Adam Gadahn arrested: Al Qaeda’s Americ…
Adam Gadahn arrested: Al Qaeda’s American spokesman arrested in Pakistan.
Enemy combatant or American citizen?
Military tribunals or civil courts?
The charge against him, treason, is a death penalty offense for which no one has been executed since the 60s. This is going to be high in the news for a long time and will prompt some major constitutional questions.
Gadahn was just in the news yesterday for a new tape calling on Western Muslims to attack their own countries and suggesting targets. It will also probably feature prominently in media coverage.
cbarwa, 
aziz, 
abunoor and 5 others are discussing.
midwinterspring 2:32 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
Is it treason or defection? Does the law distinguish between the two? It seems to me there is a big difference between working for the enemy while pretending to be on the other side and declaring quite vocally which side you are on and leaving the country. I don’t know of any reason I should have sympathy for Gadahn, of course, but the “war on terror” tends to be structured so that only one side is allowed to be at “war,” whereas the other side is supposedly criminal by default.
cbarwa 3:12 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
Depends on your citizenship really, I think; in wartime if you engage in direct actions there really isn’t much difference
Willow 3:33 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
I think conrad is right–it’s only defection if you ditch your citizenship. You can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, or whatever that English metaphor is. Then again, seeing as Afghanistan is under US occupation, it might not matter either way–there is no other government to which he can appeal for sanctuary.
aziz 4:20 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
well, Afghanistan isnt under occupation in the Palestine sense. It’s important tonote the difference – the Karzai govt is a sovereign entoty just as the Maliki govt is.
cbarwa 6:58 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
Legally that is in a narrow sense true, Aziz; however, in reality as we all know the GoIRA is basically bankrolled and supported by NATO led coalition; without that support it would collapse. Moreover, given the dubious nature of how the govt was selected and the flawed electoral process, its representativeness can be questioned.
aziz 8:05 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
all true. but not an “occupation” in the Palestinian sense nevertheless. The US govt is in fact relatively powerless to effect change within Afghanistan in the political sphere – the election fraud is evidence to that effect.
Willow 1:08 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
That’s just votes. Even in this country real political change (or lack thereof) happens after the ballot boxes are emptied. If the Afghanis caught OBL on their own soil and wanted to try him themselves, what exactly do you think would happen? If the Maliki government ordered all US troops out of Iraq by next month, what would happen then?
Precisely. That’s a military occupation. “Sovereign” my foot.
aziz 6:43 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
well, wasnt Saddam’s trial ru8n by the Iraqis? And to be fair, the Iraqis have in fact told us to get out – and we are. In fact Bush, not Obama, began gthe drawdown under a (gasp) timetable, thou the right would never be able to admit this.
cbarwa 11:50 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
Yeah but what was the alternative, back Abdullah Abdullah? The GoIRA is about as sovereign as the PDPA regime was during the Soviet Occupation or the South Vietnamese govt during that war. True, all these examples are not occupation in the Palestinian sense of the term and they are probably legally speaking regarded as sovereign states, but that would be about all imo.
Dan 3:34 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
I’d say execute him, but I’m sure the losers on various Salafi Muslim blogs such as MuslimMatters and such will come to his defence and claim he’s being oppressed by the “kuffar”.
aziz 4:18 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
im actually somewhat in favor of trying people like this under the military code rather than teh cvilian one. Its not like the UCMJ is a kangaroo operation – its a rigorous body of law that is in parallel to the civilian system and frankly may be better equipped to handled these cases.
As long as we are using a genuine system of justice, we are still abiding by our principles.
now, whether “military tribunal” is the same thing as a UCMJ trial is another matter…
abunoor 5:09 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
The current military commissions act, passed in 2006 and amended in 2009 does not provide for trying U.S. citizens by military commission.
aziz 5:54 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
the military commission thing is not teh same thing as the UCMJ – that latter was passed in 1950 i believe and it is a true system of law. military tribunals/commissions are essentially “battlefield courts” with officers serving as judge and jury.
i think that 2006 law shoudl be repealed. IN fact im an extremist here – i think Obama should add two more justices to SCOTUS (well within his power!) and get a overturn on that basis alone.
If libertarians were worth a half a damn in this ocuntry theyd sign on to this with anamen and a hell yes.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 9:12 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
I’m familiar with military personnel being tried under the UCMJ and I see that it can be used for those fighting with foreign armies, but are you aware of the last time this process was used for non-military personnel, Aziz?
aziz 12:40 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
not personally, but 802(2)(a) seems to cover non military personnel –
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm
aziz 12:41 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
theres also this, as applies to contractors:
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/0112defenseindustry_singer.aspx
abunoor 5:11 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
Also, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “better equipped” in this context, but it should remain clear that military commissions provide less rights for defendants and make obtaining convictions easier, and this is their primary attraction for the government.
aziz 8:05 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
see above comment. a military commission/tribunal is *not* the same thing as the UCMJ.
aziz 12:44 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink |
this is an interesting hypothetical case study which really tries to get into detail about teh differences:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6007/is_2002_Wntr/ai_103136519/
summary:
The military justice system gives service members virtually all rights and privileges that are afforded to citizens who face prosecution in civilian courts. In many areas–such as the right to counsel, the pretrial investigatory process, discovery, sentencing, post-trial processing, and appeals–the military system offers benefits to an accused that are more favorable than those available in civilian systems.
Americans, now firmly settled in the era of an all-volunteer military force, would not support a military justice system that did not provide fundamental due process and fair trial guarantees. The Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes a system that is separate and different, but one that fully meets expectations for fairness and protection of individual rights. The American citizens who volunteer to serve their county deserve nothing less.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 7:09 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink |
Aziz, and those same Americans apparently will not accept those they label as “terrorists” to be tried in a system which would confer similar rights upon them. As Obama reportedly is preparing to force his AG to reverse the decision to try KSM in a civilian trial (guaranteeing conviction was not enough) all of this discussion has very little to do with the real world, I’m afraid Aziz.
I can see the Fox News talking heads now: “And now some people want to give the same rights to the terrorists who want to kill us as the brave soldiers who defend us. They just don’t get it.”
aziz 7:21 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
i dont know how it will play out, but I am thinking that a military trial might be something we can at least agitate for (we being the muslim community). Its better than tribunals, and in some ways actually better for the accused than a civilian trial.
plus – we can use some of the psychologiucal PR against the right this way. imagine the headline:
“Muslim Americans demand military trial for accused terrorists – ask Obama to apply UCMJ”
its pro-justice and anti-Fox News.
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 7:31 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
Aziz, I don’t think it would work as well as you do in terms of PR. The fundamental problem is you’re trying to appeal to contradictory audiences, you’re trying to appeal to civil liberties advocates and Muslims by saying that it has all the protections of a civilian trial but as I said at the beginning, this is exactly what those who are opposed to civilian trials don’t want, they don’t want protections.
aziz 10:24 am on March 8, 2010 Permalink
im not trying to appeal to the extremist audience – i do believe (your mileage may vary) that theres a “rational middle” who will skew towards bad policy if the nonsense from the right is not met with rebuttal or counterargument. I basically believe in the common sense of the common man, but also in GIGO.
AA 4:57 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
Muslim Public Affairs Council of Southern California welcomes the news.
http://www.mydesert.com/
aziz 5:22 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
wtf – is it really him or not? there appears to be substantial confusion.
Pretty Pink Unicorns 6:52 pm on March 7, 2010 Permalink |
To quote Mona Eltahawy: “And Muslims in the US tell al-Qaida to fuck off”.
Well said, Mona.
And fuck off, al-Qa’ida.