Navy Turncoat

[Markham]

Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Two people have to testify to the fact that the person commited the treason, which was a big stumbling block with John Walker Lindh (you think they were going to get some Taliban guys to tesify?). Here is a link:

http://tomdelay.house.gov/constitution/View/Article3/a3s3c1.htm

That is why you don't get guys convisted of treason lately.

I disagree with you there.

Wasn't Lindh toting a rifle with the Taliban, fighting as a trooper in a
civil war in a foreign country? He might have made a convincing
argument about whether or not he could simply lay down his arms when
the Taliban were being put down for allowing terror camps. Maybe he
could have been accused of treason, but the case seems as different
as night and day.

A man who is in communication with a belligerant, who compiles information
"showing the vulnerability of the battleship to an assault by a small craft of
men armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers" and detailing the
deployment of the battlegroup. That's what I'd call treason, and I'd agree
with Fly Navy.

For someone to be convicted of an out-and-out charge of treason, would
you truly need to have to eye witnesses of the crime? Could you not simply
prove that it was indeed him who was sending these messages? There
was evidently enough against him to arrest him.

And does the UCMJ outline the prereqs for the charge the same way as the
constitution?

 

[Flash]

I disagree with you there.

Wasn't Lindh toting a rifle with the Taliban, fighting as a trooper in a
civil war in a foreign country? He might have made a convincing
argument about whether or not he could simply lay down his arms when
the Taliban were being put down for allowing terror camps. Maybe he
could have been accused of treason, but the case seems as different
as night and day.

A man who is in communication with a belligerant, who compiles information
"showing the vulnerability of the battleship to an assault by a small craft of
men armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers" and detailing the
deployment of the battlegroup. That's what I'd call treason, and I'd agree
with Fly Navy.

For someone to be convicted of an out-and-out charge of treason, would
you truly need to have to eye witnesses of the crime? Could you not simply
prove that it was indeed him who was sending these messages? There
was evidently enough against him to arrest him.

And does the UCMJ outline the prereqs for the charge the same way as the
constitution?

Read the link above, treason is specifically defined in the US Constitution and is very difficult to prosecute. It has not been done in very long time. If it is proven the guy gove away classified info, he can be prosecuted for that. There are several federal charges, some new, for giving aid or material support to a terrorist group. These would be much easier to prosecute than treason. Several spies have been convicted in the past few years but none with treason. John Walker, the Navy Cryptologist, was one of the most damaging and he was retired, he could have been activated but they just convicted him in federal court pretty easily (after he spied for over 20 years).

 

[Fly Navy]

Like Flash said, Treason is the most difficult crime to convict someone of, for good reason. It was designed that way. You NEED witnesses, at least two.

 

[El Cid]

I don't mean to sound too "conspiracy theory" -ish, but, while this could have happened, it sound like the kind of thing that was either made up by the story-writer or twisted around to sound like something it wasn't. Thinking along the lines of what VetteMuscle said - you'd think that any idiot would know that email from a ship is monitored...don't they tell you that when you come on board?

What's the source? I see the name of an author, but what news agency is he writing for?

FYI: Signalmen don't just wave flags around anymore. They are part of the crew that does work on the communications equipment... hmmm maybe he had the ability to send info while he was suppossed to be working.

 

[Flash]

FYI: Signalmen don't just wave flags around anymore. They are part of the crew that does work on the communications equipment... hmmm maybe he had the ability to send info while he was suppossed to be working.

Someone who was surfing the net when they were suppose to be working, perish the thought!

I have not seen anything on this since the Navy Times article, anything new?