Author Topic: Walker Lindh: legal technicalities (Read 838 times)

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #30 on:** July 16, 2002, 11:02:13 PM »

Quote

Jihad Johnny deserves life in prison. And so do his pinhead, Liberal-Leftist parents for raising such a fluffied-up doofus, and for asking similar questions such as the above.

His father fought in vietnam i believe ?

Sandman · « **Reply #31 on:** July 16, 2002, 11:27:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
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.

There's absolutely no proof that Lindh was Al Qaeda other than his own testimony taken under duress and without the presence of a lawyer.

I think Miko has probably got it pegged. Hell... they'll probably make a movie about it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #32 on:** July 16, 2002, 11:58:02 PM »

There's absolutely no proof that Lindh was Al Qaeda other than his own testimony taken under duress and without the presence of a lawyer.

No lawyer makes it that much more likely to be true.....

Why do you liberals defend this bastard?

Sandman · « **Reply #33 on:** July 17, 2002, 12:01:10 AM »

You don't get it. We liberals are not defending Lindh. We are defending the process.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #34 on:** July 17, 2002, 02:47:50 AM »

The process? I dont think so.

Since when do Clinton defending liberals like you care about details of the law, like for example lying under oath?

StSanta · « **Reply #35 on:** July 17, 2002, 04:00:22 AM »

Grunherz, I understand your loyalty to your new home. However, coming from where you do, I know that you're aware of what we're talking about here.

If someone does something in country A that is legal there, can he be tried for that act in country B? If so, can country B likewise try someone in country A for something that is illegal in country B, if the act was done in country A?

If Lindh would have fought this, he could have raised hell because of all the questions regarding international law involved. Notice how relieved and happy the officials are with this deal - and they went for a helluva lot more in the beginning.

I think that if we left patriotism out of this and viewed it from as objective a position as possible, we'd agree that there are some questions here that aren't easy to answer.

Hortlund · « **Reply #36 on:** July 17, 2002, 07:47:07 AM »

Without knowing too much about US law, I suspect the legal line of reasoning goes something like this.

1) US law has a rule stating where that law is applicable. I suspect that rule says something like "US law is applicable on the territory of the USA, the air above that territory, and the national waters surrounding such territory, on ships and aircraft flying US colors, and on US citizens. (this is a very common type of rule, most countries have it)

2) Lindh has always been a US citizen.

3) 1 and 2 means that the US will always retain jurisdiction over Lindh unless he abandons his citizenship.

4) There is a rule in US law prohibiting a US citizen to take up arms against the US government.

1 and 2 means that the US has the legal right to prosecute Lindh for crimes against US law. What Lindh did when he was in Afghanistan was a crime according to 4.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #37 on:** July 17, 2002, 09:12:19 AM »

I think that if we left patriotism out of this and viewed it from as objective a position as possible, we'd agree that there are some questions here that aren't easy to answer.

Cant be "objective" here.

Sandman · « **Reply #38 on:** July 17, 2002, 09:13:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Cant be "objective" here.

I can.

This concludes our discussion.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #39 on:** July 17, 2002, 11:32:18 AM »

What discussion?

batdog · « **Reply #40 on:** July 17, 2002, 01:49:09 PM »

He was in a miltary force that was at odds w/US forces and that activly engaged our forces in open combat. He was part of a force that openly supported the terrorist's that put 9/11 into action. At the moment of that action he had a choice... do I continue to support what was done to MY nation or do I continue to support those who wither directly or indirectly support the terrorists?

He made his choice. A traitor is a traitor no matter what face certain indiv's attempt tp place on it. Put him against the wall and send him to paradise.

xBAT

batdog · « **Reply #41 on:** July 17, 2002, 01:58:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

Sure, it caused disaster for people of Afghanistan - and we, the US of A must be held accountable for creating and supporting it.

miko

The disaster was the Taliban in the first place and thier enlightened "Islamic" government. We, the U.S., didnt do sh*& to cause this beyond attempting to get rid of this government of oppression.

Yea, I know the big bad nasty U.S.A is the evil empire of this time. Its quite fashionable to dispise us till your bellybutton needs help.

Any bastard who thinks that inocent Americans paid a "just" price for what happened on 911 can go f*&^ themselves. I have no mercy in my heart for our foe... I care nothing for thier reasoning. I simply want payback in the old Roman way. I want to see crosses from Osma's HQ to the site of the Trade Center Towers.

xBAT

StSanta · « **Reply #42 on:** July 18, 2002, 03:50:25 AM »

Batdog wrote:

He was in a miltary force that was at odds w/US forces and that activly engaged our forces in open combat. He was part of a force that openly supported the terrorist's that put 9/11 into action. At the moment of that action he had a choice... do I continue to support what was done to MY nation or do I continue to support those who wither directly or indirectly support the terrorists?

While I agree with the content of this, legally, it doesn't hold water. This way any Israeli soldier (just an example) would be able to be tried in Palestine, using the sams words but a different date. Or Americans.

The dude went to Afghanistan before 9/11 happened. He was a grunt with the Taliban, not Al Qaeda.

Same with Iraqi soldiers. Or Libyan ones. While better, those regimes are also opressive and have come to power in 'illegal' ways.

I don't agree with this 'pick 'n choose who we want, when we want, how we want, but be immune ourselves' arbitrary stuff. It's not good for international relations. Then again, I know some Americans on this board don't give a toejame about that, anbd they're entitled to their opinion

.

miko2d · « **Reply #43 on:** July 18, 2002, 08:41:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by batdog
The disaster was the Taliban in the first place and thier enlightened "Islamic" government. We, the U.S., didnt do sh*& to cause this beyond attempting to get rid of this government of oppression.

When russians invaded Afghanistan over twenty years ago, there were many groups resisting them - including secular freedom fighters, moderate muslims, democrats, socialists, etc.
Rather then cooperate with those, US - driven by nearsighted short-term considerations - chose the most radical, the most fanatical muslim group to support, train, arm and finance - because they were supposedly the most fearless fighters.
Only that allowed Taliban to defeat the rest and end up in power once the russians were driven off.

miko

SC-Sp00k · « **Reply #44 on:** July 18, 2002, 09:25:39 AM »

I think Hortlund has come up with the only sensible possibility and it all revolves around his citizenship. Australia has similar laws.

This guy of yours (and I believe at least 2 of ours (traitors) are caught up in the same mess is no better than a Merc. We here give an oath to the Queen, taught and learnt in schools, subjected upon us in Military and Civil Service and you give an oath of Allegiance in similar circumstances. Whether you say it or sign a piece of paper is irrelevant, you are bound to it by country of birth and its laws.

Its irrelevant that he is fighting in another country for a different Army. Wrong place, wrong time applies. He was caught up in a war and his citizenship sealed his fate unwittingly.

You let him go and you have Merc's running around everywhere and all sorts of Mayhem can result.

I'd be interested to see the official reasoning tho. The original question is a good one. I have no sympathy for him or my own countrymen involved. Far as im concerned, they made their own bed.

I remember seeing a Documentary on an ex Aussie Soldier now serving with the French Foriegn Legion. If I remember Correctly, he had to pledge allegiance to France but was not required to be a French Citizen to serve. Upon honourable discharge, he would be given the opportunity to take French Citizenship as a gesture of thanks for service. War with the French then under these terms would certainly pose some similar questions as these soldiers do not give up their original citizenship.