His extensive research and commentary on law and treason inform his coming book AID AND COMFORT: JANE FONDA IN NORTH VIETNAM coauthored with Erika Holzer.
It is herein shown that actions have consequences, and that the actions of Taliban John have consequences measured in sentences determined by statute.
In my fanciful imagination I pictured Taliban John falling overboard on his return voyage to CONUS. His actual fate under law may convince him that would have been preferable.
You want a "tough jury?" You want a "good district" to try a case? Extradite him to India for his admitted terrorist activities in Kashmir. They have a better "legal" case. If johnny wants to play war with a foreign country, let him be punished with their jails. A fittting punishment, with the bonus of saving us from certain excessive media coverage and commentary if were tried locally.
He makes only one mistake in his analysis, but it's early on and sigificant. He assumes that the US cannot "go against [Walker's] citizenship" until "after the criminal proceedings are over." That's not so.
The Supreme Court noted in the Quirin case in 1942 that certain acts can forfeit one's US citizenship. (One of the eight German saboteurs whose military tribunal trials were tested in that case, claimed to be an American citizen. The Court said that was irrelevant, because his acts would have forfeited his citizenship.) So, there is a better alternative than this Professor lists. If Walker's citizenship is yanked, first, then he can be tried in a closed, non-circus, military tribunal atmosphere for serious charges possibly leading to the death penalty.
With that one correction, this is a good, no-nonsense article.
He took arms against his country. Charge him with the maximum possible and pursue the maximum penalty.