GreenSpot

I am sorry Ryan. I referenced some of the case law and lawful conventions GC Ar4 par4 to help you You obviously missed my point. Maybe I did not explain it clearly. I agree with your assumption about Lindh, he is guilty as charged. He should get another trial so the larger legal question can be argued. The bush admin. has taken the enemy combatant question off the table, with a lame clinton era sanction rule. End of that point.
That is not my main arguement. You said,"ANY person who takes up arms with a foreign country, even one of our allies, is in serious-if not automatic-danger of losing his US citizenship." That is simply not true. Would you agree that the 1961 Cuban invasion was a mercenary expedition? Ask your parents maybe. Anyone who was alive then will be somewhat informed. Read Wolfowitz in 1980. If you can find a copy read, Samoza's Nicaragua Betrayed, he names names many of them american mercenaries.
Better still,I made mention of Global Security before here is the link to thier contractors news website.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mercenary.htm

Wasn't Lindh trained as an infantryman in the taliban army? fighting the northern alliance?
Maybe I missed something here?

I tried to wade my way through your (il)logical, spew up there, and came to the conclusion that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

The selection of the Geneva Conventions that you yourself have quoted requires that mercenaries be given "material compensation substantially in excess" of that given to normal soldiers. John Walker Lindh was given no such compensation, as far as I can tell. Heaven is not "material compensation".

Simply providing aid to a military unit does not make anyone a mercenary. Mercenaries are armed soldiers who fight for pay and are explicitly hired for that explicit purpose. Nothing of the sort happened with Mr. Lindh. Whatever else he may be, he isn't a mercenary, and you have presented absolutely no evidence which suggests that he should have been considered such.

I've already beaten the GC horse to death: almost no one we're currently fighting against is a protected person under the Convenations. In fact, they're almost all specifically excluded because they do not 1) exist in a chain of command in which a superior is responsible for the actions of his subordinates, 2) bear arms openly, 3) exhibit an open signal of bearing arms, nor 4) obey the laws of war.

Finally, the Quirin case you quote deals with people who "accompany" the armed forces of foreign powers, not those who are actually part of them. You have yet to provide a single example, credible or otherwise, in which a US citizen has taken up arms with a foreign power.

All that by way of saying that you are, as previously mentioned, ignorant.

Ryan,please consider what you are saying? Heaven is an excellent pay off. One cannot "just show up" on the battle field. If in fact he was helping in a non-combat role he is still a protected party under article4 par4 of the geneva conventions.
Reference the original reporting, he was detained as a prisoner of war. Even if he was not armed, aid to a military unit makes him a mercenary.
"But come on now, Islam hasn't exactly had a long and storied history of tranquil relations with... well... just about anybody." Implying Islam is the reason for these terrorist's murderous actions is obsurd! I suppose all the "christian' soldiers in Iraq are crusaders too!!!
Is history still taught in school? Islam is not the only violent religion foisted on nieghbors, the conquered, anybody christians have come into contact with for 1800 years.
*This all sort of off the point though* I was trying to explain that serving as a "mercenary/soldier under arms" did not threaten ones citizenship. Our history in the USA has been repleat with many examples of armed service to foreign powers.
"Can we see clearly, if we always keep one eye closed?"

reference Quirin case 1942
Geneva conventions concerning unlawful combatant as adopted by U.S. 1949
"4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model."

Um, yeah, Mr. Legal Jockey, sir, it's worth pointing out that he didn't join the Taliban for pay. He was not part of an organized, regular mercenary force. The words "regular" and "organized" do not apply at all to any of Al-Qaida's operations. At best, he enlisted in the irregular forces of a foreign government, and at worst, he joined a terror cell. But he wasn't a mercenary. Let's get that straight right now.