American could be charged with Treason this week

MSNBC and other media outlets are reporting that the Department of Justice is contemplating treason charges against California-born Adam Gadahn, who is believed to be the English-speaking individual appearing on various Al Qaeda videos as `Azzam the American'.

His most recent appearance was last month, the first one in which he appeared un-masked.  Gadahn is not believed to be in U.S. custody, so he would be charged in absentia.

According to what I was able to dig up on the Internet, trials in absentia are not permitted in the United States, although they are relatively common in other countries.  In the case Crosby versus the United States, decided in 1993, Rule 43 prohibits the trial in absentia of a defendant who is not present at the beginning of trial.

Since he is not in custody, it is not clear to me the urgency for undertaking such an action now, unless it is an effort to demonstrate how President Bush is protecting us against terrorist.  If so, this is a pretty feeble attempt, in my opinion.

•  But now that we have the lovely

  detainee bill...  I imagine that the in-absentia protections will also be challenged.

  by DrWolfy on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:32:23 PM PDT

  •  Like that red light you ran that had a camera...

    ...with your photograph on it, I suppose it's not too far-fetched to find a "notice" in the mail that "you have been charged and found guilty of treason against the state" in absentia.

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:40:31 PM PDT

  •  Olbermann reported last night

    that Bush hasn't signed the detainee bill yet. I don't want to pimp so I won't link but I have a link to the segment in the diary i did last night

    by Tanya on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:18:42 PM PDT

•  The pride of Garbage Grove

  They can indict someone in absentia, with enough evidence.

  Strange that the FBI could throw the ID's and pictures of 19 highjackers a day after 9/11, but can't seem to find enough evidence to endict Bin Laden for his participation.

  by OCMIHOP on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:34:04 PM PDT

  •  In fact you nearly ALWAYS indict

    in absentia.  

    The indictment comes first, and then, on the basis of indictment someone is taken into custody.

    by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:17:04 PM PDT

    •  But indictments with no prospect of trial?

      I still think it is unusual to indict someone for which there is little or no prospect that said person will be in custody soon.

      by sam3am on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:19:07 PM PDT

      •  Why not?

        Under that theory, no one could ever be indicted for such felonies as escape.

        People get indicted like this all the time.  Indictments are often handed down for "individual as yet unknown."  Also, recently prosecutors have started handing down indictments against "John Doe whose DNA matches the following."  they use it especially in rape cases.

        Nothing at all unusual here.

        by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:22:14 PM PDT

      •  The point of it, or at least part of it...

        ...is that at least it would be on the record.  If he snuck back in, there would be warrants, there would be instruction on what to do and who to call, etc.  

        It's done all the time.  It's the first step that would need to be take in any criminal action and they have all the proof they need for this part of their case.  No need to wait and have to hurry paperwork later, if caught.

        It also put him as a high priority with not just our country, all countries.  He becomes a special case.

        by Junglered1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:27:52 PM PDT

      •  Sure

        It could make it easier to gain the cooperation of other witnesses and foreign countries.

        by Elwood Dowd on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:51:45 PM PDT

    •  For example

      Scooter Libby was not in the courtroom when his indictment was issued, IIRC.

      by Elwood Dowd on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:51:05 PM PDT

•  There is an election coming up. Don't be

  surprised if a whole bunch of terrorist cells get found.

  Reminds me of Ezra Pound.  

  by BR Janet on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:34:29 PM PDT

  •  Like Ezra

    in that you desperately want to understand, and yet when you manage to actually see what's going on, you just end up either deeply depressed or completely dissappointed?

    by rcald on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:57:53 PM PDT

•  Does the Patriot act permit this?

  Sounds like something that will be tested in court.

  Bush trying to pump up his numbers by saying see I did something could be the reason behind it?

  Personally, Adam Gadahn is an asshole.

  by redcardphreek on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:35:20 PM PDT

•  President Bush

  Protecting America from confused SoCal white-trash since 2000.

  /snark

  by dj angst on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 12:43:56 PM PDT

  •  I think that this is much more than confusion

    He is not acting confused, he is acting traitorously.

    by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:23:28 PM PDT

    •  Oh, he's a Traitor, no doubt.

      But he's that because he's a confused angry young man who wants to be known for performing the world's biggest "Fuck you!" to his Parents.

      To bad for him, he'll never beat Georgie.

      by dj angst on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 03:23:22 PM PDT

•  The Indictment...

  ... is in.

  by Irfo on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:03:42 PM PDT

•  He's being charged not tried...yet...

  ...and why is this a problem?  He is a traitor and is doing everything he can to wreak havoc and death on our country.  When an American goes to fight for the other side, that's treason, no?  

  To me, and this is just my humble opinion, there are some things (while very very few of them) that don't warrant complaint or criticism of the putz in chief.

  Now, if you want to talk about the timing and it's implications.... that's another story.  But an outcry about his being charged with treason.  Nah.

  by Junglered1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:08:31 PM PDT

  •  I know a thimblefull of info...

    about this guy. But is "treason" the right crime?

    He is actively working for the overthrow of the American government? How the heck are prosecutors going to prove that?

    From what I understand (my thimblefull), his missives to the US have been more of the "convert to Islam" type than the "rise up and kill all members of Congress so we can take over" type.

    by kmiddle on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:14:15 PM PDT

    •  Treason is defined as

      taking up arms against United States.  He qualifies.  

      For example, if an American citizen had joined Goebbel's Ministry of Propaganda during WWII he would have been guilty of treason.

      by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:19:27 PM PDT

      •  well, a slight modification

        Treason is the only crime whose elements are spelled in the Constitution: "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."

        Article III, sec 3.

        by Adam B on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:46:18 PM PDT

    •  Actually, he is trying to overthrow the gov...

      that's part of his stated wishes, well to destroy it actually and the "convert to Islam" is what the Koran says you must offer before the faith attacks his enemy.

      He, Zawahari and the ones in Iraq have been doing a lot more of that lately.  

      Reports say that  those "convert" comments might be a sign that attacks are coming as well as to sway those who don't think using force is valid without it and will now doing an attack the "right" way according to Islamic law.  Or something like that.  

      Anyway, this guys deserves to be hanged, maybe not tortured mind you, but hanged after a fair trial.

      by Junglered1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:20:21 PM PDT

      •  No question of Gadahn's actions

        I typically pay little attention to the Al Qaeda videos, but I have been aware that there was apparently an American involved in some of them.

        My question is not whether or not Gadahn deserves to be charged, my question is why now?

        I also recall a story on NPR recently about the death of Iva D'Aquino a few weeks ago, who had been convicted of treason in the 1950's as one of several women who broadcast to American troops in the Asian theatre during WW II as `Tokyo Rose'.

        She served six years in prison but was latered pardoned by President Ford as questions were raised about the validity of the evidence used against her in trial.

        We can see what Gadahn is doing--what we don't know yet is why, and whether he is doing it of his own free will or whether his participation is coerced.  Until that is known, I will withhold judgement about whether he should be hanged.

        by sam3am on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:27:10 PM PDT

        •  Because from what I understand

          the latest video was one in which he appeared sans disguise.

          by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:28:32 PM PDT

        •  There's no question

          He's the enemy, big time.  

          by Junglered1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:30:47 PM PDT

          •  I figure he's probably

            the person in question, but I despise the attitude that only by rushing to condemn do we demonstrate realism.  I've seen a few too many terrorism convictions overturned in the last few years to to be so quickly convinced.  

            by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:40:38 PM PDT

  •  My take

    Like Presidents since World War II, this President has refused to ask for a declaration of war. Absent such a declaration, treason is much more difficult to charge and should not be used.

    If we are at war with a clearcut enemy, the Congress, not the courts, should make that determination.

    by Elwood Dowd on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:54:02 PM PDT

•  Well, OTOH, why NOT charge him?

  The crime is pretty self evident.  

  Plus, if he is charged, an international warrant for his arrest can be put out.

  by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:15:48 PM PDT

•  It remains to be seen

  whether he gets a trial, or if he just gets "detained" forever.

  I agree this is treasonous, but he still needs a trial.

  by jimraff on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:16:48 PM PDT

  •  Trial will come after the

    indictment.

    by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:20:00 PM PDT

    •  If they ever catch him.

      which isn't likely

      by Junglered1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:23:12 PM PDT

      •  They caught Saddam

        They killed al-Zawahiri.

        Russians caught and killed a bunch of Chechen terrorists who were thought to be uncatchable.  

        His time will come.

        by Drgrishka1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:24:43 PM PDT

        •  From your lips...

          by Junglered1 on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:31:32 PM PDT

          •  How bad do we want him?

            A reward consisting of a couple million dollars and a US green card would probably have him in US custody in a couple of weeks.

            by Utahrd on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 01:33:34 PM PDT

•  Can you be charged

  with aiding the enemy when that enemy has not been defined by a declaration of war? What actually is the legal basis for a charge of treason?

  by Batfish on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 02:05:12 PM PDT

•  Well, here is the indictment

  http://www.usdoj.gov/...

  it explains the grounds for the charges.  It is the normal sequence of events to indict, arrest, then try; Consider Eric Rodulph, the Olympic Park Bomber for example.  There is no consideration given by a grand jury or prosecutor as to the custody status of the person charged, nor the length of time that it may take to apprehend them.

  by Bovine Fecalogist on Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 05:27:56 PM PDT