace-loving people and would not go fight for either side, as a matter of fact. This dude Walker is just a brainwashed kid. He's just a Jehova's Witness with an AK. It occurs to me that he was caught up in all this before the US got involved. Once you're in the Taliban, you can't just get out. They'll kill you for deserting just like any army would. Do you think that Americans really enjoyed fighting each other during the Civil War?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 11:32:21 AM EDT
They keep referring to him as a "kid" or "boy". The funny thing is, many of those young Marines over there are younger than he is... ...and you know what? I think that "boy" has a full beard, too. Strange. Why is it that if you're poor, or conservative, you're an adult at 18? BUT, if you're a rich liberal, you get to be a child until you're 22...
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 12:27:23 PM EDT
Well....I have a question. If he renounces his citizenship by his actions, why bother with him at all? Why not just throw him back down into the hole with all of the other foreign taliban and let him lose his head on the soccer field with the others.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 12:58:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 1:14:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Why is it that if you're poor, or conservative, you're an adult at 18? BUT, if you're a rich liberal, you get to be a child until you're 22...
View Quote
What about that Kennedy POS Michael Skakill, or something like that?? he's like late 40's and they STILL want to let him skate as a juvenile?? "Being a Liberal means never having to say you are sorry."
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 1:17:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maynard: It's hard to think much of yourself when you don't believe in a higher power and think of yourself as something that has evolved out of some primordial soup, something that has risen out of the muck or has evolved from a monkey.
View Quote
I can go along with that. I kinda like what Newt Gigrich said.... "In a country of some 300 million, OF COURSE you are gonna have two or three nuts."
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 1:57:29 PM EDT
The liberals want to absolve Johnny Walker from responsibility by saying, "Oh geesh... he's just a boy. He's only 20 and can't POSSIBLY be responsible for his actions." However, using their same twisted logic, he is indeed an adult. To a liberal, a 13 year-old girl is an adult in complete control of her body when she wants to go get an abortion without parental consent or notification. Why is Johnny Walker less of an adult than Sally Slut who got herself knocked up as a kid and doesn't want to face responsibility? Some of the Marines who are on the ground in Afghanistan are YOUNGER than Johnny Walker. Liberals don't have a problem calling the soldiers 'men' when it comes to 'fighting terrorism'. Liberals don't possess logic. Everything is touchy feely ooze. Last time I checked, it's pretty hard to get ANYTHING accomplished without a logical plan. I wonder if a university could do a study to determine if liberal men have less testosterone in their bodies.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 2:07:24 PM EDT
When they captured Walker they should have just done the 3 Ss - Shoot, Shovel, & Shut up!
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 2:14:52 PM EDT
The Bush administration is looking for options for dealing with this guy. I think they are saying "he is providing useful information" so that they at least have the option of just letting him go. His father is a pretty effective advocate, and I really think that they may not care to try him.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 2:22:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: I think it's time for another prison revolt. [X]
View Quote
Ya, shouldn't be too hard to kill one revolting wannabe Taliban at Camp Rhino.[xx(]
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 2:49:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15Gator: The Bush administration is looking for options for dealing with this guy. I think they are saying "he is providing useful information" so that they at least have the option of just letting him go. His father is a pretty effective advocate, and I really think that they may not care to try him.
View Quote
Well if that is the case then there are some things that I am going to start doing that they better not attempt to try me over.
Top Top