John walker lindh pleads guilty

[Guest]

CNN Article

What I have a problem understanding is in what way he has violated American law. He was never involved in any crimial activities on US soil and was not involved in any direct military actions agaist the US...

[Warin 0]

What he did was have the AUDACITY to believe in something that the US Government has decided to take exception with. And by his participation in a foreign group that the US has decided is evil, he is a traitor and deserves to be punished.

Did he commit a criminal act on US soil? Umm..nope. But that doesnt matter because this is a war about RIGHT and WRONG!!

Ok..sarcasm aside... He made the mistake of betting on the wrong side and now he's going to pay for it. In spite of the fact that the US claims to be a bastion of freedom. Freedom to express yourself... freedom to believe in what you want. Just dont let it be somehting that is 'wrong' or you will end up in jail.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

[European Mode]

OMFG THE US SUCKS THEY ARE HYPOCRITES THEY ARE SO STUPID ROAR

[/European Mode]

[Guest]

Residuum, if you have nothing to say then don't. Otherwise I might make sure that you can't.

The thing is that Walker isn't being accused of treason. A treason charge, I could understand (if he was on the Taliban side when USA declared war he would be a traitor). So I'm wondering on what other grounds they could charge him. While he operated in Afganistan he was under Afgani law, and not US. The trial doesn't make much sense to me...

[Warin 0]

Ummm...checked my location? I am in Canada. Not and never been some pinko swede, thank you very much (props to me swede peeps though )

Denoir hit the nail firmly on the head. But considering he is:

1) Not a member of the military

2) Not a member of any govenmental body

3) Not in possesion of a security clearance

How can he be accused of treason? As I understand it, treason involves the betrayal of trust inherent in item 1-3, or an attempt to overthrow the government. None of which was he accused of. So what's the deal? Personally I think the guy is something of a fool and a dupe. I he was truly interested in Islam, there are many places he could have explored it and avoided this sort of nonsense. But I hardly think he deserves 17 years in jail for being a fool.

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

They should send him to Iraq or soemthing, he should not even be given the right to be in America.

[American Mode]

Your welcome Europe for all the help we have given you.

[ralphwiggum 6]

from Cnn.com

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

John Walker Lindh has pleaded guilty to two charges. They are:

Providing material, support and resources to al Qaeda

Using, carrying and possessing firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence

Federal prosecutors agreed to drop eight charges. They are:

Conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals

Conspiracy to provide material, support and resources to foreign terrorist organizations

Providing material support and resources to foreign terrorist organizations

Conspiracy to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda

Conspiracy to contribute services to al Qaeda

Contributing services to al Qaeda

Conspiracy to provide services to the Taliban

Providing services to the Taliban  

<span id='postcolor'>

So, in essence, he is an American and decided to take easy way out.  compromise...

JWL was charged becuase he was an American who cooperated with America's enemy. Just because he stayed on foreign soil does not mean that he can avoid prosecution. He was captured, and was identified as a US citizen, and that would define him as traitor during battle.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Contributing services to al Qaeda

Providing services to the Taliban

<span id='postcolor'>

probably those two would have been only 2 that would ahve bben found guilty. I don't think he 'conspired' against US. But he did provide himself as a resource to aQ.

But in the end, he is an Amerianand chose cutting deals.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While he operated in Afganistan he was under Afgani law, and not US. The trial doesn't make much sense to me...<span id='postcolor'>

AFAIK, when you are citizen of country A, just because you are at country B, that doesn't mean you are exempted from A's law. If anything else, you should obey both.

EDIT: wrong word choice..Thanx to Mister Frag for pointing it out.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 15 2002,23:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFAIK, when you are citizen of country A, just because you are at country B, that doesn't mean you are exempted from A's law. If anything else, you should obey both.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that you are obliged to follow the laws in the country where you are. If you go to Amsterdam and smoke weed, they can't press charges against you in USA.

However, when it comes to national security laws all normal rules are null and void. But if I understand it correctly, Walker is not charged with any laws concerning national security.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

How many times do we have to go over this. The US really can do whatever they want.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 15 2002,23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many times do we have to go over this.  The US really can do whatever they want.<span id='postcolor'>

If anybody should complain it should be you. You know he is a US citizen. It could happen to you

[Mister Frag 0]

He was charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, and decided to plead guilty to that charge (he wasn't convicted of it, as Ralph mistakenly wrote).

The fact that the support happened on foreign soil is irrelevant.

[pathfinder 0]

Well I've never taken a pleasure cruise down to cuba , because our Gov says its a no no.        And I'm sure helping out Osama "shit face" ladden is a bigger no no than that.

But if it was up to me JWL would be set free.... as there are alot of us who would like to get our hands on him.    He will never be safe again , so locking  him up is for his protection!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pathfinder @ July 15 2002,23:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But if it was up to me JWL would be set free.... as there are alot of us who would like to get our hands on him.    He will never be safe again , so locking  him up is for is for his protection!<span id='postcolor'>

That is so silly! Why on earth? He was with the Taliban and not Al-Queda. The Talibans were the goverment of Afganistan. They were and are not terrorists.

Wow, I guess propaganda really works on some people..

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1]

Especially the anti-american variety.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He was charged with providing support to a terrorist organization, and decided to plead guilty to that charge (he wasn't convicted of it, as Ralph mistakenly wrote).

<span id='postcolor'>

Look at the list of the things he was charged with but were dropped for a guilty plea. If you think that wasnt a factor in chosing to plead guilty, then I have a great bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing

Last time I looked, abject stupidity wasnt a crime...and that's what this guy is. It's a stretch to think anythting he could have done would be 'providing aid' beyond shovelling camel dung.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ July 15 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Especially the anti-american variety.<span id='postcolor'>

I diagnose you with a severe case of cranial rectumitis.

I've had at least one person PM me to not be hard on you because you are young and 'idealistic'

You keep mistaking honest questions about the illogic of certain american actions as 'anti american propoganda' Sometimes it's just a question, and when all that is given in reply is 'Because we said so' all I can do is presume that you have your head firmly wedged up your ass.... and if flaming you for it gets me a temp ban, so be it.

Go to a library. Do some reading. Stop getting your complete dose of news and worldview from television.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 15 2002,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pathfinder @ July 15 2002,23:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But if it was up to me JWL would be set free.... as there are alot of us who would like to get our hands on him.    He will never be safe again , so locking  him up is for is for his protection!<span id='postcolor'>

That is so silly! Why on earth? He was with the Taliban and not Al-Queda. The Talibans were the goverment of Afganistan. They were and are not terrorists.

Wow, I guess propaganda really works on some people..<span id='postcolor'>

OK, let's make a list of the countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan: they were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. That's it.

Everyone else agreed that the Taliban had seized control of the country using force, and suppressed the citizens there..

The Taliban provided logistical support for the al Qaeda terrorist organization which killed thousands of civilians in an unprovoked attack on US soil, and Walker Lindh took up arms for the Taliban. He will now have to face the consequences of those actions.

[Guest]

I agree with Warin. Walker was stupid, misled youth, call it what you want. Sure he deserves a slap on the wrists, but 20 years in jail.. hardly.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone else agreed that the Taliban had seized control of the country using force, and suppressed the citizens there..

The Taliban provided logistical support for the al Qaeda terrorist organization which killed thousands of civilians in an unprovoked attack on US soil, and Walker Lindh took up arms for the Taliban. He will now have to face the consequences of those actions.<span id='postcolor'>

As have many countries in the world. Didn't your own government start as an illegitimate revolutionary one?

My point was however that the Talibans were never terrorists. And financing and helping terrorists is not the same as being terrorists, desipite what Bush says. Or do you want to do some accounting for the Contras or Mujahedin support that was given by the US?

As for Walker, he could technically be charged with treason, but he hasn't however.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 15 2002,15:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

As have many countries in the world. Didn't your own government start as an illegitimate revolutionary one?

My point was however that the Talibans were never terrorists. And financing and helping terrorists is not the same as being terrorists, desipite what Bush says. Or do you want to do some accounting for the Contras or Mujahedin support that was given by the US?

As for Walker, he could technically be charged with treason, but he hasn't however.<span id='postcolor'>

FYI, I'm a German citizen.

Regarding the history of the United States, yes, it started as a revolution by the Colonialists against the British, and people died both in battle, as well as in front of firing squads or on the gallows, for supporting independence. I have neither the time nor the desire to provide a lesson in U.S. History, and its not even the subject of this discussion.

The Taliban are being held responsible for their support of a terrorist organization. Al Queda operated openly and freely in Afghanistan, with monetary and logistical support from the Taliban. The later provided training bases, weapons, visas, travel documents, and recruitment.

If you want you can argue that the Taliban did not carry out the attacks themselves, but the fact is that they enabled al Queda to do so. This makes them an accessory to a crime, which is subject to prosecution in any legal system I'm aware of.

I don't think prosecutors would have been able to make a charge of treason stick, which is why he wasn't charged with it.

[Warin 0]

Thanks for your reasoned replies, Frag. It's refreshing.

But how can you say what you do about the Taliban, and expect us to accept it and understand it (And for the record, I think the Taliban -are- culpable for the actions of Al Queda. They gave them a safe haven to work from.) when you and virtually anyone else in the US would like the rest of the world to turn a blind eye to the terrorist organizations that the US has supported in their best interests. It smacks of hypocrisy to me.

[Mister Frag 0]

I don't recall defending any past actions by the US government (such as the Contras and Mujahedin mentioned by Denoir) in any of my posts here.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding the history of the United States, yes, it started as a revolution by the Colonialists against the British, and people died both in battle, as well as in front of firing squads or on the gallows, for supporting independence.<span id='postcolor'>

And a lot of Afgani people have died for supporting their culture and religion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Taliban are being held responsible for their support of a terrorist organization. Al Queda operated openly and freely in Afghanistan, with monetary and logistical support from the Taliban. The later provided training bases, weapons, visas, travel documents, and recruitment.<span id='postcolor'>

Terrorist/Freedom fighter is all a question of point of view. Supporting paramilitary movements with weapons and logistics is as old as warfare. Every country that has had any ambition of international influence has done it. This includes the Taliban, this includes the government of the United States, hell this includes the government of Sweden (historically at least). I find it very amusing that W. Bush is talking about taking responsibility for funding terrorist organizations when his father set the record in it while being the director of the CIA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want you can argue that the Taliban did not carry out the attacks themselves, but the fact is that they enabled al Queda to do so. This makes them an accessory to a crime, which is subject to prosecution in any legal system I'm aware of.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not in international terms. USA does not have juresdiction on that. It would have been the same as the Soviet attacking USA for supporting the Mujahedin movement. International and local national law are very different for obvious reasons.

[Warin 0]

I know you havent.

Maybe I didnt make my point properly.

It's the essential hypocrisy that the US government is displaying...

Try this on for size...

Al Queda commited a crime against the people of the US. The Taliban is culpable for the actions of Al Queda because they gave support to them.

Now replace:

Al Queda with Contra(s)

US with Nicaragua

Taliban with US

I think if you were to look into it, the Contras were responsible for as many deaths in Nicaragua in the 80's ass Al Queda will ever be responsible for in the US.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 15 2002,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 16 2002,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding the history of the United States, yes, it started as a revolution by the Colonialists against the British, and people died both in battle, as well as in front of firing squads or on the gallows, for supporting independence.<span id='postcolor'>

And a lot of Afgani people have died for supporting their culture and religion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Taliban are being held responsible for their support of a terrorist organization. Al Queda operated openly and freely in Afghanistan, with monetary and logistical support from the Taliban. The later provided training bases, weapons, visas, travel documents, and recruitment.<span id='postcolor'>

Terrorist/Freedom fighter is all a question of point of view. Supporting paramilitary movements with weapons and logistics is as old as warfare. Every country that has had any ambition of international influence has done it. This includes the Taliban, this includes the government of the United States, hell this includes the government of Sweden (historically at least). I find it very amusing that W. Bush is talking about taking responsibility for funding terrorist organizations when his father set the record in it while being the director of the CIA.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you want you can argue that the Taliban did not carry out the attacks themselves, but the fact is that they enabled al Queda to do so. This makes them an accessory to a crime, which is subject to prosecution in any legal system I'm aware of.

<span id='postcolor'>

Not in international terms. USA does not have juresdiction on that. It would have been the same as the Soviet attacking USA for supporting the Mujahedin movement. International and local national law are very different for obvious reasons.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And a lot of Afgani people have died for supporting their culture and religion.<span id='postcolor'>

What's your point? Are you suggesting that the United States went to war over culture or religion?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorist/Freedom fighter is all a question of point of view.<span id='postcolor'>

You'd have to have a very twisted point of view to call the people who hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into New York sky scrapers "freedom fighters".

I have no intention of arguing the Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter debate, since that is a general case, if you will. All I am concerned with here is a concrete example of a group of individuals who murdered civilians in a terrorist attack, and that of an organization (call them a government if you will) who supported them. Even if the Taliban were in fact a legitimate government, it would merely make the attacks a case of state-sponsored terrorism, which could be considered an act of war.