And then you should be charged with murder.

Look, don't get me wrong, I understand the visceral reaction: if a Canadian did such a thing and was found in a unit fighting the Canadians in Afghanistan, I would be equally upset. But this is why we have evolved past law by the mob, and why there exists a criminal code.

As I said, the bar for the use of the death penalty against Traitors was set in the modern era by the Rosenburgs. Does Lindh's crime equal theirs? Does it even come close? His defence (hardly an unbiased source of course) claimed not only did he never do anything to any Americans, in fact he never even fired a weapon in anger. True or not, what is undisputed is that there was no evidence, let alone proof, that he had done any harm to any Americans, none whatsoever.


Crimes in which NOBODY IS HARMED, no property damage is done or money is lost, and in fact no impact whatsoever is inflicted upon anyone are NOT worthy of the death penalty. Yes he is still a traitor, and yes of course he should and did, answer for that crime. But as I demonstrated in the last post, the law offers a HUGE scale of options for punishment before you reach the sanction of death, based on the severity of the crime.




Actually, I thought he was sentenced to life: I checked and you are indeed right Mrs P, as usual.

However the purpose of my posts above is to answer the several people on this thread who have been calling for his execution. His crime is simply not worthy of the death penalty, regardless of the emotive reactions of some here.

Vermillion, I am a practicing attorney--a partner in a large law firm--so don't get on some high horse with me.

I would suggest to you that an officer in the field could have had this man shot on the spot and likely nothing would have come of it....and justice would have been served, law or no. The issue is not whether Lindh was an effective traitor--only that he IS a traitor IN the field FIGHTING AGAINST uniformed soldiers of his own country. He was caught in a group giving armed resisitance to a US military unit in a combat zone--he should have been a goner.

I am not quibbling with his sentence or his trial; I am quibbling with a commutation of that sentence because, IMHO, he got off light already.

Vermillion-

according to the CNN report- though he himself did not fire the weapon- he did not warm the Americans of the impending attempt at jail break, which did lead to the death of Michael Span-

in your opinion, does keeping knowledge to yourself, knowledge of an impendng attack- that led to the death of another-

is this guilty of murder as an accesory?

also- point taken about the Rosenbergs- that was a really, really serious type of treason, and they got the death penalty.

in the grand scheme of things, I believe you are probably right- outside of the question as an accesory to murder an treason as the CNN reporter wrote about.

Good for you.

Sadly however, I am not debating your CV, I am debating your words: words like these:



Based on those words, it sounded to me like you needed a serious lesson in how the law works, and when and why the death sentence is imposed.. Now you claim you have in depth knowledge of the law, and thats no what you meant at all. If thats the case, then may I be so bold as to suggest you pick your words more carefully. Nobody here can debate what people know or what they think, just what they type.



Actually, you repeated in two seperate posts that he should be shot for treason. Again, when you said you think he should have ben shot for treason, you can understand my confusion when I assumed you meant that you thought he should be shot for treason.

And by the way, speaking of basic law: If as an officer on the field you shot him on the spot, after he had surrendered, you should be charged with murder... as I said. But then, you work for a big law firm, so could you tell me where according to the law I am wrong?

And lets remember he “says” he did not kill Americans yet I saw no proof of this. Did he fire his weapon – I bet he did, and if so there is no way he can say he absolutely did not kill an American soldier.

I agree with you – this dirt-bag should have been shot on the spot in Afghanistan – end of story. And to even consider letting him out of prison is ludicrous. As it is he will be out in 17 years or less.

Two interesting bits of information:

"In the Constitution, the framers changed English law. The corruption of blood and forfeiture end after the offender dies, not down the hereditary line. The offender may be put to death or jailed. There is no reference to a king because the United States is a representative democracy. However, the framers retain the need for the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. The Constitution asserts,

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 the confession in open court. The Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained [9].

Even in the 21st century, treason remains the highest crime, punishable by the highest penalty. Even in the state of Michigan, where capital punishment is outlawed, a person who commits treason may be put to death. "


http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects...d/treason2.html


And here is a portion of the Field Manual for the Union Army in the Civil War. This is the kind of leeway officers should have in the field; the word "DEATH" appears prominently, and see articles 90 and 91; like I said, Lindh got off easy:

"Safe-conduct - Spies - War-traitors - Captured messengers - Abuse of the flag of truce...

Art. 86.
All intercourse between the territories occupied by belligerent armies, whether by traffic, by letter, by travel, or in any other way, ceases. This is the general rule, to be observed without special proclamation.


Art. 88.
A spy is a person who secretly, in disguise or under false pretense, seeks information with the intention of communicating it to the enemy.

The spy is punishable with death by hanging by the neck, whether or not he succeed in obtaining the information or in conveying it to the enemy.

Art. 89.
If a citizen of the United States obtains information in a legitimate manner, and betrays it to the enemy, be he a military or civil officer, or a private citizen, he shall suffer death.

Art. 90.
A traitor under the law of war, or a war-traitor, is a person in a place or district under Martial Law who, unauthorized by the military commander, gives information of any kind to the enemy, or holds intercourse with him.

Art.91.
The war-traitor is always severely punished. If his offense consists in betraying to the enemy anything concerning the condition, safety, operations, or plans of the troops holding or occupying the place or district, his punishment is death.

Art. 92.
If the citizen or subject of a country or place invaded or conquered gives information to his own government, from which he is separated by the hostile army, or to the army of his government, he is a war-traitor, and death is the penalty of his offense.

Art. 93.
All armies in the field stand in need of guides, and impress them if they cannot obtain them otherwise.

Art. 94.
No person having been forced by the enemy to serve as guide is punishable for having done so.

Art. 95.
If a citizen of a hostile and invaded district voluntarily serves as a guide to the enemy, or offers to do so, he is deemed a war-traitor, and shall suffer death.

Art. 96.
A citizen serving voluntarily as a guide against his own country commits treason, and will be dealt with according to the law of his country.

Art. 97.
Guides, when it is clearly proved that they have misled intentionally, may be put to death.

Art. 98.
An unauthorized or secret communication with the enemy is considered treasonable by the law of war.

Foreign residents in an invaded or occupied territory, or foreign visitors in the same, can claim no immunity from this law. They may communicate with foreign parts, or with the inhabitants of the hostile country, so far as the military authority permits, but no further. Instant expulsion from the occupied territory would be the very least punishment for the infraction of this rule.

Art. 99.
A messenger carrying written dispatches or verbal messages from one portion of the army, or from a besieged place, to another portion of the same army, or its government, if armed, and in the uniform of his army, and if captured, while doing so, in the territory occupied by the enemy, is treated by the captor as a prisoner of war. If not in uniform, nor a soldier, the circumstances connected with his capture must determine the disposition that shall be made of him.

Art. 100.
A messenger or agent who attempts to steal through the territory occupied by the enemy, to further, in any manner, the interests of the enemy, if captured, is not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war, and may be dealt with according to the circumstances of the case.

Art. 101.
While deception in war is admitted as a just and necessary means of hostility, and is consistent with honorable warfare, the common law of war allows even capital punishment for clandestine or treacherous attempts to injure an enemy, because they are so dangerous, and it is difficult to guard against them.

Art. 102.
The law of war, like the criminal law regarding other offenses, makes no difference on account of the difference of sexes, concerning the spy, the war-traitor, or the war-rebel.

Art. 103.
Spies, war-traitors, and war-rebels are not exchanged according to the common law of war. The exchange of such persons would require a special cartel, authorized by the government, or, at a great distance from it, by the chief commander of the army in the field.

Art. 104.
A successful spy or war-traitor, safely returned to his own army, and afterwards captured as an enemy, is not subject to punishment for his acts as a spy or war-traitor, but he may be held in closer custody as a person individually dangerous.


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lieber.htm

Quick- as a dude in a big law firm- sentencing guidelines are pretty much determined, for the most part- based on former, precedent setting sentences from prior case law- or am I wrong?

So, despite your long post- the law has already determind, as Vermillion pointed out- that Johhny Idiot spoled taliban probably got the harsh end of the sentencing guidelines as set for prior sentences dealing with treason, correct?

I mean, it wasn't like he stole nuke secrets and sold them to Russia or anything.

I'm sorry, how does one prove he did not kill anyone? Shall he bring into court examples of all the people he didn't kill?

"Private Johnston, that is your name, right?"
"yes sir"
"Did my Client, at ANY point, ever kill you? I remind you that you are under oath..."

Thankfully, he does not have to prove this impossibility: the law states one has to be proven guilty. And as if that were not suficcient, not only was he not proven of ever firing his weapon, it was not even evidenced, heck, not even ASSERTED by the prosecution.



And I suppose I shall have to give you the same lesson in law I thought I had to give quick. Too bad you did not read it the first time. Or wait, do you with for a big law firm too?




Your big law firm might want to spell out the differences between state and federal law. Nobody is 'put to death in Michigan' for treason, they are not charged with treason at all under state law, but rather under federal law. In the US the death penalty is still allowed for certain federal crimes.

Besides, nobody is contending his guilt on treason, just your desire to see him dead.



Lindh did indeed get off easy, in one case he was fortunate enough not to be bundled into a time machine and prosecuted 120 years ago when your 'Civil war'; statutes might have been relevant.

*edited to remove insulting comment*

My point is, stay out of debating law with me. Even someone like you should know that the law only represents a codification of a principle. I am not concerned with what you think the law is, or with your determination of which codification should apply in a field in Afghanistan, or with your offhand determination that an officer's offing Lindh in the field would be "murder". I have forgotten more law than you'll ever know.

What we are debating here, son, is not law, but principle, and in principle, Lindh should have been shot, and I would suggest to you that if a Colonel in special forces had done just that in the field, then none of us would have heard any more about it and justice would have been served. Indeed, over the sweep of history, officers in the armies of civilized nations have taken out traitors in the field, on the spot, and will do so again.

No one is more odious than a traitor.

How amusing, in a pitiful and ironic sort of way. I suppose I could respond by telling you what you are, but that would be mindlessly infantile, utterly pointless, and against the rules of Americas Debate. Hopefully your post will get better from here on in.



Obviously not. This has nothing to do with what I 'think' the law is, but WHAT THE LAW IS. I asked you to show me in error, to point out how I strayed from the law: your best response?



Killing someone after they surrender is Murder. If I'm wrong, then show me wrong. After all, you apparently work for a big law firm. I told you before, I can't argue what you know, or what you think, just what you type. Who knows, maybe you do know vstly more about the law than me. Sadly that knowledge was not passed on into your post, and thats all I had to respond to. If your chosen words don't match the quality of your supposed CV, thats not my problem, its yours.



Thanks Dad. You are my dad right?, posting secretly on AD under an assumed name and Identity? No? Then don't presume to call me son. The little attempt at a diminuative is only slightly less self-destructive than your childish opening remark.

Firstly, we are and have been debating law. Read back a bit, see for yourself. Secondly, the REASON we are debating law not principle, is because Law is universal, principle is individual. They teach that in first year law. Your principle is that this guy should have been killed regardless of the severity of his crime or the fact that his death would have (in the circumstances you described) be murder. Well, as I said before, good for you, but that in no way alters the fact that it is murder under the circumstances you describe, and that there is a very good reason why it is murder.



Now quick, you limit yourself too much. Not just civilised nations! Why the Germans patrolled behind the lines executing anyone they felt was acting treasonous. Uncivilised nations do this practice even more than civilised nations! In fact that is why Summary executions have been specifically prohibited by law in the US military since 1912, to prevent such events from taking place.

"While it is lawful to kill an enemy "in the heat and exercise of war," yet "to kill such an enemy after he has laid down his arms . . . is murder."
Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocates General of the Army, 1912"

Thats also why the United Nations passed a universally accepted resolution banning extrajudicial or summary executions in its member militaries.

In fact (as if all that were not enough) the UCMJ specifically prohibits the sentence of death by any means except full court martial, and lays out specific limits on exactly what extra-judicial punishments officers may hand out, even in time of war. Many of these laws were put into place specifically to stop the 'civilised' summary executions you speak so highly of.

Here is a link to the UCMJ, in case your big law firm does not have one:
http://www.ucmj.us/uniform-code-of-militar...sentences.shtml

Vermillion- would it be a stretch to consider him an accesory for his roll in the death of Michael Spann?

I believe that would be germane to the sentance, in fact, accesories to murder have also been put to death in murder trials- correct?

That is my only contention in your argument.

Interesting question. One would have to prove that he had prior knowledge of the breakout, which might be hard or easy, I'm not that familiar with the situation. I do know the brakout occurred the same day he was captured, making participation in lengthy planning (if there was any) was impossible.

After that, well one difficulty with linking breaking out of prison with the death of the guard, is that in the US military, breaking out of prison is considered a soldier's duty.

However, those points aside, I think its not unreasonable to label him with accessory to murder. If you can prove both criminal knowledge and participation in the crime, that fits the statute. Interestingly, he was not charged with that.


EDIT to add: Also, I just looked this up myself, and apparently none of the crimes he was charged with held the death penalty statute. After all this debate, it turns out Lindh was NEVER accused or tried for treason, and never faced the death penalty.