NationStates Jolt Archive

Should he be pardoned?

He fought with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance after the U.S. entered the war. That's enough to lose your citizenship.

He claimed that he trained at an AQ camp in the summer of 2001 and was asked to carry out attacks against America and Israel, but declined (training bad, declining to attack America good). see http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/03/walker.lindh.documents/index.html

He didn’t warn anyone in the United States about anything. If anything, I would revoke his citizenship for that plus fighting for a foreign force.

Rather than challenge the coercive circumstances of his interrogation in court, he copped a plea that reduced his potential sentence from life to 17 years with good behavior. See http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/04/lindh.statement/

I already think he got off light.

He was charged with:

* Conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals
* Two counts of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
* Two counts of providing material support and resources to terrorist organizations
* One count of supplying services to the Taliban.
* Conspiracy to contribute services to Al Qaeda
* Contributing services to Al Qaeda
* Conspiracy to supply services to the Taliban
* Using and carrying firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence


His plea bargain:

"I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so, I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly knowing that it was illegal."

Well, I tell you what. I would revoke his US citizenship permanently, and transport him to the back 40 of Afghanistan, and let him go.

17 years with good behavior seems OK to me

Aye, let the fucker rot.

I would revoke his US citizenship permanently, and transport him to the back 40 of Afghanistan, and let him go.

so we can capture him all over again :confused:

I say we be nice to him and shit which seems to be working well in the conflict (hell maybe we can coerce some other foreign fighters over)

edit: also hes being good and so at least deserves a lollipop

Judges are elected/appointed for their experience and judgemental ability. They are there to make decisions even if the public doesn't always agree. The judge who sentence Lindh likely had a good reason for his choice. Have the man serve his time.

Judges are elected/appointed for their experience and judgemental ability.

I thought they got the job by being really really good lawyers ?

I thought they got the job by being really really good lawyers ?

One may be a good lawyer but does that make one a good judge? While a good lawyer may have an excellent grasp of the law, does that mean said lawyer has the qualities of a judge?

Option 3.

Jail is fine; there's no need to be petty and vindictive about him.

Jail is fine; there's no need to be petty and vindictive about him.

If a U.S. soldier deserts during conflict--not joins the other side, just deserts--you can shoot him. It's not petty. It's imperative.

I'm not usually one to place a lot of store in nationalism, but taking up arms against your nation under the insignia of another nation is treason. He should be stripped of citizenship.

I disagree with stripping of citizenship for ANY crime. I don't think citizenship should be able to be revoked by anything other than an explicit voluntary act of the citizen.

If a U.S. soldier deserts during conflict--not joins the other side, just deserts--you can shoot him. It's not petty. It's imperative.

I'm not usually one to place a lot of store in nationalism, but taking up arms against your nation under the insignia of another nation is treason. He should be stripped of citizenship.

Why? What would stripping him of his citizenship accomplish? What benefit does this nation derive from that, other than being petty?

One may be a good lawyer but does that make one a good judge? While a good lawyer may have an excellent grasp of the law, does that mean said lawyer has the qualities of a judge?

a lawyer is good at general bullshitting so I figure they just need the experience

If a U.S. soldier deserts during conflict--not joins the other side, just deserts--you can shoot him. It's not petty. It's imperative.

no you can't.

I'm not usually one to place a lot of store in nationalism, but taking up arms against your nation under the insignia of another nation is treason. He should be stripped of citizenship.

bloody yanks :tongue:

There should have been an "Option 2, then dump him in Afghanistan, plus exile his parents for good measure."

Taliban John should have died a traitor's death years ago. Let him suffer in prison for the entire remainder of his sentence (which was far too short to begin with). And if we're lucky, some fellow prisoner will do this country a favor.

no you can't.
Depends on the phrase "During combat" if he deserts before he's deployed (Cpl Watada), then you're right. he can't be 'just shot'. but if he is IN COMBAT and tries to desert, that would be different.

bloody yanks :tongue:
well, our British Citizenship was removed when we fought under another flag. :p

If a U.S. soldier deserts during conflict--not joins the other side, just deserts--you can shoot him. It's not petty. It's imperative.

I'm not usually one to place a lot of store in nationalism, but taking up arms against your nation under the insignia of another nation is treason. He should be stripped of citizenship.
Wouldn't we have half a nation stripped at this point, then? Wasn't the pardon in part to allow rebellious parties a way 'back in,' so to speak? (that's an actual question, by the way, not rhetorical)

I think something else is missing, does he even want his citizenship? Is it really punishing him or doing him a favor?

I think in the 'damage done' category over the last eight years I have to say that I'm not all that concerned or bent over Lindh. It's like bitching out the crab for munching on the display plant while the sharks fuck up the rest of the fish in the aquarium.







It's early, man, not all my metaphors are going to be gems, dammit...

Let him go. He deserves nothing worse than completing the 17 year sentence at the most as punishment - and I don't think he has committed a crime worthy of that.

This is the first time I've heard of the guy.

what, exactly, do we have any reason to believe he actually did other than join the taliban? take part in a prison uprising against a different warlord faction in afghanistan? sympathize with terrorists? hold a gun in a country where you would be dead without one?

Lindh is a traitor to his country and has been tried and sentenced as a citizen of the US I think the judgement should stand. IIRC he is known to be a pretty hardcore fundamtalist.

Lindh is a trator to his country

so?

Lindh by his actions is a traitor to his country it is his choice to make and he has to accept the consequences, he has been tried as a US citizen and found guilty he should serve the sentence he has been given.

Why would his parents factor into this at all other than to give some idiots the self-righteous woody of revenge? I was under the impression that he was an adult while committing the crime.

so?

And what does Stalin do with traitors?

what, exactly, do we have any reason to believe he actually did other than join the taliban? take part in a prison uprising against a different warlord faction in afghanistan? sympathize with terrorists? hold a gun in a country where you would be dead without one?

Joining a foreign military force deprives you of your US citizenship.

There have only been a handful of exceptions made - the Flying Tigers, for instance.

And what does Stalin do with traitors?

pretty much what stalin did with anyone he considered insufficiently subservient. what does that have to do with anything?

pretty much what stalin did with anyone he considered insufficiently subservient. what does that have to do with anything?

You're the Soviet. You tell me what you do with traitors.

Lindh by his actions is a traitor to his country it is his choice to make and he has to accept the consequences, he has been tried as a US citizen and found guilty he should serve the sentence he has been given.

and also go through the entire process. thus a parole board hearing and such.

You're the Soviet. You tell me what you do with traitors.

reeducation is not punishment.

You're the Soviet. You tell me what you do with traitors.

i don't really believe in the concept, at least not as a punishable offense in itself. certain actions taken while 'committing treason' may be worthy of punishment, but they would be worthy of punishment if committed by anyone, not just people violating some alleged sacred duty to a nation state.

Joining a foreign military force deprives you of your US citizenship.

There have only been a handful of exceptions made - the Flying Tigers, for instance.

I think the same rationale that keeps people locked up in Guantanamo would prevent Lindh from losing his citizenship, no?

I think the same rationale that keeps people locked up in Guantanamo would prevent Lindh from losing his citizenship, no?

But the Taliban aren't a foreign military force. They're illegal combatants. Just ask those guys in Guantanamo.

oh, you guys and your demands for consistency. can't you see that you are standing in the way of the grand genocide of all muslims dk has planned?

Stripping someone of their citizenship seems so.....juvenile. “Nu-huh, he’s not one of us, coz we never do something bad.” Sure.

That said, seventeen years for treason seems slightly mild. I’d expect life-imprisonment without the possibility of parole at the very least.

Joining a foreign military force deprives you of your US citizenship.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether you take an oath of loyalty to the other nation when you join. Officers do have to take an oath, but whether enlisted men varies from country to country.

That said, seventeen years for treason seems slightly mild.

why?

why?

It's pretty much the worst crime you can commit, from the states point of view. You tried to end the rule of law. You participated in an action that if successful would allow every crime imaginable to be committed on the innocent, who would have no protection or restitution against said crimes. Serious business.

Not necessarily. It depends on whether you take an oath of loyalty to the other nation when you join. Officers do have to take an oath, but whether enlisted men varies from country to country.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

in the US all that is required is serving in a foreign army. though if the army is not hostile to us its not investigated. However the Taliban was a declared hostile army. Mr. Lindh should have left the group he was with after 9/11.

It's pretty much the worst crime you can commit, from the states point of view. You tried to end the rule of law. You participated in an action that if successful would allow every crime imaginable to be committed on the innocent, who would have no protection or restitution against said crimes. Serious business.

Umm....what? You went from A to some letter beyond the limits of the English alphabet without any foot movement between.

Stripping someone of their citizenship seems so.....juvenile. “Nu-huh, he’s not one of us, coz we never do something bad.” Sure.

That said, seventeen years for treason seems slightly mild. I’d expect life-imprisonment without the possibility of parole at the very least.

but in some cases it makes No true American not a fallacy since if they do X they cease to be American.

It's pretty much the worst crime you can commit, from the states point of view.

no, it really really isn't. and even if it was, so what?

You tried to end the rule of law. You participated in an action that if successful would allow every crime imaginable to be committed on the innocent, who would have no protection or restitution against said crimes. Serious business.

um, that's not what treason is

What about a plea bargain don't you people understand?

He was never charged with treason, was not convicted of all the items for which he was indicted, and recieved a 20-year sentence as a result of a deal with the government.

I guess those bleeding heart liberals in the Bush Justice Department deliberately went easy on the "traitor." :rolleyes:

To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence Lindh was something of a scapegoat for 9/11 hysteria.

Nonetheless, the idea he should be pardoned is silly and I know of no public figure supporting this idea (which comes from Lindh's parents).

um, that's not what treason is

*Goes off to look up treason*

plus exile his parents for good measure."

Why? Just because New Mitanni the Internet Crusader hates their son?


And if we're lucky, some fellow prisoner will do this country a favor.

Always the good Christian.

Did we pardon those Americans who volunteered for the Italian or German armies before December 1941? If so, yes, pardon him. If not, no.

What about a plea bargain don't you people understand?

He was never charged with treason, was not convicted of all the items for which he was indicted, and recieved a 20-year sentence as a result of a deal with the government.

I guess those bleeding heart liberals in the Bush Justice Department deliberately went easy on the "traitor." :rolleyes:

To the contrary, there is plenty of evidence Lindh was something of a scapegoat for 9/11 hysteria.

Nonetheless, the idea he should be pardoned is silly and I know of no public figure supporting this idea (which comes from Lindh's parents).

i'm personally not certain that he actually did anything that ought be punished. maybe he did, but i am not aware of it. but in his position, i'd have taken the plea too, even if i was totally innocent of any wrong-doing. in a choice between being unjustly incarcerated in an official capacity and being disappeared, i'll take the legitimate jail, please.

Did we pardon those Americans who volunteered for the Italian or German armies before December 1941? If so, yes, pardon him. If not, no.

The Taliban is considered a national militia, then? Que?

There should have been an "Option 2, then dump him in Afghanistan, plus exile his parents for good measure."

Taliban John should have died a traitor's death years ago. Let him suffer in prison for the entire remainder of his sentence (which was far too short to begin with). And if we're lucky, some fellow prisoner will do this country a favor.

Aren't you supposed to be Christian or something? I thought Jesus was all about that forgiveness and mercy thing. You know, blessed be the merciful for mercy shall be theirs and all that.

Aren't you supposed to be Christian or something? I thought Jesus was all about that forgiveness and mercy thing. You know, blessed be the merciful for mercy shall be theirs and all that.

because telling other people how their belief system is supposed to work is so effective.

The Taliban is considered a national militia, then? Que?

As the ruling military force of Afghanistan, yes.

Aren't you supposed to be Christian or something? I thought Jesus was all about that forgiveness and mercy thing. You know, blessed be the merciful for mercy shall be theirs and all that.

Only when its conveinent and they're not one of "them", apperantly.

because telling other people how their belief system is supposed to work is so effective.

About as effective as telling us what the black/female hivemind believes.

As the ruling military force of Afghanistan, yes.Only de facto, not de jure.

because telling other people how their belief system is supposed to work is so effective.

I'm just saying, it seems a little inconsistent with all the love stuff. I was raised Catholic, after all. There are many, many instances of Jesus talking about how important it is to forgive in the Gospel. NM's bloodlust just doesn't seem consistent with that.

Only de facto, not de jure.

You could make that argument about many nations' governments/militaries.

Depends on the phrase "During combat" if he deserts before he's deployed (Cpl Watada), then you're right. he can't be 'just shot'. but if he is IN COMBAT and tries to desert, that would be different.

nu-uh! shooting such non-combatants when they don't pose a threat is illegal

(then again this is the rules of war talking)

well, our British Citizenship was removed when we fought under another flag. :p

*slaps with glove* I'd have you know filthy colonial that you all happened to be British subjects as I read it.

being British is a privilege offered to the few elite

You could make that argument about many nations' governments/militaries.And about the Mafia.

Though feel free to name some other nations that qualify.

You could make that argument about many nations' governments/militaries.

Doesn't matter what you could make the argument as, in this case. It matters what is and is not legally recognized. I was under the impression that, at least in the US, we do not recognize the Taliban as a proper militia? Or am I mistaken?

nu-uh! shooting such non-combatants when they don't pose a threat is illegal

(then again this is the rules of war talking)



if he is deployed in a warzone he is a combatant. I don't think the Geneva convention describes treatment you have to give your own soldiers. just the enemies anyways and civilians.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

in the US all that is required is serving in a foreign army. though if the army is not hostile to us its not investigated. However the Taliban was a declared hostile army. Mr. Lindh should have left the group he was with after 9/11.

The relevant statute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481----000-.html) reads:

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

...

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

Based on what evidence do you conclude that Lindh (1) served in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States* and (2) did so "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality"?

*And to pre-empt the obviously fallacious argument, his plea bargain doesn't count as evidence of anything other than to what he pled guilty and was subject to certain terms including his not being stripped of citizenship.

Doesn't matter what you could make the argument as, in this case. It matters what is and is not legally recognized. I was under the impression that, at least in the US, we do not recognize the Taliban as a proper militia? Or am I mistaken?

What do you mean by "militia"? When I hear the word "militia" mentioned, it's often in the context of a bunch of rural nutcases with camo and guns who think the government's out to get them.

We didn't recognize the Taliban government, but then again, we didn't recognize the People's Republic of China as one until Nixon's presidency, IIRC, but that didn't stop us from fighting against them in a war.

And about the Mafia.

Though feel free to name some other nations that qualify.

What about ones that have qualified? Like Fascist Spain? Just like the Taliban, the Fascist government was in power due to being on the winning side of a civil war (and no, I'm not claiming that the Fascist government was like the Taliban in any other respect, just that the basis of their power was similar).

What makes a government legitimate? Consent of the people? In that case, most governments throughout history haven't been legitimate, as most never really asked the people. And many today rule with no input from the public.

Meh.

He made a deal so serving the 17 years sounds ok to me.....

What about ones that have qualified? Like Fascist Spain? Just like the Taliban, the Fascist government was in power due to being on the winning side of a civil war (and no, I'm not claiming that the Fascist government was like the Taliban in any other respect, just that the basis of their power was similar).

What makes a government legitimate? Consent of the people? In that case, most governments throughout history haven't been legitimate, as most never really asked the people. And many today rule with no input from the public.Huh, no. International recognition. Franco had it, the Taliban didn't. Major difference there.

What do you mean by "militia"? When I hear the word "militia" mentioned, it's often in the context of a bunch of rural nutcases with camo and guns who think the government's out to get them.

We didn't recognize the Taliban government, but then again, we didn't recognize the People's Republic of China as one until Nixon's presidency, IIRC, but that didn't stop us from fighting against them in a war.

Militia has specific legal context and I'd rather not dig out my big red book of relevant documents. Perhaps one of the many posters here who are in or have gone to law school will be able to better explain from memory than myself; hell, I may even just be straight up incorrect. Like I said, I have neither legal training nor am I reading directly off any documents. :)

if he is deployed in a warzone he is a combatant.

nope otherwise POW's would still be classed as combatants as would medical personnel :p

you would actually be classed as hors de combat *puts on nerdy glasses*

I don't think the Geneva convention describes treatment you have to give your own soldiers. just the enemies anyways and civilians.

no distinction is made in the wording which I guess is good

Huh, no. International recognition. Franco had it, the Taliban didn't. Major difference there.

So other nations decide if a government is legitimate or not, not the people of the nation itself? Odd

The Taliban was recognized by at least one other nation, though, IIRC. Another in the region I think.

So other nations decide if a government is legitimate or not, not the people of the nation itself? Odd

The Taliban was recognized by at least one other nation, though, IIRC. Another in the region I think.

Yes and no. Nations generally need both. And as far as the Taliban as a militia goes, the Taliban can be recognized as a nation, I *think*, but its army might still not be considered a legitimate "militia." Because I'm bored and spend more time looking shit up for nonsense like this than I do for class, I found what I remember to be the relevant article of international law that is often considered the crux of determining whether or not a group is a militia or not (again, with the caveat that I'm just some guy dickin' around on the intrawebz and not a legit source of information :p).

Hague Conventions: Annex to the bla bla bla...Section I. Chapter I, Article 1 (insert proper citation technique here...don't really care that much)

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:-
(1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates (check on this one)
(2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance (kind of check on this one, I guess)
(3) To carry arms openly; and (erm...ya)
(4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (seems a bit tautological but *shrug* s'how it is...this is the biggy, if I recall)
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

nu-uh! shooting such non-combatants when they don't pose a threat is illegal who said non-combatants?
If a U.S. soldier deserts during conflict--not joins the other side, just deserts--you can shoot him. It's not petty. It's imperative.

Soilder. not civilian, not non-combatant. soldier.

and DURING Conflict. as in already on the front lines. he does pose a threat. for who knows where he's running off to.

*slaps with glove* I'd have you know filthy colonial that you all happened to be British subjects as I read it.

being British is a privilege offered to the few elite

*removes glove and punches CtP.*

what? isn't that how it's done? :p

Stripping him of citizenship and turning him loose in Afghanistan — where he can rejoin his buddies in the Taliban. Keep in mind that he'd have absolutely nothing to lose, a bellyful of anger at his arrest, trial and imprisonment, and even more knowledge of where we are and what we're doing.

Bad idea.

He's on ice now and can't communicate with the Taliban. The snake's head has been severed.

Stripping him of citizenship and turning him loose in Afghanistan — where he can rejoin his buddies in the Taliban. Keep in mind that he'd have absolutely nothing to lose, a bellyful of anger at his arrest, trial and imprisonment, and even more knowledge of where we are and what we're doing.

Bad idea.

He's on ice now and can't communicate with the Taliban. The snake's head has been severed.

He's hardly the head of the snake....

Soilder. not civilian, not non-combatant. soldier.

soldier =/= combatant

for who knows where he's running off to.

it doesn't matter you can only fire on targets that pose a direct threat to you (which is why for instance if you spot someone who has dropped some explosives you can't shoot them)

course rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 applies

*removes glove and punches CtP.*

what? isn't that how it's done? :p

*puts a tax on your precious tea*

soldier =/= combatant soldier =/= non-combatant.

it doesn't matter you can only fire on targets that pose a direct threat to you (which is why for instance if you spot someone who has dropped some explosives you can't shoot them)

course rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 appliesah, but IN Conflict? I [as a soldier] drop a some explosives next to a military vehicle as a firefight is going on and I won't be shot at by those in the vehicle?

*puts a tax on your precious tea**sends tea back when the tide shifts.*

exile his parents

Why? I dare you to give me a good reason I can't easily debunk.

That's a DARE, NM.

soldier =/= non-combatant.

sorta does actually :p

ah, but IN Conflict? I [as a soldier] drop a some explosives next to a military vehicle as a firefight is going on and I won't be shot at by those in the vehicle?

technically no though they will shoot you if they see you with the explosives...and you will probabaly get shot anyway just in case >.>

FYI: technically you can also throw Molotovs and such so long as they don't shoot you whilst you are in the act of throwing which the Irish in particular took advantage of

*sends tea back when the tide shifts.*

*ships over some anti-Christmas religious fundies*

The petty nationalism in this thread disgusts me. Lindh is a scapegoat, nothing more.

sorta does actually :p damn, I was hoping you wouldn't see that mistake. :tongue:

technically no though they will shoot you if they see you with the explosives...and you will probabaly get shot anyway just in case >.>

FYI: technically you can also throw Molotovs and such so long as they don't shoot you whilst you are in the act of throwing which the Irish in particular took advantage of
"Cease fire... he's no longer a threat!"
"What about the Grenade he just threw?"
"Well, you should've shot him while throwing it. now, since he no longer has a grenade, you can't shoot him else you'll be brought up on charges..."

it doesn't matter you can only fire on targets that pose a direct threat to you (which is why for instance if you spot someone who has dropped some explosives you can't shoot them)

course rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 applies





just because someone is fleeing as opposed to standing and fighting doesn't mean they cant be fired on. the only time a uniformed Enemy combatant is not to be fired on is if they are surrendering or marked with a red cross/ red crescent or other recognized symbol of neutrality. Or they Hors de Combat.


by your definition it would be against the laws of war to bomb/shell supply lines.

The petty nationalism in this thread disgusts me. Lindh is a scapegoat, nothing more.

and i'm still wondering what's so bad about treason per se. seems like quite frequently treason is the right thing to do - in many cases to not engage in treasonous activities is at best a severe moral failing, if not downright monstrous.

Treason never prospers,
And here is the reason:
For if it do prosper,
None dare call it treason.

There should have been an "Option 2, then dump him in Afghanistan, plus exile his parents for good measure."


Ah... the psychotically-obsessed guilt-by-association fallacy option.

I keep forgetting we need one of those whenever you want to vote.


Taliban John should have died a traitor's death years ago. Let him suffer in prison for the entire remainder of his sentence (which was far too short to begin with). And if we're lucky, some fellow prisoner will do this country a favor.

That's my New Mitanni, always relying on violent criminals to execute what he laughably thinks is justice.

nu-uh! shooting such non-combatants when they don't pose a threat is illegal

Deserting your position in battle DOES pose a threat.

just because someone is fleeing as opposed to standing and fighting doesn't mean they cant be fired on. the only time a uniformed Enemy combatant is not to be fired on is if they are surrendering or marked with a red cross

We're not talking about enemy combatants, we were talking about fellow troops who desert.

and i'm still wondering what's so bad about treason per se. seems like quite frequently treason is the right thing to do - in many cases to not engage in treasonous activities is at best a severe moral failing, if not downright monstrous.

I think part of the issue stems from the amorphous definition of "treason". How is reason different than uprising, for example?

I think of treason as acting against one's nation in the interest of another nation or enemy. I distinguish this from the citizen's natural and necessary right to rebel against his government on his own behalf, or the behalf of fellow citizens. I haven't thought it through that much, though. I'd be interested in hearing other definitions.

We're not talking about enemy combatants, we were talking about fellow troops who desert.



which are not mentioned in the laws of war. If your talking deserting during a battle yeah they can be shot on sight. its common practice to shoot the first person who runs that way no one else does.

I think part of the issue stems from the amorphous definition of "treason". How is reason different than uprising, for example?

I think of treason as acting against one's nation in the interest of another nation or enemy. I distinguish this from the citizen's natural and necessary right to rebel against his government on his own behalf, or the behalf of fellow citizens. I haven't thought it through that much, though. I'd be interested in hearing other definitions.

my issue is this:
suppose your nation has actively chosen to go fascist, legitimate elections and everything, and will shortly start rounding up 'enemies of the people' to disappear and going on grand military adventures against those fuckers over there for blood and glory, etc. if treason itself is a wrong, then treason in that case must be just as wrong as treason in any other. and that seems like a deeply troublesome and wildly implausible sort of moral position to hold

If a U.S. soldier deserts during conflict--not joins the other side, just deserts--you can shoot him. It's not petty. It's imperative.

I'm not usually one to place a lot of store in nationalism, but taking up arms against your nation under the insignia of another nation is treason. He should be stripped of citizenship.

The Taliban is another nation now?

So other nations decide if a government is legitimate or not, not the people of the nation itself? OddThe people of the nation itself rarely have a say in who rules it. The Taliban (and to a certain extent the Northern Alliance) ruled it primarily by force of arms, not because the people of Afghanistan had a say in it. So, yeah, that's why international recognition is the norm for determining whether a country is a country or a separatist movement.
The Taliban was recognized by at least one other nation, though, IIRC. Another in the region I think.Irrelevant. Bilateral recognition is meaningless where international law is concerned. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not independent nations, despite Russia whatever Russia says. Kosovo is not an independent nation, despite the insistence of most of the Western World.