American-born Taliban commander Adam Gadahn has been captured by Pakistani intelligence officials. There seemed to originally be some confusion as to whether or not it was Gadahn who was captured, but it looks like it’s been clarified that Gadahn is indeed in custody. He’s already been charged with treason… the first American to be charged with treason since World War II.
Not so long ago, Adam Gadahn, who has both Jewish and Catholic ancestry, was growing up on a goat farm in Orange County, California. Now he’s been charged with treason against the United States — “perhaps the most serious offense for which any person can be tried under our Constitution,” according to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.
But Gadahn, aka Azzam al-Amriki or “Azzam the American,” 28, is accused of deliberately making the choice to leave his country and join al Qaeda, providing “aid and comfort” to the country’s most determined enemy.
Announcing the charges at an afternoon press conference at the Justice Department Wednesday, the Deputy Attorney General asserted that “in fact Mr Gadahn is the first person to be charged with treason against the United States since the World War II era.”
The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury sitting in Santa Ana, California, includes a second charge of providing material support to a terrorist organization.
But it is the treason charge that is most serious; in fact, it is so unusual that it is the only crime specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. In the entire history of the country, only about 40 individuals have ever been charged with the crime. The charge of treason carries a maximum possible penalty of death, but the decision whether to seek the ultimate penalty will not be made until Gadahn is apprehended and brought into court.
The FBI has him listed as one of their Top Ten Most Wanted Terrorists, and also lists his many aliases:
Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhail Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams, Adam Pearlman, Yayah, Azzam the American, Azzam Al-Amriki
And now, he’s been captured.
Coincidentally, a video featuring Gadahn was just released today. You can see it here; in it, he praises Nidal Hassan (the Fort Hood shooter) and encourages other Muslims in the military to follow suit. JWF has a pretty good timeline of events.
The question now is, what will happen to Gadahn? If he’s handed over to the United States, its hard to not be worried when we have a president like Obama in office. It’s undeniable that he has, at the absolute least, given aid and comfort to our enemy. Will Obama be sure to get him a lawyer first? Read him his Miranda Rights and make sure he’s got a teddy bear to keep him comfy in his prison cell? The penalty for treason is death, but what are libs going to do? To them, even lethal freakin’ injection is cruel and unusual punishment. Frankly, if I had my way, Gadahn would be castrated, hung, and then drawn and quartered. Publicly, too.
But where should Gadahn be tried?
Knowing Obama, he’ll probably give him a nice civilian trial in federal court. Or will he? He’s reversed Eric Holder’s decision to give KSM and the other 9-11 conspirators a federal trial. In this case, though, would a federal trial be the best option? Considering the indictment for treason against him from 2006, a federal trial might not be a bad idea. He is a civilian, after all, and proving treasonous activity won’t exactly be difficult. The problem would be the sentencing. Even if he is convicted and sentenced to death, will he be able to just sit in a jail cell for decades until we finally get around to executing him? Jose Padilla was tried in a federal court and only got sentenced to 17 years and 4 months in prison. There’s also the possibility of an appeal with a federal trial. That can’t be allowed to happen. He needs to be convicted quickly and executed even more quickly. Would a military tribunal accomplish that?
The sad part about all of this is that we should be celebrating. Unfortunately, we have a president who we know is not concerned first and foremost for the safety of the country. Were President Bush still in office, no one would be worried that the president would be hemming and hawing about what to do. Obama, right about now, is probably worried about who he should betray: the American people or the liberals he represents. Obama has a serious chance here to redeem himself with the public. He needs a political victory, and bad. This would give it to him, and it would give him the patriotic, tough, strong appearance that Bush always had. Obama comes across as a pansy ass; this could be the first step towards changing that. The pathetic thing is that his reputation and a political victory are probably the only reasons he would act tough on this issue. If he thought being lenient would make him look better, that’s probably what he would do.
Here’s hoping that, for once, Obama will forget about his socialist liberal base and do the right thing for the country.
UPDATE: There’s been confusion over whether or not Gadahn is who was captured. It seems that if it wasn’t Gadahn, then it was some other American traitor who deserves to get executed mercilessly. The AP has updated their story, and Pakistani officials are saying that an American who has been charged with treason was captured. Sounds like Gadahn, right? But US officials haven’t confirmed the story.
Two Pakistani officers and a government official said Sunday that an American charged with treason for working with al-Qaida had been captured, a development that could deliver another significant blow in the U.S.-led battle against the terror network.
U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement officials could not immediately verify the reported detention of Adam Gadahn, a 31-year-old spokesman for al-Qaida who has appeared on videos threatening the West, including one that emerged earlier Sunday.
The reported arrest of Gadahn follows the recent detention of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi, including the group’s No. 2. Those detentions have been seen as a sign that Pakistan, which has been criticized as an untrustworthy ally, was cooperating more fully with Washington.
Some observers were cautious about giving credence to the claim that Gadahn was in custody as reports emerged that the man arrested might instead be a Taliban militant leader. There was no way of independently verifying the arrest or identity, and detentions of terror suspects in Pakistan are often surrounded by conflicting reports.
So, is it Gadahn or isn’t it? Frankly, if Pakistani officials are saying it is an American who was charged with treason, it sure as heck sounds like it is Gadahn. And if US intelligence operatives weren’t involved in this capture, then how would they know whether it is or isn’t Gadahn?
Either way, an American traitor was caught and that’s reason to celebrate, whether it is Gadahn or not… unless of course Obama messes it all up and throws away an opportunity to execute a traitorous dirtbag.
Cross-posted at Stop the ACLU.
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
UPDATED: Just Remember to Blame Bush…
Professor Jacobson on Leftie reaction to Adam Gadahn’s capture. Gadahn’s capture will not boost confidence in Obama, folks. Maybe his poll numbers will see a bounce momentarily, but nothing beyond that. You know why? Because Obama will sc…
Riddle me this, If a terrorist is in custody is he still a terrorist?
Turns out it wasn’t Gadahn that got captured. Too bad.
Yeah, this seems to be a pretty constant situation in this war. We’re so damn sure we got someone and then we find out later that it wasn’t the person. It happens way too often for my taste. Most of this nonsense happens when the Pakistanis capture someone (and they’re lying assholes anyway), but our own military hasn’t exactly been innocent on this either. This isn’t helping us much.
Gadahn is an American citizen (even if he claims to have renounced it). If he’s captured and charged with treason then, unfortunately, a federal court is actually the correct venue. The fortunate part is that prosecuting him for treason is actually fairly straightforward.
The circumstances of his crimes are very different from those of the thousands of foreign enemy combatants we’ve captured.
If we haven’t got him yet, then we’ll get him soon. Maybe they did catch him and the CIA is doing their number on him right now.
If Pakistani Intelligence has him, there’s a good chance he’ll get away. The ISI supported the Taliban and it still has many sympathizers among its ranks.
When they do capture him, I just want 5 minutes alone with him. Just 5 minutes. Me, him, a pig, a blowtorch and some battery acid!
Nicki,
It’ll never happen. He’s got rights, ya know?…yeah, rights…
This is one reason why I think we’ll eventually lose this war. We’re fighting it totally the wrong way. We’re going after individuals while they train dozens. How many times over the last nine years have we trumpeted the capture of someone and then we find out that it’s business as usual? These POS’s are like a friggin’ virus. You get one, and several pop up in their place. The only way we’ll win this is if we take out whole swathes of them at once.
Mat, yeah. He has the right to be eviscerated with a rusty fork and hanged by his own intestines.
Ooops! Was that out loud?
“Mat, yeah. He has the right to be eviscerated with a rusty fork and hanged by his own intestines.
Ooops! Was that out loud?”
Hey, no argument from me on that note. The problem is that there’s tons of people who think otherwise. I mean, God forbid we actually try to kill any of these lowlifes. That would sink us down to their level (who said this is a bad thing, exactly?).
When I think of all this, I start thinking of the ROE’s that our troops have to deal with (you know, the ones that seem to have the sole purpose of just killing our own soldiers for no apparent reason) and I want to puke.
Mat, many of our allies operate under caveats that are absolutely moronic. Thank NATO PC bullshit for the ROE we’re currently under.
And personally, I could give less of a rat’s flying arse about what people think of our treatment of terrorist scumbags. When they lose thousands of theirs in senseless camelhumper attacks, then they can spew. Until then, they can STFU.
Nicki,
Again, no argument here. BTW, is NATO even relevant to us anymore? If it were up to me, whole villages and cities would be going up in smoke. I’d honestly be the reincarnation of Genghis Khan. The way we’re fighting this now is absolutely insane and will result in nothing more than waging some tit-for-tat garbage which we’ll get tired of and call it quits (which would be catastrophic). Fight a war totally or not at all.
Take Marjah, for example. The second day of the attack, we hit a dwelling which did house some Taliban. The civilians were being used as shields. We hit it with HIMARS and took it out, but the civilians died. So we couldn’t use HIMARS after that (at least that I know of). Sorry, but if it saves the life of one American soldier to flatten a village, I say go for it. 13 dead soldiers for 120 or so Taliban isn’t a good ratio (and how many of them didn’t have to die?).
Mat, I completely agree with you on the ROE. Karzai took to the airwaves after the civilians were killed and started blasting the US and NATO. I was so pissed when I walked into work that morning, I wanted to punch someone!
My view is that if it wasn’t for us, Karzai wouldn’t be in power in the first place, his country would be under Taliban yoke, and his people would be sitting around in their own filth, playing with camel shit (not that they’re not doing that already, but at least they’re not getting stoned to death by the Taliban for showing disrespect to their cult-god). And if he and his idiot fellow politicians got off their collective rumps and kicked some ANA ass to get them to train and perform their duties better, he wouldn’t need NATO and the US there for much longer!
Ungrateful lout.
As for NATO, yes, it’s relevant – mostly because of the Article 5 collective security guarantee. Many of our NATO allies are also our biggest trade partners. If they get attacked and there’s no alliance to stand up as one, our economy gets SCREWED. That’s my take, anyway.
Nicki
“Mat, I completely agree with you on the ROE. Karzai took to the airwaves after the civilians were killed and started blasting the US and NATO. I was so pissed when I walked into work that morning, I wanted to punch someone!”
I just saw it as par for the course. That’s one reason why I don’t think this is going to turn out well in the end.
” My view is that if it wasn’t for us, Karzai wouldn’t be in power in the first place, his country would be under Taliban yoke, and his people would be sitting around in their own filth, playing with camel shit (not that they’re not doing that already, but at least they’re not getting stoned to death by the Taliban for showing disrespect to their cult-god). And if he and his idiot fellow politicians got off their collective rumps and kicked some ANA ass to get them to train and perform their duties better, he wouldn’t need NATO and the US there for much longer!”
ANA is a joke. All that nonsense with them being with the Marines in Marjah was a lie. The Marines and the Brits did all of the heavy lifting (with very few exceptions) from what I heard. I’m not sure I like our military puffing up and praising the ANA the way they are (yes, I understand why they do it for political reasons, but I still don’t like it). They’re setting themselves up for a big disappointment. My concern is that we’ll set the ANA up, fight a little longer and then leave. At that point the ANA will do as well against the Taliban as the Afghan government forces did against the mujahadeen back in ’89-early’90′s.
“Ungrateful lout.”
I’d use stronger language, but yes, I agree with this.
“As for NATO, yes, it’s relevant – mostly because of the Article 5 collective security guarantee.”
Yeah, I guess that was my point. It seems to favor Europe over us. I don’t see how much of a security guarantee we’re actually getting. I mean, 9/11 should have galvanized NATO (and it did for a very, very short time). However, NATO support has been lukewarm at best with way too many conditions. Given the fact that European NATO countries cut their military budgets by over 50% following the Cold War, they’re increasingly irrelevant with very little in the way of projecting their remaining force without our help (which is why I laugh at the EU). I would have agreed with this in the 80′s against the Soviets. Not so sure about now.
“Many of our NATO allies are also our biggest trade partners.”
And most of them are EU countries to boot. And the EU doesn’t like us. My guess is that the EU will slowly take precedence over NATO (even with all of their many initial problems). Yeah, we’ll trade with them, but I suspect that there will be some tariffs involved in later years, particularly with China growing the way they are. That’s one of the problems with us having a import heavy economy. That was great when we were super wealthy and everything was stable, like in the 90′s. There’s a lot of instability now and we’re racking up huge amounts of debt. Like I said, my concern economically is China becoming at least an equal trading partner with the EU (not good for us) or even worse, an alternative one.
“If they get attacked and there’s no alliance to stand up as one, our economy gets SCREWED. That’s my take, anyway.”
Personally, I think our economy will be screwed no matter what we do. Like I said, this debt situation is festering and will become a huge issue soon (indeed, it already is…we just haven’t realized it yet). We have a government that seems to be ratcheting up the spending no matter which political party is in charge. Indeed, I think the economic situation, more than any other, is what will force us to pull out of Afghanistan eventually. We just can’t keep pouring money down a sinkhole.
Granted, I will be the first one to admit that I’m both a cynic and a pessimist, but I don’t really see a rosy future for us.
Well, sure it’s par for the course! Doesn’t mean I was happy about it. LOL It galls me to see the sacrifices we make for these third-world shitholes, who then come back, criticize us for the help we provide and demand more. GRRRRRR….
And yes, the collective security guarantee is more for the benefit of our allies than us. There’s nothing new and different there. We’re the big kid on the block. Some of our allies have really been terrific, though. The Brits, the Poles, and others… Many of these nations have sacrificed nearly EVERYTHING to help us out in Afghanistan. Literally. They’ve sacrificed their own territorial defense, which will make them more reliant upon Article 5 guarantees.
I doubt the EU will take precedence over NATO anytime soon. Maybe in piracy cases, because the alliance doesn’t have mechanisms in place to really deal with that mess. But other than that, no. Besides, with the eurozone being as weak as it is right now, the focus is on EU economics rather than any kind of hegemony to alter the balance of power.
Our economy is screwed. Will be MORE screwed if our export market is damaged. I’m a cynic and a pessimist as well, but I’m also optimistic of our ability to pull ourselves out once we hit rock bottom.
“Well, sure it’s par for the course! Doesn’t mean I was happy about it. LOL It galls me to see the sacrifices we make for these third-world shitholes, who then come back, criticize us for the help we provide and demand more. GRRRRRR….”
Oh, I’m not happy about it, it’s just that I pretty much expect us to do the dumbest thing possible these days…
“And yes, the collective security guarantee is more for the benefit of our allies than us. There’s nothing new and different there. We’re the big kid on the block.”
Yeah, but for how much longer? That’s the big question.
“Some of our allies have really been terrific, though. The Brits, the Poles, and others… Many of these nations have sacrificed nearly EVERYTHING to help us out in Afghanistan. Literally. They’ve sacrificed their own territorial defense, which will make them more reliant upon Article 5 guarantees.”
True, but it’s mostly their militaries that are supporting us. The civilian population, the key ingredient in any wartime situation, is what concerns me. And there aren’t nearly enough of the Brits and Poles (or Canadians & Australians for that matter). We’re facing a foe that can just keep tapping the pipeline for more fighters pretty much indefinitely. In a war of wills, I’m not sure I can really bet on us in the long term. My point was that we need all of NATO, not just a few of them (example, we’re losing the Dutch this year…not really sure if that’s a tremendous loss).
As for the EU, I was thinking more long term in that regard. The EU doesn’t have any external enemies (Russia is a joke, regardless of their saber-rattling). Yes, the EU has a lot of work, but I think it was expected that they’ll take the current time to consolidate. The question is what the EU will look like when they do consolidate…
“Our economy is screwed. Will be MORE screwed if our export market is damaged.”
Well, we have more of an import than export economy. I have a nasty suspicion that it won’t matter either way with our debt being the way it is. If people aren’t buying (i.e. holding on to their money for essentials), then our economy will fall apart.
“I’m a cynic and a pessimist as well, but I’m also optimistic of our ability to pull ourselves out once we hit rock bottom.”
I used to think that way, but I work at a university. The kids I see coming through just don’t have a clue. In order for our country to work, we really need the majority to be responsibile citizens. I see the exact opposite, which doesn’t bode well for the future (yeah, that’s pretty dark)…
That IS pretty dark. If you judge the future by the universities, you might as well slit your wrists now! LOL Nah, we’ll make it. We always do. Really. I was born in the former Soviet Union. I can we where we’re headed, but I can also see a fundamental difference between our societies. Americans don’t give up. It’ll be OK – eventually.
I realize we export less than we import, but $995 billion in exports is nothing to sneeze at.
As for our allies, their militaries wouldn’t be supporting us without political approval. The Dutch government collapsed over this issue! It’s a pretty big one. The people aren’t crazy about the war, but the issue isn’t so contentious that it will force a vote either way. And we do have MOST of NATO. What we need is for our allies to lift some of the caveats under which they operate. THAT’s what’s costly and unpopular. I’m actually impressed with the newer members of NATO. They’ve sacrificed everything despite declining economies and defense budgets to keep their NATO commitments. I gotta give them credit… they’re trying.
I keep hearing these rumors about EU nations hoarding their national currencies because they are half convinced the Euro will fail. I guess we’ll see.