Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on July 16, 2002, 04:40:58 AM
-
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.
-
Because he's a traitor?
-
Quote:
"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? "
Who gives a flying-flip about Taliban "law"??? For example, during WWII, US(Or Russian, British, etc.) Law "ruled" in Germany after the Allies were finished killing Germans on the battlefield, and in prosecuting Nazis in criminal court after the war.
Jihad Johnny, a trained Terrorist and Traitor, took up arms against the United States. And lost. He was captured in combat(too bad Jihad Johnny didn't get splattered by a JDAM)and came under the control of US Military forces. Being on the losing side in War is bad.
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.
Actually, you do bring up a good point in that Jihad Johnny probably should have been tried in an Afghan court and made to serve his sentence in an Afghan prison. He should have been stripped of his US Citizenship and banished forever from US soil............
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Who gives a flying-flip about Taliban "law"??? For example, during WWII, US(Or Russian, British, etc.) Law "ruled" in Germany after the Allies were finished killing Germans on the battlefield, and in prosecuting Nazis in criminal court after the war.
Yeah, on very shaky legal grounds one might add...
Judge at Nuremburg:
"You are guilty of following the laws in your own country.
Had you chosen to break the laws of your own country, you would have been shot by your own government. But you followed the laws of your own country, and we think those laws SUCK, so now we will kill you."
Defendant at Nurmeburg:
"Eh...but..."
Vae victis
-
Nuremburg-trials was for crimes against humanity and you can hardly compare that to Walker.
Daff
-
Originally posted by StSanta
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?
Because we have more B-52s than the Taliban.
Actually I think that Lindh had a good case and that he wimped out on the plea bargain. Twenty years doesn’t sound like a good deal to me. But then again there was probably no way he’d get a fair trial. Not in the U.S. anyway.
-
I am just glad it was quick
I'd hoped it'd been quicker, like a slip from a chopper from say 5,000 ft ...
-
Quote:
" But then again there was probably no way he’d get a fair trial. Not in the U.S. anyway."
Comrade Blur, i suggest you pack your bags and move to where YOU think Jihad Johnny WOULD get a "fair trial". Write if you get work.............
Daff:
The Taliban is/was a crime against humanity. No question about it. If you don't see that, i feel sorry for you. Anyway, who cares about Nuremburg. The Nazis were tried and hanged, which should have been Jihad Johnny's fate................
-
The really sick thing about this was his father comparing him to Nelson Mandella. Mandella was against oppression. Walker supported a regime that promotes oppression of their own people.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
The Taliban is/was a crime against humanity. No question about it. If you don't see that, i feel sorry for you.
Sure, it caused disaster for people of Afghanistan - and we, the US of A must be held accountable for creating and supporting it.
Nevertheless JWL was accused of crimes against USA, not Taliban's crimes against not Afghanistan - in which he did not participate either because he joined them too late.
He did not do anything against USA and the only incriminating evidence against him is the interview he gave to a journalist.
He could have claimed that he was there before US declared itself an enemy of Taliban (al-Qaeda attacked us, not Taliban, remember?) and could not easily leave it afterwards. He could claim that his speech to journalist nothing more than stupid delusional grandstanding. There would have been a good chance that it would not have even been shown to the jury.
It looks to me that he chose to go to jail for some reason. He will have access to books and education, gym, etc. and the living conditions cannot even come close to those in Taliban training camps.
Mark my words - when he comes out of jail in 17 years (20 - 15% for good behavior) - a healthy 40-year old, he will become a revered elder with a lot of following among world's muslims. He will still have plenty of time to marry his 4 wives and make lot of kids and become a major muslim leader that leaders of whatever states are still there will have to take seriously. Kind of like that lowlife terrorist Nelson Mandela but on much grander scale.
He would have been nothing otherwise. There was no way on earth for him to acheve such heights without help from our government's stupid prosecution. Now his futire is bright and happy.
miko
-
^You gotta be toejamting me................
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
^You gotta be toejamting me................
Cabby
What do you find unbelievable in my scenario?
About the part that he could have gotten a better deal - like 5-10 years in jail and remained naimless nobody? Many lawyers think so but I guess we will never know that now.
About him coming out in 17 years when he is 40? That's math.
About him dedicating his 17 years in jail to study Koran, muslim religion and other stuff? Why not?
About him coming out of jail and being acclaimed by whatever fundamentalists are there, writing books, giving speeches, teaching in muslim schools and becoming a major nuisance from a minor one? What is so unbelievable?
Hitler was a minor nuisance when they sent him to jail in 1923. He wrote Mein Kamph while he was there and came back much better off.
miko
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Quote:
"Jihad Johnny, a trained Terrorist and Traitor, took up arms against the United States.
Possibly, but he wasn't convicted for it. Probably because the U.S. does not have sufficient evidence to prove it.
Actually, you do bring up a good point in that Jihad Johnny probably should have been tried in an Afghan court and made to serve his sentence in an Afghan prison. He should have been stripped of his US Citizenship and banished forever from US soil............
Banishment? Didn't think that was an option with the U.S. legal system.
-
I hope in those 17 to 20 years he makes himself a wife 4 times over to bubba and his friends ....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I hope in those 17 to 20 years he makes himself a wife 4 times over to bubba and his friends ....
Sure, the more he suffers, the stronger his resume becomes. He will have to take care not to look to healthy and glowing when he comes out. He will need to stage a hunger strike or two for publicity and get beaten by guards once in a while. Reminds me of russian revolutionaries for whom a prison was a necessary rights of passage.
miko
-
I could really care less what becomes of the punk squeak Lindh.
Masher
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Derrrrr... it ain't the Taliban he was a part of... it was Al Qaeda <- terrorist group.
Taliban was the guvment in Afghaneestan.
-SW
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
Sorry - Double posted
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
:confused: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 ?
-
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.
-
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?
-
You don't get it. We liberals are not defending Lindh. We are defending the process.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Cant be "objective" here.
I can.
This concludes our discussion.
-
What discussion?
-
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
-
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
-
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 :).
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Since when do Clinton defending liberals like you care about details of the law, like for example lying under oath?
I vote republican and was strongly against Clinton.
I also love america and unlike many made a choice of living here - despite it being a very tough place to have and educate children and grandchildren.
I completely agree that Lindh is a bastard.
I just do not see that he did anything illegal that we could have proven according to our laws. There is no evidence he ever aimed his weapon at an american or would have done so - if he chose to claim that.
As I sais before, I believe his 17 year sentence is a voluntary step in his career as an inspiting muslim fundamentalist leader.
miko