No Contradiction in Being a Rebel and an American

Atlanta Journal and Constitution ^ | 02/23/2002 | Ira Harkey

[dark_lord]

The Constitution applies to citizens and residents of the US, not foreign powers, so your argument is weak.

By your interpretation, if you were to join Al Queda, move to Afghanistan, and then "defend yourself" against any armed altercations with US troops, then it would not be treason because you didn't pick the fight.

From a philosophical point of view you have some grounds for your position, but if captured expect to see yourself prosecuted for Treason like John Walker - or else cop a plea deal for 20 years like he did. After all, John Walker joined the Taliban (not even Al Queda) not to fight the US but rather to fight for Islam, and did so against the Northern Alliance. Yet they did plan to charge him with treason if he had not made the deal. And a loud group of freepers on this board consider him a traitor.

[GOPcapitalist]

The Constitution applies to citizens and residents of the US, not foreign powers, so your argument is weak.

Not really, considering that the confederacy set itself up as just such a power.

By your interpretation, if you were to join Al Queda, move to Afghanistan, and then "defend yourself" against any armed altercations with US troops, then it would not be treason because you didn't pick the fight.

If one were to renounce his country, which is assumed in the acct of taking up membership in Al Qaeda, then no - it would not be treason. It would definately qualify him as an enemy of the united states in war, an international terrorist, and a criminal renegade, thus making him deserving of any and all consequences that result from his capture, as with any capture of Al Qaeda operatives. But insofar as treason goes, which by the common law definition that applies in the Constitution's use of such terms (see Smith v. Alabama), the act itself entails subversion on false motives (such an act of treachery ala Benedict Arnold). And then there remains the criminal intent standard, which cannot be met absent such an act due to the fact that a rebel, in truly believing by the cause he attends to, lacks criminal intent to commit treason. So all that in other words, the al qaeda guy in your hypothetical is a turncoat, terrorist, criminal, member of an enemy army and enemy of the United States, and all around islamo-socialist scumbag, those being crimes by which he should be punished severely, but he did not commit the physical crime of treason per se.

Yet they did plan to charge him with treason if he had not made the deal. And a loud group of freepers on this board consider him a traitor.

That may be so, but to equate an emotionally driven popular sentiment with a truth of law, or even a government attempt to prosecute in an individual case per se, inherently falls short of that which it is being equated to as the truth of law is, at least in its core conception, made of sterner stuff.