Anwar al-Aulaqi killed by drone

[Chaplain]

Originally Posted by catfish

There is plenty of constitutional precedent for killing enemy leaders and combatants in war-time, US citizens or not (ref Lincoln's decisions during the civil war).

And that's the problem with the current administration's attempt to treat some terrorist as criminals, deserving civilian trials. (Such as the ones at Gitmo.) Declare war, and there is no legal problem with the drone strike. (Or Gitmo, raid for OBL, or any other action against terrorists.) Declare them criminals, and now you have to get a judge to sign off even a wire tap, and after capture, give them access to lawyers.

It seems to me that President Obama has been a bit schizophrenic on this issue. He came into office ready to empty Gitmo and give them all civilian trials (probably to try to show how different he would be from Bush), but lately has been acting like a Bush-clone, willing to play "cowboy" in Lybia and Pakistan.

Personally, I like the second Obama better.

[BRC]

Originally Posted by bobofthedesert

As far as I'm concerned, he did get one. And unlike the formal trial that some are bemoaning the lack of, at this one he got to do most of the talking. He confessed...

Agreed...

[Snowball]

My comment was directed at an earlier comment expressing concern over the President determining to kill a US citizen without due process. I am not saying any planes were flying on 9/12, just that on 9/12, the President and Nation asshole were willing to kill US citizens in an airliner without due process. So, if that was OK, what is the problem will killing the Alawaki Jabberwokie douche bag?

FWIW, I believe that the douche bag in question wasn’t a USS citizen by virtue of his actions. Oss of citizenship occurs when you perform the act, not at some later date.

[SOW_0331]

Originally Posted by Snowball

My comment was directed at an earlier comment expressing concern over the President determining to kill a US citizen without due process. I am not saying any planes were flying on 9/12, just that on 9/12, the President and Nation asshole were willing to kill US citizens in an airliner without due process. So, if that was OK, what is the problem will killing the Alawaki Jabberwokie douche bag?

FWIW, I believe that the douche bag in question wasn’t a USS citizen by virtue of his actions. Oss of citizenship occurs when you perform the act, not at some later date.

Shooting down a passenger plane that has US citizens on it to prevent a direct, occurring attack is slightly different. It is choosing the solution with the minimum cost of life. 100 passengers over 1500 office workers, shitty call, but pretty easy choice.

Hunting down the location of a US citizen directly involoved with, but not carrying out, threats to national security is a different action. For what it's worth, I will sleep better knowing this guy is dead. He picked a side in a two party war, and he lost.

I do understand Polys worries though. It can be said that today's terrorist is yesteryears communist. This time, they sure did get the right kind of douchebag. But without being challenged, someone might get the idea that direct action can be taken (the lethal, exploding kind) against US citizens deemed a threat to national security. If you look at the path this country is headed on (to what degree is arguable) you can see where that could become a problem. Today a Muj that jumped shipped, tomorrow....someone that doesnt want to turn in their guns, you know the drill. Nothing I see in the near future, but something to think about. We need to work to not let our government become a separate independent entity that acts on it's own, especially against it's own people.

[Snowball]

I think we are on the same page. What I see alarms me as well. It waaaay past time the government remembers that it a government of the people by the people and for the people.

[Mortalitus]

Originally Posted by catfish

I see your point, although I disagree. I'm no constitutional expert, but one could argue that al-Awlaki was a spiritual leader of a organization that has been actively targeting the US and our interests. There is plenty of constitutional precedent for killing enemy leaders and combatants in war-time, US citizens or not (ref Lincoln's decisions during the civil war).

I don't think that being a US citizen should protect you from military strikes, if you join an enemy organization that has declared war on our nation.

The Supreme Court has ruled, in the past, that citizenship of the US does not protect an enemy combatant from the consequences of his / her actions.

If a Citizen is involed in Direct action on a battlefield they forfiet the protections of thier inherit Non-combatant status correct. However, nowhere in any legal precedent is there a law, code etc. That states a Citizen (member of a non national force, resistance unit, or orginization be it criminal or other) may be deprived of thier life, liberty, or property without due process of law off the battlefield. This man is Accused of some of the most atrocious criminal activity of our time. Yet no evidence of it has seen the light of public scrutiny. Not one file, one email to the Ft. Hood Shooter, etc. Which would have been brought out in a trial. It is not the perogative nor discretion of an executive body to pass judgement nor sentence on any case. This man was not even charged for his crimes officially. Officially to put it in LEO terms he was wanted for questioning. Sure they claim to of had plenty of evidence. However, as everyone knows that stuff usually comes out in a trial, however the GOV will no doubt claim it is a NS matter and shut it all up. Sad really.

I could care less if one less crazy fucktard is breathing. However, this is the law.

Some people have posted that this is a fair traitor's end or stuff like that. Or he forfieted all his Constitutional protections the second he did X or Y or said X or Y.

I want you all to think back to the Civil War. Those people all fought the Fed Gov. because of an Ideology. Some would say a belief in a political interpretation of the Constitution and our form of Gov. For this political Ideology they were called traitors and people said the same. In fact the same issues about Trials for civilians came up then. The restoration period in the South was horrible for both sides.

This assclown fights for his own distorted or different reading of a religious Ideology. For that he chooses to commit acts against his Gov. Crimes that do carry the death penalty.

In this land crimes are judicated in the Justice sytem. Be it in a Tribunal during war for wartime actions. Or a Court for Civil matters.


Fact of the matter is and this may not be a popular view around here but fuck it here goes.

Our Rights are not our rights when we are behaving nor written down for us for when we are at our best or for those that are rightoeus. They are for all of us, reguardless of deed and character, less we allow any system or entity to use deed, charachter, or individuality as the basis for taking them from us.

There is a reason why we have 3 separate houses of GOV. Lately I cannot tell the difference, and as another member put it where does it all end up. What is the end game? Do we inter them in Camps like we did to the Japanese in WWII, the Germans in WWI (also in WWII in limited scale). Do we route thier countries for resources and make them the next American Indians?
I say that because that was the last true religious Ideology we faced in combat.
Where does it all stop?

Be careful what you ask for, and what you endorse.

[Ralphie]

That states a Citizen (member of a non national force, resistance unit, or orginization be it criminal or other) may be deprived of thier life, liberty, or property without due process of law off the battlefield.

While I don't disagree at all with your point in principle, I would respectfully submited that your implied definition of battlefield is far too narrow and antiquated for the current fight. This model can't realistically apply in a conflict in which the opposition is composed of non-state actors; at the risk of sounding cliche', the whole world outside our borders is the battlespace.

[Mortalitus]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

According to 8 USC 1481 a naturalized or a natural born citizen can lose his citizenship if he commits any one of 7 clearly defined acts. This douche bag appears to have violated two of the 7 (committing treason and joining the armed forces of another nation currently at war with the US or in this case AQ). We should have revoked his citizenship a long time ago which would have rendered this whole discussion moot.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html

AQ is not a nation and the Taliban was never recognized as an official GOV by the UN, by us (The U.S.), or anyone but a couple dipshit regimes. Treason must be proved in a court of law which he was never charged with nor brought into.


Ralphie, not cliche at all. However going by the same ideology. and scaling it down. Take a murder suspect here CONUS. Should the Police have the right to take him/her out selectively by drone or other means sans boots on scene. If they deem it will save lives?
Or the head of a criminal enteprise like the Mob because they order hits on people and run human trafficking, drgs, etc?
It's for the greater good right?

After all the entire Nation is a crime scene by that estimation is it not? As well as the entire planet as the suspect could flee.

[catfish]

Originally Posted by Mortalitus

If a Citizen is involed in Direct action on a battlefield they forfiet the protections of thier inherit Non-combatant status correct. However, nowhere in any legal precedent is there a law, code etc. That states a Citizen (member of a non national force, resistance unit, or orginization be it criminal or other) may be deprived of thier life, liberty, or property without due process of law off the battlefield. This man is Accused of some of the most atrocious criminal activity of our time. Yet no evidence of it has seen the light of public scrutiny. Not one file, one email to the Ft. Hood Shooter, etc. Which would have been brought out in a trial. It is not the perogative nor discretion of an executive body to pass judgement nor sentence on any case. This man was not even charged for his crimes officially. Officially to put it in LEO terms he was wanted for questioning. Sure they claim to of had plenty of evidence. However, as everyone knows that stuff usually comes out in a trial, however the GOV will no doubt claim it is a NS matter and shut it all up. Sad really.

I could care less if one less crazy fucktard is breathing. However, this is the law.

Some people have posted that this is a fair traitor's end or stuff like that. Or he forfieted all his Constitutional protections the second he did X or Y or said X or Y.

I want you all to think back to the Civil War. Those people all fought the Fed Gov. because of an Ideology. Some would say a belief in a political interpretation of the Constitution and our form of Gov. For this political Ideology they were called traitors and people said the same. In fact the same issues about Trials for civilians came up then. The restoration period in the South was horrible for both sides.

This assclown fights for his own distorted or different reading of a religious Ideology. For that he chooses to commit acts against his Gov. Crimes that do carry the death penalty.

In this land crimes are judicated in the Justice sytem. Be it in a Tribunal during war for wartime actions. Or a Court for Civil matters.


Fact of the matter is and this may not be a popular view around here but fuck it here goes.

Our Rights are not our rights when we are behaving nor written down for us for when we are at our best or for those that are rightoeus. They are for all of us, reguardless of deed and character, less we allow any system or entity to use deed, charachter, or individuality as the basis for taking them from us.

There is a reason why we have 3 separate houses of GOV. Lately I cannot tell the difference, and as another member put it where does it all end up. What is the end game? Do we inter them in Camps like we did to the Japanese in WWII, the Germans in WWI (also in WWII in limited scale). Do we route thier countries for resources and make them the next American Indians?
I say that because that was the last true religious Ideology we faced in combat.
Where does it all stop?

Be careful what you ask for, and what you endorse.

In my opinion, this is not a law-enforcement / police action. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force, enacted shortly after 9/11, included al-Qaeda. al-Alwaki was clearly a member of this organization and a legitimate military / OGA target. Regardless of citizenship.

As someone else already mentioned, this conflict is not easily geographically defined and we ought not place unnecessary obstacles in our own way in order to bring pressure to the enemy. It is difficult enough without tying our own hands behind our back...

I actually believe that it would have been irresponsible to not kill al-Awlaki, when the opportunity presented itself. The Founding Fathers clearly stated that the Federal Government is responsible for the Common Defense of this nation. Allowing an enemy leader (battlefield commander?), such as al-Awlaki, to live when it has the opportunity to kill him, would be irresponsible.

I somehow doubt that this will lead to a myriad of extrajudicial killings by the US Military or other federal organizations... Maybe I'm too naive, but this discussion is mostly academic and for all practical purposes the guy needed to be either killed or captured.

[SOW_0331]

Originally Posted by catfish

As someone else already mentioned, this conflict is not easily geographically defined and we ought not place unnecessary obstacles in our own way in order to bring pressure to the enemy. It is difficult enough without tying our own hands behind our back...

I actually believe that it would have been irresponsible to not kill al-Awlaki, when the opportunity presented itself. The Founding Fathers clearly stated that the Federal Government is responsible for the Common Defense of this nation. Allowing an enemy leader (battlefield commander?), such as al-Awlaki, to live when it has the opportunity to kill him, would be irresponsible.

I somehow doubt that this will lead to a myriad of extrajudicial killings by the US Military or other federal organizations... Maybe I'm too naive, but this discussion is mostly academic and for all practical purposes the guy needed to be either killed or captured.

And if this had happened in Illinois or Texas? Would your geographical argument be the same? I mean killing the same piece of shit but on US soil.

Sure he needed killing, because he....did what? I know he supported the talibs and AQ, but most of it (I have yet to see much else) was in writing, online speeches, and "recruiting". There are neo nazis promoting the same attacks on the Internet, yet I doubt a drone attack or a firing line would go over well. In fact, I can bet you right now there are some skinheads training for a race war, some animal rights crazies planning to blow up some lab, a couple pro-lifers plotting to shoot a doctor, shit even some Christians who think their way of life is at stake. And I bet all of them are vocal about it on the Internet. So why not kill them rather than waste any time with a trial and other silly things.

Everyone of those people I mentioned probably deserve death, but that's not for me to decide, and not for any government to dictate.

Though I have to admit, it is a pretty clever method being used now, "linking" this shit head to just about everything bad in the last ten years, you know, becuase he said it was a good idea. And of course the mandatory 48 hour loop of the two planes cracshing into the towers...that really helps us swallow the idea. If someone would come out and say "we are at war, the constitution is suspended until further notice" then this would be a clean kill. But that would go over like a fart in church. So the end lesson here is that if you are going to toe the line, you might as well go all the fuck out, because you are already an enemy of the nation and the gloves are off? Who is the next enemy of the nation, the ones we can kill without trial.

I know, this guy was an asshat. But I know we have denied the deaths of worse, in fact we had a drone once looking at an enemy machine-gun team that we were in hard contact with.....and they weren't cleared to fire. They were actively engaging Americans, and it was deemed unnecessary. But if they made some anti American YouTube videos, it would have been different?

The biggest casualty in the current wars has been the degredation of the rights our country was built on...

[Mortalitus]

Originally Posted by catfish

In my opinion, this is not a law-enforcement / police action. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force, enacted shortly after 9/11, included al-Qaeda. al-Alwaki was clearly a member of this organization and a legitimate military / OGA target. Regardless of citizenship.

As someone else already mentioned, this conflict is not easily geographically defined and we ought not place unnecessary obstacles in our own way in order to bring pressure to the enemy. It is difficult enough without tying our own hands behind our back...

I actually believe that it would have been irresponsible to not kill al-Awlaki, when the opportunity presented itself. The Founding Fathers clearly stated that the Federal Government is responsible for the Common Defense of this nation. Allowing an enemy leader (battlefield commander?), such as al-Awlaki, to live when it has the opportunity to kill him, would be irresponsible.

I somehow doubt that this will lead to a myriad of extrajudicial killings by the US Military or other federal organizations... Maybe I'm too naive, but this discussion is mostly academic and for all practical purposes the guy needed to be either killed or captured.

This guy was a religous/political dissadent. That has not been shown even connected to 911. Spoke at the pentagon after 9/11 because he was influential in the local Muslim community. Then began writing newspapers, online editorials, speaking at various places around the country, making videos, then left the country. . The fact of the matter is he is big threat to NS. Even more so than the other AQ leaders/members probably even OBL due to the fact that he can reach out to young Muslim Americans on a personal level. That is a scary thing.

That guy comes back here to stand trial or any of them OBL, KSM, whomever, there's gonna be serious security problems. The GOV decided in the case of OBL, and this guy to whack em. KSM will never see the light of day. Nor be anywhere near the gen public.

But it does not make it a good thing that the law or rights, or justice not being served is good.

Our Constitution was founded on the idea of giving people the freedom and power. While tying the Gov at all levels hands behind it's back. You may wish to step back and remember that. It's why we have 3 branches of gov. So no tyrant can be judge,jury, and executioner of a citizen.

Just because it's something or someone we don't like now. If we condone the precedent it can be used to condone the action against something or someone we do like tomorrow.

[yojinbukai]

Eh... American citizen, acting on is own volition, happens to be co-located with a targeted international terrorist. Nothing to see here, move on.

Seriously though, to take your arguments a step further, should a citizen of ANY country be given less due process than an American is entitled to by constitutional right? Since when does the US President have the right to order the killing of any person for any reason outside the court of law? Are those that carry out the killing (whatever the means) any less guilty of criminal murder?

Despite the prima facie nature of the issue, or perhaps because of it, maybe the DOJ should've tried him in absentia. Either way, I'm just playing the devil's advocate and am truly glad that he's been killed.

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by Mortalitus

This guy was a religious/political dissident. That has not been shown even connected to 911. Spoke at the pentagon after 9/11 because he was influential in the local Muslim community. Then began writing newspapers, online editorials, speaking at various places around the country, making videos, then left the country. . The fact of the matter is he is big threat to NS. Even more so than the other AQ leaders/members probably even OBL due to the fact that he can reach out to young Muslim Americans on a personal level. That is a scary thing.

That guy comes back here to stand trial or any of them OBL, KSM, whomever, there's gonna be serious security problems. The GOV decided in the case of OBL, and this guy to whack em. KSM will never see the light of day. Nor be anywhere near the gen public.

But it does not make it a good thing that the law or rights, or justice not being served is good.

Our Constitution was founded on the idea of giving people the freedom and power. While tying the Gov at all levels hands behind it's back. You may wish to step back and remember that. It's why we have 3 branches of gov. So no tyrant can be judge, jury and executioner of a citizen.

Just because it's something or someone we don't like now. If we condone the precedent it can be used to condone the action against something or someone we do like tomorrow.

Anwar al-Awlaki was an "anchor baby" as far as US citizenship is concerned. When he returned to the US, he falsified his foreign student visa application and claimed birth in Yemen. Why?

Second, his connection to 9/11 came from two hijackers and himself being in Malaysia at a conference prior to the strike. Toblers First Law of Geography. Abdulmutallab and Hasan had ties to him as well. The Yemen, US and UK governments wanted him arrested for collusion with Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Third, Congress authorized the use of military force against al-Qaeda. So the POTUS did not act unilaterally by placing him on a kill/capture list. SCOTUS didn't stop it.

Fourth, in my opinion, if al-Awlaki stuck with just propaganda there was ample legal precedent to issue an arrest warrant and extradite him to the USA. Iva Toguri, Mildred Gillars, Donald Day, Herbert Burgman and Rita Zucca are some examples from WW2. Granted we formally declared war on the Axis, but US citizens giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" had their day in court. One of them received a full presidential pardon.

Anwar al-Awlaki went waaay beyond propaganda, he provided material support in the form of recruiting people to attack the USA and other countries. What's funny here is die-hard al-Qaeda members had their doubts about al-Awlaki's qualifications, but none doubted his charisma and his ability to reach english-speaking audiences with a 'pure' message; vice a translated message from Arabic.

I think he enjoyed being a rock star in Yemen more than supporting the cause. In a sense Anwar al-Awlaki, like a lot of media darlings, died from an overdose at the height of his popularity. In this case the overdose was composition B explosive.

Anecdotally, John Walker Lindh was a gnat's ass away from death himself at the hands of US forces. He's in jail doing 15-20 years, following a plea bargain.

How much uproar would there be if Tokyo Rose, Axis Sally or Jane Fonda died during an aerial bombardment on a legitimate target? Even if the USA had prior knowledge they were on the target?

I don't mind questioning the motives of the government. After looking at this situation and the decision made by the sitting POTUS, I support his decision. Given my previous rants against his policies, I'm rather surprised at that myself.

[Longrifle]

Originally Posted by SOW_0331

And if this had happened in Illinois or Texas? Would your geographical argument be the same? I mean killing the same piece of shit but on US soil.

"What if..." the homecoming queen slipped naked into you bed at night? Would you jerk off, nail her, or counsel her about her shameless behavior? Doesn't it depend on whether you're dreaming, you're single and alone, or if your wife is in bed, too? Variables determine course of action.

Everyone of those people I mentioned probably deserve death, but that's not for me to decide, and not for any government to dictate...

I have no problem deciding. None at all. And since when does a government not have the sovereign right to decide how and to what degree it defends itself?

The biggest casualty in the current wars has been the degredation of the rights our country was built on...

Lack of intelligent leadership while we willingly convert as a nation into non-thinking lemmings is far more sinister to me.

"Don't Tread on Me" has been replaced with "I'm offended, and everybody must change to suit me." 30 minute news has been replaced with 24/7 mind-numbing propaganda disguised as commentary, and rugged individualism is now sheeple group-think.

[Polypro]

I'm glad some can see my reservations, based on 'who's the next' American, and not this one.

If you want to really dig in, you can research the Brandenburg .vs Ohio Supreme Court Decision. You can look at what evidence the US supplied in the ACLU CCR case, which didn't amount to much more than 'it's a secret, we can't tell you' or standing issues. You can look at what Article III Section 3 of the Constitution says:

Section 3.

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.

If you wanted him to turn himself in, what crimes was he charged or indicted on? Oh that's right, none. Also, this:

The Justice Department has maintained that Awlaki’s re-entry to the U.S. was a string of coincidences. The Department told Fox News in a statement last May that there was not enough evidence to keep the warrant against Awlaki active.

Then there is the Yemen leadership question:

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula Leader: Nasir al-Wuhayshi

Deputy commander: Said Ali al-Shihri

Top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri), leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).

Also, I may be wrong, but isn't the maximum sentence for supporting terrorisim, 15 years...yeah, I think it is, hmmmm.

And then there is the fact that we haven't declared war on Yemen either...which brings up a bunch of other issues.

I realize that our DRAMA QUEENS, as Mike19 so eloquently put it, need a Boogeyman for PR purposes and to keep the budgets fat, but you better be careful for what you wish for. That's why there is a difference between EVIDENCE and RHETORIC. "Oh, he was a bad guy...fuck the rules...but you better follow the rules, or I'll nail your ass".

Hope I don't end up on a 'rist' for posting this 1st Amendment protected information.

"O’er the land of the free........"

P

[Polypro]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

Lack of intelligent leadership while we willingly convert as a nation into non-thinking lemmings is far more sinister to me.

What do you call a nation that gives up freedoms at every turn, because they believe terrorism is some kind of existential threat? Yeah, we have lemmings all right...

...because they believe Jews are some kind of existential threat?

P


P.S. This admin is keeping you guys safe as a mf'er, you all must love it. Looks like a lock for 2012. "4 more years of safety, 4 more years of safety...'

[SOTB]

Originally Posted by Polypro

What do you call a nation that gives up freedoms at every turn, because they believe terrorism is some kind of existential threat?

Doomed....

[Purple36]

The discussion about confessing ? Just turn on Youtube.....

I understand the concerns about our actions, but I just see these situations as different. Osama/Al Awlaki...

I guess I don't see US citizenship as a holy grail to protect someone at war with the US. This guy promoted people killing us...he didnt' just rail against our policies...if that was all he did, I'd agree, that any such strike would be wrong.

As Tracy pointed out, Anchor Baby. I see quite a few people who are in the process of getting their citizenship or who have gotten their citizenship and their loyalty is to their home country and they don't like the US-but they want the bennies of US citizenship.

[Polypro]

Originally Posted by Purple36

The discussion about confessing ? Just turn on Youtube.....

Section 3.

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.

I guess I don't see US citizenship as a holy grail to protect someone at war with the US.

It isn't. There are specific rules....oh darn, there's that word again.

This guy promoted people killing us...

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

A landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

and by imminent, they meant mob outside house, with torches lit, and someone says 'burn it'. FYI


If these idiots just followed the rules, there would be no bitching. Instead, they cloak it in the word terrorism and do what they want...and people cheer...??? F'n scary.

Who was more dangerous: Ramzi Yousef or Awlaki? (and no pre-crime crap rationalization, actual acts...it's a rhetorical question).

Whatever, let it keep happening. "First they came for the terrorists, but I wasn't a terrorist, and said nothing..."
I'm sure we'll all be fine. That history repeating itself thing, never happens.

P

[Longrifle]

Originally Posted by Polypro

What do you call a nation that gives up freedoms at every turn, because they believe terrorism is some kind of existential threat? Yeah, we have lemmings all right...

I'd call them what they were - lemmings - if they followed blindly and without thinking.

The owl-licker deserved to die for his sins. A federal judge heard the pros and cons of the suit and issued a ruling.

You disagree with his decision.

I believe it was the right decision.

Doesn't make either of us a lemming.

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.

It says "No person." Would you extend this literally to include every enemy combatant, and by extension there should be no battlefield deaths without trial beforehand?

Are you suggesting he should have been allowed to remain a free man, or are you suggesting American lives should have been placed in danger or lost in order to bring him into a court where he could have been charged, tried, and convicted of treason?