John walker lindh pleads guilty

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 16 2002,04:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 16 2002,04:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">maybe i should put it more blunt way.

So what does JLW trial has to do with you and Iran-Contra?

in some sense this is going off-topic to another US bashing, isn't it?<span id='postcolor'>

JLW was prosecuted on the basis of illegal acts against the United States, in support of terrorists.  In order to save himself a much longer sentence, he plead guilty to two charges. He will very likely spend the next 20 years in prison.

ON was prosecuted on the basis of illegal acts against the United States, in support of terrorists.  He spent much less time in prison. Why? Because his terrorists were American supported terrorists.

So one gets speaking engagements, the other gets derisionand death threats.

And you cant see the hypocrisy?<span id='postcolor'>

nope.

what hypocracy?

JLW acted against US's interest.

ON acted (supposedly) for US's interest.

even though both were wrong, what makes you believe that US is a saint?

[ralphwiggum 6]

maybe I should be more clear on my previous post.

both did wrong thing, but their intention was aimed from different perspective. thus they are not equal. so they recieve different treatment. what's wrong with that?

[Warin 0]

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

what hypocracy?

JLW acted against US's interest.

ON acted (supposedly) for US's interest.

even though both were wrong, what makes you believe that US is a saint?<span id='postcolor'>

*bangs his head against his desk*  You didnt go back and read, did you?  The point was that we werent US bashing, we were pointing out that hte US really likes to act self righteous (you are either with us or against us) but has a lot of skeletons in his closet.

And considering that Ollie was selling arms to Iran, he was NOT acting in the US's best interest.   But because he was photogenic, and because he had the support of a president and a future president, he was assured that he wouldnt be properly punished.

Ollie North did far more damage to the US interests than JLW could ever do, but it's all good let it go down the way it has. And that IS hypocrisy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">both did wrong thing, but their intention was aimed from different perspective. thus they are not equal. so they recieve different treatment. what's wrong with that?

<span id='postcolor'>

What is wrong with that is that your laws are supposed to be applied impartially.  It's that 'With justice for all' thing.  A criminal act is a criminal act, no matter what the intention is...isnt that the theory behind saying JLW should be prosecuted.  Selling arms to Iran to get money for the Contras was a far more severe breach of american law than anything JLW ever did.  So where is the equal application of one law for everyone?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 16 2002,05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point was that we werent US bashing, we were pointing out that hte US really likes to act self righteous (you are either with us or against us) but has a lot of skeletons in his closet.

<span id='postcolor'>

now that's easier for me to understand. <!--emo&

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is wrong with that is that your laws are supposed to be applied impartially.  It's that 'With justice for all' thing.  A criminal act is a criminal act, no matter what the intention is...isnt that the theory behind saying JLW should be prosecuted.  Selling arms to Iran to get money for the Contras was a far more severe breach of american law than anything JLW ever did.  So where is the equal application of one law for everyone?

<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think you are getting my point here either. ON, despite being wrong in conclusion, was acting with assistance of US gov't, while JLW was not. This is the point that they are different. ON got gov't support, JLW didn't.

and to make things further different, ON, despite acting "trecherous" by selling weapons to Iran, it was to support US's interest(Supporting Contra). While JLW did none of it. See the difference?

and this I find funny cause as soon as US helps its enemy, it gets criticized, and as soon as it does not help its enemy, it gets criticized.

EDIT: Law does look at conclusion and judge upon it, but also looks at intention. that's why we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, not just one murder.

[Warin 0]

I give up

Lock JLW away for living in the wrong desert at the wrong time. You'll never convince me that he did anything other than being stupid. He is being locked away for being naive.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 16 2002,05:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I give up

Lock JLW away for living in the wrong desert at the wrong time.   You'll never convince me that he did anything other than being stupid.  He is being locked away for being naive.<span id='postcolor'>

damn..i was going to make you bang your head on desk more...darn..no more chance for me.

I think he did make his decision, and he knew the consequence of it. during interrogation from 2 CIA guys, he did not talk. Should he be naive, he would have at least said "hey, you guys from land of Satan?"

(the interrogation refers to the one that ended up in one CIA operative getting killed. They were interrogating JLW when riot broke out.)

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 16 2002,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think he did make his decision, and he knew the consequence of it. during interrogation from 2 CIA guys, he did not talk. Should he be naive, he would have at least said "hey, you guys from land of Satan?"

(the interrogation refers to the one that ended up in one CIA operative getting killed. They were interrogating JLW when riot broke out.)<span id='postcolor'>

Thing is, being stupid shouldnt be punishable by 20 years in prison.

Now, if he was a security specialist and had advised them on how to hijack the planes, or if he were a structural engineer who had given them the best place to crash the aircraft into, or if he'd jumped one of the CIA guys and held him while someone killed him...

Lock him away...

But that's not what happened.

[ralphwiggum 6]

he did grab a weapon to use against US forces, and he was not hesitating to use it. he maybe naive, but he was capable of making his own decisions.

and that decision was to fire against his own ppl(or whatever that is). I wonder if someone thinks that it would be ok for JLW to kill US soldeir should he got into firefight with US troops because he was naive.

[Oligo 1]

Why should JWL be punished even if he had picked up a weapon and fired upon the U.S. soldiers? He was wearing the "uniform" of the opposing side and could thus be easily identified as the enemy by U.S. troops. If anything, JWL should be a POW, because he clearly abandoned his loyalty to U.S. and took up a new one. He did not fool anybody with any acts of still being loyal to U.S. (an act of treachery or treason).

[ralphwiggum 6]

i don't think many ppl beleived he would be found guilty of treason any way. that charge, AFAIK, would require at least 2 witnesses to claim that JLW was involved in treason. but fellow Talibans are not reliable, and we doubt that he actually had such agenda. so those were put in for looks.

but supplying resource is true, so he'd be found guilty and would carry heavy sentence(my guess). to avoid that he made plea bargain.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He was wearing the "uniform" of the opposing side and could thus be easily identified as the enemy by U.S. troops. <span id='postcolor'>

try to convince Afghanistan farmer that his clothes are an uniform. there dress codes do not have msh of distictiveness to isolate them from civilians. so uniform technicality exculdes them from receiving POW status.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He did provide resource(himself) to Taliban and Al-Qaeda.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not 100% aware of this situation:

Did he provide resource to both, or did he provide resource to

Taliban, which provided resource to Al-Qaeda?

[ralphwiggum 6]

AFAIK, he joined aQ.

[Longinius 1]

"The 21-year-old American who fought last year with the Taliban in Afghanistan pleaded guilty Monday to two charges in an agreement with U.S."

He was Taliban, not AQ.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ July 16 2002,09:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why should JWL be punished even if he had picked up a weapon and fired upon the U.S. soldiers? He was wearing the "uniform" of the opposing side and could thus be easily identified as the enemy by U.S. troops. If anything, JWL should be a POW, because he clearly abandoned his loyalty to U.S. and took up a new one. He did not fool anybody with any acts of still being loyal to U.S. (an act of treachery or treason).<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. It doesn't matter. If you are a citizen of country A and fight for country B against A then you are guilty of treason, no matter under what forms you fought. That is so everywhere.

The shitty part comes of course if you are a citizen of both A & B and they go to war.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 16 2002,05:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><snip>

The shitty part comes of course if you are a citizen of both A & B and they go to war. <span id='postcolor'>

That's an interesting point, and probably should be the subject of a separate thread.

My question is this: do you think dual citizenship makes sense? How can anyone be loyal to more than one country? Some day they may be asked to choose, and in doing so, betray one of the countries.

The United States requires anyone who becomes a US citizen to renounce their allegiance to any other nation, so <s>technically</s> philosophically, you can't have dual citizenship from the US and any other country.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

I'm scared of the US