Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (12692)	12/4/2001 1:58:40 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Respond to of 281500

>> Would he be projected as a victim or a perpetrator... an evil-doer or just a lost rebel? Those labels aren't mutually exclusive; I'd imagine all of them apply. But the one I'd choose is, a parent's worst nightmare. >> Will he "confess" to his crimes and be let off with a much lighter sentence than his co-fighters from the Taliban? A review of President Bush's record as Gov. of Texas would strongly suggest otherwise. I don't believe he has ever pardoned anyone. >> If we can't understand the motives of a "regular" american very well, what hope do we have to understand the psyche of an Afghan or Arab or Chechen or Palestinian fighter? None. That's why we need to respond to their actions rather than their motivation. jmho, uf

To: arun gera who wrote (12692)	12/4/2001 3:14:46 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> Should he be tried in a US court or in a mililtary tribunal? < If I understand the current law correctly, if there is a trial, this person (so long as his US citizenship is proved to be current and/or not revoked), is eligible to a trial in a regular US court, not a military tribunal. the tribunal situation only applies to non-US citizens. Where he "should" be tried is an entirely different matter. cheers, kumar

To: arun gera who wrote (12692)	12/4/2001 3:21:11 PM
From: aladin	Respond to of 281500

Hi, Lets look at this more closely: from: travel.state.gov Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. What does this mean? An argument will be made that he is no longer an American based on the above statutes. As such he could be tried by a Military Tribunal. John

To: arun gera who wrote (12692)	12/4/2001 3:29:16 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 281500

Oh good a quiz: 1) He was serving in a foriegn military so he automatically loses his citizenship in the process. He should be treated as any other captured Taleban. The circumstanses seem sad...everybody has a sad story. 2) He will confess. Whether he expresses remorse or not is another question. Lighter sentence may occur because of corporate attorney dad...tsk. 3) Both victim and perp...aren't we all. 4) Yes. Paradise...so what? 5) I doubt whether the family was rewarded. That is typically for a death or loss and to the Muslim relatives. 6) Hated liberty and prosperity? that's a juvenile misconception. 7) Misguided idealist. 8)Noam Chomski...doubt it. 9) No and no. 10) Spy...no. 11) A terrorist under every table? Not...7 million Muslims in America. 12) Survey...dumb. 13) Taleban sympathisers....c'mon 14) Illiteracy and poverty is a contributing factor...not the whole story. 15) No 16) Al-Jazeera vs CNN ...definite possibility. 17) ...what hope do we have to understand the psyche ... an open mind helps did i pass?