why don't have this bastard chasin down Osama bin Laden? I'm just sayin

3/7/2010 2:01:32 PM

Because Osama isn't hiding out in Canada?

3/7/2010 2:53:38 PM

Maybe not Osama, but we did just catch this guy:



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/07/2010-03-07_american_al_qaeda_terrorist_adam_gadahn_aka_azzam_the_american_arrested_in_pakis.html

Quote :

"Adam Gadhan, the treasonous Californian Al Qaeda leader who has long been on Washington's Most Wanted list, was nabbed in Pakistan Sunday - a huge victory in the battle against the terror network. After some confusion in the initial reports, the Associated Press quoted Pakistani officials confirming the arrest of Osama bin Laden's mouthpiece. The Dawn, Karachi's English-language newspaper, broke the news with a photo of a man being taken away with a bag on his head. Gadahn was bagged just hours after releasing a new internet video urging American Muslims to go on shooting sprees like Maj. Nidal Hasan's at Fort Hood last year. He is the first American to be charged with treason since World War II. If convicted, he faces the death penalty. The arrest was the latest in a series of successes in the new partnership between Pakistan's once-balky intelligence services and the CIA. "

[Edited on March 7, 2010 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2010 3:00:15 PM

so, should ^ that guy be tried in a civilian court? hmmm... then again, if you are gonna try a guy for treason, I'd say yes.

3/7/2010 3:02:32 PM

Do we even have custody of him? He was arrested in Pakistan, they might not turn him over to us until they've had a shot at him.

3/7/2010 3:12:15 PM

If the guy has American citizenship, then trying him for treason in civilian court seems to make sense to me. The constitution specifically mentions this sort of act of war as being tried in a civilian court.

Quote :

"Section 3. 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. The Congress shall have 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 attainted."

On a somewhat related note, it looks like there is some infighting going on:

http://www.quqnoos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4062&Itemid=48

Quote :

"Taliban Militants Turn Against a Strategic Ally Written by Quqnoos.com Saturday, 06 March 2010 10:49 At least 25 militants from both sides have been killed and more than 40 others wounded in a half-day-long gun-battle in the northern Afghan province of Baghlan, a local police official said. It is still unclear why the Taliban insurgents turned against their strategic ally, Hezb-e Islami of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, in Baghlan-e Markazi district of the province. Baghlan-e Markazi, a Hezb-e Islami stronghold in northern Afghanistan, is a restive district in the region and a large number of Taliban and Hezb-e Islami fighters are believed to be stationed there. "The clash between the Taliban and Hezb-e Islami fighters is on-going in Qaisar Khail, a village 9km north of the district centre," said a spokesman for the regional police command, Lal Mohammad Ahmadzai. The police official said the Taliban arrested 15 Hezb-e Islami fighters during the battle. The local police have not taken any action to curb the clash, but have surrounded the area and will move in after making sure that civilians are not harmed in the battle, Ahmadzai further said. It’s the deadliest clash between Afghanistan’s two major insurgent groups in many years, and the dispute that led to the gun-battle is yet to be known. "

3/7/2010 3:14:47 PM

to be fair, Supp, it says a "confession in open court." I guess one maybe could make the case that a civilian trial is NOT mandated by that statement

3/7/2010 3:18:46 PM

Certainly one could, but when they say open court I don't think they were envisioning the relatively more closed/secretive military tribunals that the Bush administration was so fond of, when they were addressing the issue of treason.

3/7/2010 3:26:58 PM

well, no. one would say you couldn't be convicted in a military court of treason based on a confession alone. but you could be convicted of that in a civilian court under said circumstances

3/7/2010 3:40:33 PM

YOU PEOPLE should like this

3/7/2010 11:21:10 PM