Author Topic: Walker Lindh: legal technicalities  (Read 837 times)

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2002, 10:50:08 AM »
I could really care less what becomes of the punk squeak Lindh.  

Masher
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2002, 02:21:36 PM »
Well, no one has really answered my questions.

Or rather, the answer I've gotten is 'because we can'.

Isn't it a bit of a hypocritical attitude? You want people comitting crimes in the US to be judged by your own laws, and if an act is done in another country - an act that is legal in that country, you still want to judge him by your laws.

What about national sovregnity? If the US is granted that, should the US not grant it to other independent states?

The precedent this is setting is a bit scary, and with stuff like this, I cannot help but partly understand why the US has the reputation abroad it has.

Not trying to piss on you Americans here, but surely you see the double standards?

A sidenote: I don't care what happens with Lindh, really. Am just interested in the law aspect of this.

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2002, 02:28:46 PM »
I don't care what they do to that piece of camel dung.   They can let him go or put a bullet in his head.   He's not worth the time this Government has spent on him.  
    He only exists for the News Media and their twisted sense of priorities.

Offline Animal

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5027
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2002, 02:33:39 PM »
There is something that is not yet clear to me.

Before 9/11, Afghanistan and the Taliban were not considered an enemy of the USA. In fact, for all the average American knew, they were pals. We helped them during their war against Russia, and we made a Rambo movie with them as the friendly good freedom fighters.

How can someone serving the Taliban pre-9/11 be considered a traitor? specially when those persons were low ranking soldiers with no knowledge whatsoever of the then upcoming attack.

It doesnt make any sense to me. Joining the enemy back when they were friends makes you a traitor automatically if the tables turn?
So, if for (a bad)example, I were to join the French Foreign Legion now, and in five years the French become our enemies, am I a traitor?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2002, 02:36:17 PM by Animal »

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2002, 02:36:44 PM »
Derrrrr... it ain't the Taliban he was a part of... it was Al Qaeda <- terrorist group.

Taliban was the guvment in Afghaneestan.
-SW

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2002, 02:54:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Derrrrr... it ain't the Taliban he was a part of... it was Al Qaeda <- terrorist group.

 Not true. He was a uniformed soldier of Taliban - the foreign contingent which was partially financed by al-Qaeda but not al-Qaeda itself.
 He was fighting NA tagiks in Afghanistan with a rifle, not blowing up civilians in other countries.

 miko

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2002, 02:58:37 PM »
Could of sworn that the Al-Qaeda was financed by the Taliban and Hussein, plus other countries and people.

I also could of sworn that Walker was an Al Qaeda operative. He doesn't have to be in another country to be part of a terrorist outfit.
-SW

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2002, 03:37:16 PM »
My point of view is this:

Lindh is a scapegoat plain and simple, the classic "in the wrong place at the wrong time".  I highly doubt that even if he was Al Qaeda that he was anything other than an ordinary grunt.  Rightly or wrongly, he was charged and will now sit out 20 years in prison to satisfy, in part, the U.S. need to show that terrorists/militants cannot get away with their actions.  This guy was young and dumb, and bought into an ideology which, having not gotten him killed, will result in him sitting in a jail cell.

As former military, I don't care what you call your enemy, but no soldier should ever be charged with any type of offence short of crimes against humanity.  I'm not sure which U.S. laws Lindh violated, but even if he did break them, he did so offshore i.e., he was not a spy, did not commit his crimes in the U.S., etc.  As far as I know, he did not personally kill any U.S. citizens (other than, perhaps, by returning fire on U.S. troops IN AFGHANISTAN during a declared war).  So, at the end of the day, he goes to jail.

It is classic U.S. policy to say, on the one hand, that U.S. jurisdiction extends across the planet, but, on the other hand, that U.S. troops should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the International War Crimes Court.  If you want to thrown a young, dumb John Walker Lindh in jail...so be it....but everybody should be playing by the same rules, and if that means that some poor AC-130 pilot is dragged before the court for taking out a wedding (not to suggest it was intentional, just a friendly fire mistake), then so be it as well.  Let both of them be judged

Which brings me to my next point.  Can someone explain to me why Lindh, a U.S. citizen, was entitled to a trial and counsel, but the other high profile Taliban/Al Qaeda U.S. citizen (think "Hamdi" is his name) is not?  Again...one set of rules for everyone, no one is above the law, and if the U.S. has any hope of ever promoting freedom and democracy around the world (wasn't that what Dubya said this was all about anyway), better that it do so by setting good examples rather than labelling people "enemy combatants" out of convenience and throwing them in jail cells in sunny Guantanamo, denying to the "enemy" the very values and principles that they cherish so much.

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2002, 03:47:53 PM »
Sorry - Double posted

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2002, 06:38:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Could of sworn that the Al-Qaeda was financed by the Taliban and Hussein, plus other countries and people.

I also could of sworn that Walker was an Al Qaeda operative. He doesn't have to be in another country to be part of a terrorist outfit.
-SW


If the Al-Qaeda were indeed financed by Hussein, the U.S. would be in Iraq already without all the hand-wringing about justifying Hussein's take down.

Oh... and MJHerman... War was not declared in Afghanistan. Congress gets to do that, not the president.
sand

Offline -tronski-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
Re: Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2002, 08:52:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by StSanta
Just curious as to how this works. He's being sentenced for  serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons in doing so.

In Afghanistan at the time, doing so wasn't illegal. it was actually encouraged. In the US it would be illegal, but Lindh wasn't in the US.

How come this is under US jurisdiction? The US captured him, aye, but he didn't commit any crimes on US grounds, so why is it that US laws somehow rule in a foreign country?

Heh, next thing you know, I'll be sent to jail for growing pot or something - illegal in the US and everything :)

Just curious.


Careful, questions like those and you could be making the choice between 20yrs or life on some nice trumped up charges.

 Tronsky
God created Arrakis to train the faithful

Offline Wotan

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7201
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2002, 09:40:36 PM »
simple Santa,

He was not found guilty in a trial, he plead guilty. The question is why would he plead guilty? Lots of legal esperts were talking is if this was actually worse then what they expected.

Something made him plead guilty. He didnt plead guilty to being a "terrorist" or belonging to a "terrorist" organization. He plead guilty to carrying a firearm and explosives. There was no mention in his conviction of anything related to terrorism.

Either hes a nut who thinks that sufferage will enhance his influence or image,  or some deal was cut that we are not privy to.

Offline Sandman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17620
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2002, 09:44:44 PM »
Simple... the State took the deal because they knew they were going to have a tough time convicting.

Lindh took the deal because a conviction for terrorism is a life sentence.

Risk reduction on both sides.
sand

Offline MJHerman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 261
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2002, 10:07:17 PM »
He took the deal likely because it was his best option in the circumstances.  But that still doesn't deal with the threshold issue: Should he have ever been charged?

I had thought he was charged with treason, terrorism, etc., but to hear that he was charged, if I read the prior posts correctly, with carrying firearms and explosives IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY DURING HOSTITLITIES, it makes the whole concept even more outrageous.

Maybe he could have mounted a defence, to those two charges at least, on his Constitutional right to bear arms....

Ooops, forgot about the fact that once labelled an "enemy combatant" he would lose his Constitutional rights, or at least his right to counsel.

I think a prior post summed up the most basic answer to all of this....the Taliban don't have B-52s, or, more simply pur, this is all a case of "might makes right".

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Walker Lindh: legal technicalities
« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2002, 10:18:33 PM »
I think he cemented his fate in that taped interview with Mike Spann.  All he had to do was say something like"I am an American, please help me".  

He didnt. He cast his lot with the enemy.

Plus he wasn't just Taliban, he was Al Qaeda trained and met with Bin Laden personally.

I hope he is killed in prison or soon after release.