PDA

View Full Version : Army vet charged with participating in Syrian civil war



Banned
04-02-2013, 05:42 AM
In an earlier thread I said that if an American feels strongly about a foreign war... he is more than welcome in my book to grab a gun and go participate himself.

Well if you do decide to do that... don't boast about it on Facebook.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-army-vet-charged-with-fighting-with-al-qaida-032813/

The exact charges, accoridng to the article - are "using a weapon of mass destruction outside the United States"... I'm not entirely sure how an RPG is a "weapon of mass destruction".

Greg
04-02-2013, 12:33 PM
The exact charges, accoridng to the article - are "using a weapon of mass destruction outside the United States"... I'm not entirely sure how an RPG is a "weapon of mass destruction".

"Harroun allegedly told FBI agents in voluntary interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Istanbul, Turkey, he fought with al-Nusra for 25 days, engaging in seven to 10 battles in which he was assigned to an "RPG team," the complaint states, adding he allegedly said he used an RPG to take down a tower on "at least one occasion."

What was this tower, and how many casualties resulted in its destruction?

Oh, and VOLUNTARY interviews?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/03/29/Ex-US-soldier-allegedly-aided-al-Qaida/UPI-62401364540400/

TJMAC77SP
04-02-2013, 01:24 PM
Right now as I type this, there are dual US-Israeli citizens serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Dozens if not hundreds of such people. How is this different than what this guy did?

Don't get me wrong.........I think both instances are wrong. If you want to renounce your US citizenship and go fight for another army, great. Otherwise, not so much.

JD2780
04-02-2013, 02:07 PM
Right now as I type this, there are dual US-Israeli citizens serving in the Israel Defense Forces. Dozens if not hundreds of such people. How is this different than what this guy did?

Don't get me wrong.........I think both instances are wrong. If you want to renounce your US citizenship and go fight for another army, great. Otherwise, not so much.


Did the guy in Syria denounce his citizenship or did he simply take up arms and support an unorganized militia?

Pullinteeth
04-02-2013, 02:09 PM
His dad has been in the news for weeks saying he was just waiting for the charges to come... I don't suppose anyone else noticed that he has been fighting in Syria for months but now that he is talking about Israel, it is all of a sudden a problem...?

TJMAC77SP
04-02-2013, 08:40 PM
His dad has been in the news for weeks saying he was just waiting for the charges to come... I don't suppose anyone else noticed that he has been fighting in Syria for months but now that he is talking about Israel, it is all of a sudden a problem...?

I might have confused the issue. I don't think there was a mention of Israel with regard to the ex-soldier. I mentioned Israel because the fact is that US citizens have been fighting for foreign powers for years and there doesn't seem to be an issue.

Like I said, that has never sat well with me nor does this guys actions. Particularly since it looked like he didn't vet the group he joined very well.

Pullinteeth
04-03-2013, 01:38 PM
I might have confused the issue. I don't think there was a mention of Israel with regard to the ex-soldier. I mentioned Israel because the fact is that US citizens have been fighting for foreign powers for years and there doesn't seem to be an issue.

Like I said, that has never sat well with me nor does this guys actions. Particularly since it looked like he didn't vet the group he joined very well.

It was in the Army Times article...said he hated zionists and was going to meet with the palestinians... Of course now you can't get to that article...

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2013, 03:42 PM
It was in the Army Times article...said he hated zionists and was going to meet with the palestinians... Of course now you can't get to that article...

Oh...yeah, I couldn't view it yesterday. Wonder why it was pulled down?

JD2780
04-03-2013, 07:48 PM
I agree 100%. If you take a side, and that side loses, then don't cry when bad things happen.

With that said we both know they will expect the state dept to bail them out.

Banned
04-03-2013, 07:59 PM
I might have confused the issue. I don't think there was a mention of Israel with regard to the ex-soldier. I mentioned Israel because the fact is that US citizens have been fighting for foreign powers for years and there doesn't seem to be an issue.

Like I said, that has never sat well with me nor does this guys actions. Particularly since it looked like he didn't vet the group he joined very well.

Me personally - I don't have an issue with dual citizens serving in another military force, nor is there any law against that I'm aware of. Whatever my personal feelings about the Israeli state - on principle I don't have an issue with American Israeli citizens serving in the IDF - provided they don't knowingly work against the United States.

In the case of this guy fighting in Syria, and his plans to fight against Israel - I don't have an objection to either of those things. If it is acceptable for an American to fight FOR Israel, then it logically follows that there should be no issue with an American fighting AGAINST Israel either.

Now of course if that decision leads to consequences - such as an American IDF Soldier being captured, or this guy being captured by the IDF - that's a risk he should be willing to accept before doing it.


Oh...yeah, I couldn't view it yesterday. Wonder why it was pulled down?

Wow - article got pulled. Very interesting.

I think this charge is BS.

JD2780
04-03-2013, 08:02 PM
Me personally - I don't have an issue with dual citizens serving in another military force, nor is there any law against that I'm aware of. Whatever my personal feelings about the Israeli state - on principle I don't have an issue with American Israeli citizens serving in the IDF - provided they don't knowingly work against the United States.

In the case of this guy fighting in Syria, and his plans to fight against Israel - I don't have an objection to either of those things. If it is acceptable for an American to fight FOR Israel, then it logically follows that there should be no issue with an American fighting AGAINST Israel either.

Now of course if that decision leads to consequences - such as an American IDF Soldier being captured, or this guy being captured by the IDF - that's a risk he should be willing to accept before doing it.



Wow - article got pulled. Very interesting.

I agree. Unless he starts fighting against US troops let him do whatever. He thinks he's BA now, lets see what happens when the Syrian gov or Israelis capture him.

Banned
04-03-2013, 08:04 PM
I agree. Unless he starts fighting against US troops let him do whatever. He thinks he's BA now, lets see what happens when the Syrian gov or Israelis capture him.

It should be noted that Americans have distinguished themselves in foreign wars before. Eric Blair (George Orwell) fought for the Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War - if I recall, became a squad leader and eventually a platoon commander. Then he and his wife barely escaped the country when the Communist Party started cracking down on their rivals.

EDIT - Orwell was English. WTF am I thinking. Though there were Americans fighting in the war too, like the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

JD2780
04-03-2013, 08:06 PM
It should be noted that Americans have distinguished themselves in foreign wars before. Eric Blair (George Orwell) fought for the Anarchists during the Spanish Civil War - if I recall, became a squad leader and eventually a platoon commander. Then he and his wife barely escaped the country when the Communist Party started cracking down on their rivals.

Exactly. Now if you're taking part in some serious genocide then that's a different deal. Just be ready to accept the consequences

Banned
04-03-2013, 08:10 PM
Exactly. Now if you're taking part in some serious genocide then that's a different deal. Just be ready to accept the consequences

I agree 100%. If you take a side, and that side loses, then don't cry when bad things happen.

JD2780
04-03-2013, 08:11 PM
I agree 100%. If you take a side, and that side loses, then don't cry when bad things happen.

With that said we both know they will expect the state dept to bail them out.

Banned
04-03-2013, 08:25 PM
With that said we both know they will expect the state dept to bail them out.

Been doing some reading just now... very interesting - apparently some of the American Communists who participated in the war were prosecuted by the FDR administration. The Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade was also labeled a subversive organization by the FBI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_Brigade

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 12:20 PM
Me personally - I don't have an issue with dual citizens serving in another military force, nor is there any law against that I'm aware of. Whatever my personal feelings about the Israeli state - on principle I don't have an issue with American Israeli citizens serving in the IDF - provided they don't knowingly work against the United States.

In the case of this guy fighting in Syria, and his plans to fight against Israel - I don't have an objection to either of those things. If it is acceptable for an American to fight FOR Israel, then it logically follows that there should be no issue with an American fighting AGAINST Israel either.

Now of course if that decision leads to consequences - such as an American IDF Soldier being captured, or this guy being captured by the IDF - that's a risk he should be willing to accept before doing it.



Wow - article got pulled. Very interesting.

I think this charge is BS.

I disagree but it isn't something I am falling on the sword about. The fact is by serving in a foreign army you may indeed be put in a position which is directly opposed to the actions and national interests of the US. For example, the official US position is that Israeli settlements in the West Bank must stop expanding and are counterproductive to the peace process. The IDF is used to enforce resettlements and other actions necessary for these expansions. While this isn't earth shattering stuff, it illustrates the potential where things could escalate to the point where there is more of a direct threat to US interests. Where and when does the line get drawn?

As to consequences, you raised a good point. How far does the US have to go for a citizen who gets in a jam while serving a foreign power?

Truth is the situation is one of my buttons (obviously). While in Israel I interacted very often with a young American Jewish woman. She worked in the insurance office of a local hospital used by the US Embassy. I asked her one day how she came to live in Israel. She told me her parents had pushed her for years to come to Israel. They wanted her to come serve in the IDF. She compromised and came on a visit and ended up staying. I asked her if during the discussions with her parents if they had ever suggested she serve in the US military. She looked at me like I had two heads. My point obviously completely missed. A point obviously also missed by her parents as they sat nice and safe in New Jersey.

Pullinteeth
04-04-2013, 02:18 PM
Here is the actual rule...if you care;

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

Administrative Standard of Evidence
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

Disposition of Cases when Administrative Premise is Applicable

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:
1.is naturalized in a foreign country;
2.takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
3.serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or
4.accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,
and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 03:26 PM
Here is the actual rule...if you care;

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

3.entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

Administrative Standard of Evidence
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

Disposition of Cases when Administrative Premise is Applicable

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:
1.is naturalized in a foreign country;
2.takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;
3.serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or
4.accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,
and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

That makes sense. I remember a teacher at the US Embassy pre-school in Tel Aviv (an American) tell me her son was in the paratroopers and had turned down a commission so he wouldn't lose his citizenship.

There is a disconnect though because even though the young man I reference did not serve as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) he DID take an oath. In fact it is a public ceremony at the Kotel (Western or Wailing Wall) where all PDF paratroopers receive their beret and take their oath of alliegence en masse.

Pullinteeth
04-04-2013, 03:38 PM
That makes sense. I remember a teacher at the US Embassy pre-school in Tel Aviv (an American) tell me her son was in the paratroopers and had turned down a commission so he wouldn't lose his citizenship.

There is a disconnect though because even though the young man I reference did not serve as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) he DID take an oath. In fact it is a public ceremony at the Kotel (Western or Wailing Wall) where all PDF paratroopers receive their beret and take their oath of alliegence en masse.

The "rule" isn't exactly clear either...it says they are SUBJECT to losing their citzenship if they do x, y, or z but doesn't say they necessarily lose it...

Banned
04-04-2013, 05:41 PM
Food for thought. If you refuse to serve in the IDF and oppress the Palestinians after graduating highschool... you go to prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omer_Goldman

JD2780
04-04-2013, 06:08 PM
Food for thought. If you refuse to serve in the IDF and oppress the Palestinians after graduating highschool... you go to prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omer_Goldman

Food for thought. If you defend Israel from a group of people that attack you, you're labeled an oppressor by some people m

Banned
04-04-2013, 06:09 PM
Food for thought. If you defend Israel from a group of people that attack you, you're labeled an oppressor by some people m

There would be some validity to that - except Israeli protesters and concientious objectors are imprisoned just as quickly as their Palestinian counterparts.

That's the actions not of a democracy... but a totalitiarian regime.

JD2780
04-04-2013, 06:19 PM
There would be some validity to that - except Israeli protesters and concientious objectors are imprisoned just as quickly as their Palestinian counterparts.

That's the actions not of a democracy... but a totalitiarian regime.

Yes I don't think service should be mandatory, but lets be serious Palestine isn't some scared little kid that just gets beat up. Just as much as an agitator as Israel, even more so in my personal opinion. Just an opinion.

TJMAC77SP
04-04-2013, 06:56 PM
Yes I don't think service should be mandatory, but lets be serious Palestine isn't some scared little kid that just gets beat up. Just as much as an agitator as Israel, even more so in my personal opinion. Just an opinion.

JD, I have said this before on the MTF. You allude to this but the situation in Israel (and the occupied territories) is not a simple one. If it were just a matter of self defense then yes, I would agree that much of the actions are warranted but the actions of the Israeli government (through several administrations) often actually exacerbates the situation to where they actually increase the threat rather than decrease it.

We don’t get much of the other side here in the US. I am not condoning terrorism by any stretch but we aren’t as informed as we should be.