Daily Kos

American could be charged with Treason this week

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

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.

Tags: Al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, treason, in absentia (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 36 comments

  •  But now that we have the lovely (3+ / 0-)

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

    -6.5, -7.59. Dump Harry Reid. Put in someone who can rid us of Holy Joe Lieberman.

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

    •  Like that red light you ran that had a camera... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Tanya, Rex Manning

      ...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.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

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

      [ Parent ]

    •  Olbermann reported last night (0+ / 0-)

      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

      To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

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

      [ Parent ]

  •  The pride of Garbage Grove (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Tanya, Rex Manning, ImpeachKingBushII

    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.

    The future's here, we are it, we are on our own.

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

    •  In fact you nearly ALWAYS indict (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Elwood Dowd

      in absentia.  

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

      •  But indictments with no prospect of trial? (0+ / 0-)

        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.

        •  Why not? (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Adam B

          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.

        •  The point of it, or at least part of it... (0+ / 0-)

          ...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.

        •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

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

      •  For example (0+ / 0-)

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

  •  There is an election coming up. Don't be (5+ / 0-)

    surprised if a whole bunch of terrorist cells get found.

    Reminds me of Ezra Pound.  

    •  Like Ezra (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      April Follies

      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?

      Dialogue is not possible, however, in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people -- Paulo Freire

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

      [ Parent ]

  •  Does the Patriot act permit this? (0+ / 0-)

    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.

  •  President Bush (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Arken, dennisl, Tanya

    Protecting America from confused SoCal white-trash since 2000.

    /snark

    The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

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

    •  I think that this is much more than confusion (0+ / 0-)

      He is not acting confused, he is acting traitorously.

      •  Oh, he's a Traitor, no doubt. (0+ / 0-)

        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.

        The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

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

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Indictment... (1+ / 0-)

    ... is in.

    Socialism is to capitalism as training a dog is to worshipping a wolf

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

  •  He's being charged not tried...yet... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Trapper John, lcs, dennisl

    ...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.

    •  I know a thimblefull of info... (0+ / 0-)

      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.

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it -- GB Shaw

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

      [ Parent ]

      •  Treason is defined as (0+ / 0-)

        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.

        •  well, a slight modification (0+ / 0-)

          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.

      •  Actually, he is trying to overthrow the gov... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Trapper John

        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.

        •  No question of Gadahn's actions (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          vansterdam, paige

          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.

    •  My take (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      paige

      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.

  •  Well, OTOH, why NOT charge him? (0+ / 0-)

    The crime is pretty self evident.  

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

  •  It remains to be seen (0+ / 0-)

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

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

    To a tapeworm, man exists for the tapeworm. - Edward Abbey

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

  •  Can you be charged (0+ / 0-)

    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?

    Ambition is when you follow your dreams. Insanity is when they follow you.

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

  •  Well, here is the indictment (0+ / 0-)

    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.

Permalink | 36 comments