Recently, David Hicks, an Australian Taliban, pleaded guilty to terrorism charges at the US military base in Cuba and was given several months in prison instead of the maximum 20 years.

Now, the parents of John Walker Lindh asked the Federal Government to reduce John Walker's sentence instead of having him languish for 20 years in prison. And I think it would be a good idea indeed.

First off, neither Hicks or Lindh were accused of actually killing anybody. Nor did they plan September 11 or any other terrorist attack. Rather, they were new converts to Islam who unfortunately got brainwashed by the extremist leaders. In Hicks and Lindh's case, they need mental help and rehabilitation.

So the question for debate is
Should the Federal Government reduce John Walker Lindh's prison sentence?

Only if it can be proven that the individual or in reality individuals really had no idea of what was going on within the context of the Taliban or AQ for that matter. Personally I can see the possible reality that information was manipulated well enough to keep people unaware of the reality in total of such groups when talking about every person with involvement, more so in such a highly controlled environment which I surely agree the Taliban or AQ more so would hold. That’s a pretty high extreme to have to prove though, and really that would apply to a lot more people then just a western few that happened to end up there. I think the reality of saying this for such people would really apply to just more then them though, more so thinking of the reality of war destroyed Afghanistan in large part in relation to the quality of life such as education for some of the populous. I would go as far as to say we probably play to radical Islamic "prophecies" psychologically built into the minds of many of the people that do happen to come into contact with such groups. Could you imagine what a period of time segregated from anything but the Taliban’s words and reality would do to a mind in time that wanted to go to such a place for some reason in the first place? To some of them the idea of 9-11 probably did not have to be told to them, just that the western devils were finally coming to attack like foretold or something. Such is probably a common dynamic in any extreme social group, be it in any country. I mean just look up Jonestown on the internet, those people found in words the will to sacrifice there children then themselves.

He carried a gun and served in the enemy army. The fact he never killed anyone (not confirmed) means little. I thought hew should have got 50 years – or the death penalty.

There is no grounds for leniency, save that he wasn't actually in the service of a foreign government. If that were the case, then he should be executed for treason. As it is, justice would have him spending a loooong time in prison or facing the death penalty.

The simple question is, should Johnny Taliban receive justice, or mercy?

My natural tendency on this one is to go with BD and Ted, but BD asks a very valid question- which deserves an answer- mercy or justice?

Okay- what is the nature of his crime- that "justice" should be done for- and what is the nature of justice in this case-

Does it

1) Protect our national interests, in context of his crime- i.e.- will OUR society, as a national entity- be safer with him dead or locked up?

2) Does his harsh penalty serve as deterent to commiting this crime against the state?

3) Do crimes against the state, when no tangible THING has been harmed- like no one has lost a life, no injury to US servicemevnt etc- does this constitute the need for a capital crime sentence?


I think regarding #1- this kid needs a real psyche eval, and an honest and thorough brace of pscyche testing to see if he truly is a danger to society- will he offend in such a manner that will harm again? - since he falls under federal law- I am sure they have some culpability guidelines that go along with most states, and, quite frankly, to be done right- he needs about 2 years in a forensic psych unit.

If it turns out he is really soft in the head and has a real problem saying "no" to every huckster that comes along that touches his little need for attention- well, a good probation officer can fix that

IF he has radicalized behind bars- then the answer is- he is a danger- lock him up, throw away he key.

regarding #2- this is the shakiest IMHO- folks that are US citizens that are soft in the head enough to run off to afghanistan and live in the desert and fight with poeple that don't think twice about sacrificing the American convert- well, I don't think you can deter stupidity!

And I think #3 goes to the heart of WHY skeeterz asked the question-

I think, if the guy is just an idiot and a sheep type, I think it is a waste of the taxpayers money keeping him in, as long as he has a good tether to the system, which, considering his notoriety, is likely to be a very, very short tether.

Look- I hate Reagan with a white hot passion- but I stil believe John Hinkley should have been put down, and NEVER, at the very least- even CONSIDERED to be allowwed to be a free man- there is a permanently dangerous person- no way, no how, he should have been let out.

But he shot a bunch of folks, and neds to pay a capital punishment type sentance- LWOPP or something/

Dumb, spoiled Johnny- on the other hand, if he doesn't prove to be dangerous- has actually harmed no one, except himself, and he is paying a dear price already IMHO- scorned forever as a moron of the Al-Quaida movement.

So, since no person died, or was harmed, by his reckless stupidity- I believe his time served and nationwide laughter at him is about good enough, provided he is safe for the community,to be let out/

Is that what you think American POWs should have received in past wars? Is that what you think foreign POWs should have received from us in past wars? I'm sure good folks like John McCain would love to hear your reasoning. It's your right to have such an opinion, but be consistent and own up to all its implications.



So you are saying that perhaps it would have been better if the Confederate soldiers had all been executed following the Civil War? If not, what's the difference here?

I think that some cooler observations of this entire thing might better serve our seeking an answer, than emotional head-lopping sentiment.

1. Lindh was not a member of Al Qaeda.

2. The Taleban was accused of harboring Al Qaeda; however, when first confronted by the Bush administration, the Taleban offered to

2a. Turn bin Laden over pending our sharing with them the evidence of his complicity in the attacks and conduct the trial in Afghanistan, then

2b. Offered to turn bin Laden over to a third country for prosecution.

3. These offers were not entertained.

4. Though I can find no evidence that he has such powers in the Constitution, Bush declared that a state "harboring" a terrorist is to be treated exactly as a terrorist.

5. No evidence has been proffered to the public to show that the Taleban was in collusion with Al Qaeda - though I think it is likely to one degree or another.

6. The Taleban fought against invading coalition forces.

7. Lindh went to Afghanistan to join in the defense of the Taleban's regime.

Charging Lindh with any sort of terrorism is a pretty Orwellian move. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised in this atmosphere of ridiculous fears, imperial hubris, and devastating foreign policy.

On the other hand, the idea of brainwashing and therapy is rather silly. It's fairly typical of Americans - find someone else to blame. It may seem harsh - or lenient, depending on your angle - but if he chose to take up arms to fight for the Taleban, then he should be returned to Afghanistan and his US citizenship revoked. However, with the Taleban sorta-kinda deposed, he is in a bit of a legal abyss. To what government could he be remanded? Hmmm. I recognize it's a bit of a sticky wicket.

There's a really big question that hasn't been addressed, and is appropriate here:

WHY did David Hicks receive only nine months sentence? That fact doesn't necessarily indicate that Lindh's sentence was too great, but Hicks' was unbelievably short for someone who plead guilty to to the "material support of terrorism". Who in the room believes a person who supports terrorism should spend less than five years behind bars? Doesn't this seem a bit lax? He had a sweet plea deal:


Now, it's interesting to note that the above was negotiated by the politically appointed Convening Authority only. No military prosecutors were notified, and in fact , the lead prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, did not even know that negotiations were taking place until the agreement was presented to him on the actual day of the hearing. So we have a politically motivated plea bargain that has nothing to do with Hicks' culpability and everything to do with muzzling critics.

Keep in mind that the allegations of abuse might be true, and they might not be true...the plea is to avoid the publicity mess. What are the odds that every other defense lawyer is going to attempt to use the same plea for the rest of the cases up for trial, circumventing the prosecution? I'm guessing 1000 percent.

So....Lindh, to answer the question here, who did not play the abuse card is not privy to such a plea bargain. He gets what he is lawfully entitled to.

“Should the Federal Government reduce John Walker Lindh's prison sentence?” – skeeterses

First, please allow me to say that this is a very interesting topic for debate. Good choice, skeeterses.

No, I don’t think that he should be shown leniency. I was disappointed when the government struck a deal with his attorney for the 20 year sentence when he was frankly guilty of treason and should have been summarily executed.

“First off, neither Hicks or Lindh were accused of actually killing anybody. Nor did they plan September 11 or any other terrorist attack. Rather, they were new converts to Islam who unfortunately got brainwashed by the extremist leaders. In Hicks and Lindh's case, they need mental help and rehabilitation.” - skeeterses.

I disagree. While I can’t speak for Hicks, Lindh was certainly old enough to accept responsibility for his behavior. Being young does not make you stupid or free you from the responsibility of your actions. And he provided aid and confort to U.S. enemies and was guilty of conspiring to commit murder on U.S. nationals (whether of not he ever killed anyone is uncertain).

He is guilty of treason and should be executed.

He got off way to easy.

Umm... QH, this is probably the most liberal thing I've ever heard you say.

Frankly, Lindh was an American, taking up arms against the American army in a non-revolutionary revolt. He was siding with a foreign "army" to kill American soldiers. The fact that we can't prove that he killed anyone (or tried to) means nothing. It's nearly impossible to prove that any soldier actually killed people, as in battle it's nearly implausible to always who shot where. Lindh was found armed with the Taliban. Done deal.

In any nation, being a traitor should have harsh penalties. Frankly, I wish someone would've shot him before they paid to bring his rotten tail back to US custody. Who cares what his parents think, they're parents? The man needs to be made an example. You take up arms as an American citizen against US troops, you'll be executed. Point blank. If he believed so strongly in Islam, he thinks he'll get 1000 virgins (or whatever) anyway. If we really want to torture him, we'd cut off his beard and make him live out the rest of his life in Leavenworth. Let's all see what the prisoners to do him on a regular basis.

People in the US need to reach down and find cajones. This is absurd. It all started when people stopped spanking kids and put them on T-ball teams without scores. It's as if we would rather have a country of soft/water headed children that are good for nothing but beating Zelda on the Nintendo WII and renouncing the men that made America great. (i.e Ronald Reagan... who's been renounced already on this thread)

Lindh should get a firing squad like the traitor he is. I'll volunteer. America isn't the strongest country on earth and the best place to live on the planet because people had spines made out of Jello Pudding and sat on their laurels. If we can't execute him, like I said, put him away somewhere where life is worth than death. America has always HAD a few spineless men, but it seems as if they're becoming the rule as opposed to the exception. I wonder where we'd be if that was always the case? Maybe flying a British or German flag... who knows. Ugh.

Once again- I come back to BD's comment

"justice or mercy"

I only say "mercy" because of his (relative) stupidity, age, and lack of REAL harm.

Stupid SHOULD be expensive and painful, true- and I think he did, in fact, have both.

Also- I also believe that the Australians were correct at taking the military out of the loop- I think the abuses GW and the military have commited at this point, we need law preventing them from forever having ANYTHING to do with captured anyone, except holding them until non-military/civilians can decide what to do with them.

The military and justice are usually two completely incompatable entities- history has shown that the military is really not capable of being free or fair when it comes to justice, so ya, taking them out of the loop is a good idea.

Aevens though, brings up an excellent example as well though- he picked up arms against his country- harm or no, that equates to treason.

Had he actually renounced his citizenship, and became an afghan citizen, and fought in the afghan army (we did, after all, recognize the Taliban goverment as the legitimate goverment of Afghanistan) - but I am quite sure (someone correct me if I am wrong) he retained his US citizenship- hard to say if this is by design or stupidity, but if he did- then that certainly makes him a traitor- and, in the course of human history-

Traitors pretty much reserve the lowest pits of hell for thier misdeeds-

when you commit treason- the concept is that you have sold out your own family, your nieghbors, your friends, and have put thier lives in danger-

and the paramount issue is - the state's #1 duty is safety to it's citizens, protections of it's borders etc.

So, really, in this, Lindh certainly fills the bill.

My only take is that we can afford some mercy here- and, when possible, and the price is not too high, I believe mercy is something admirable that a country can be known for- wouldn't you agree?

p.s.- Reagan didnt' fight in WW2- he was an entertainer- he was no hero of WW2, he was USO. My grandfather and his brothers were heroes- they gave their lives and thier bodies- HUGE difference. My grandfather hated Reagan and his flip-floping of ideals as soon as he married nancy. Hijack over.

As Hicks was sentenced by a US military tribunal I'm not sure what you mean here CR. How do you keep the miltary out of the loop when the military is doing the sentencing? This wasn't an Australian court, though he will serve his nine months in an Australian prison.

Yes- the military has no credibility whatsoever for policing it's own, dispensing justice etc. From Tailhook to the Italian ski lift killings, etc- Hicks is being held in an Australian prison

what really gets me is that he can't complain of the abuses he had to deal with- that is really giving me goosebumps- how much was he tortured, and will we ever know?

That is one reason I want the military permanently removed, where they can't even have military court against thier own- it should revert to civilian courts whenever a soldier is charged with ANYTHING- I don't believe there is such a thing as a fair trial in the military, ever.

Do you think the military really had anything to do with throwing Australia a political bone- I am willing to bet everything was decided before that tribunal even convened- don't ya think?

Aevans...


That's a lot of animosity for someone you never met. Let's count to 10 and see if we can just view the other side for a second.... What are the Core Values, well talk about it later.

We go to war in afghanistan... we are still at war in Afghasnistan and Iraq.... Now an American goes over there at this time and joins the taliban, or Al queada, and attacks us... that is by far a traitor IMO.

However, the situation with John Lindh is different. And a lot more complicated.

First, there may need to be a debate on Al Queada(AQ) vs the Taliban. They are not the same

Second, Quark listed the exact same point numbered 1-7 that I was going to mention so I won't repeat them, but I would love to see them addressed by someone.

Third, Lindh was in a position to be a traitor, regardless of his actions.

Aevans, what was he to do??

He didn't join the taliban when we went to war with them from what I can tell and read. The people he fought with were his brothers in arms, would you say it was more honorable and respectable to turn the guns on his fellow man?? Should he have shot them in the back? He was born in America, but from what I read about him he was an outcast.

9/11 happened, within months, we swooped down on the Taliban(though they had nothing to do with it), because they were "allies" with Bin Laden, but all this happen after he made his ties with the taliban.

He was a citizen by birth, (maybe we should look into that policy) but he has no affiliation with the U.S. military, he had little loyalty to this country seeing that he left it behind.

So be that as it may. He is a traitor, or he is a traitor. He has made a pact with the taliban to protect them, and they him we he joined them. Our nation decides to go to war with a group that he already has ties to and you think he should have did what??

Does anyone here remember Hassan Akbar he is the brotha' in the army who dropped a freaking grenade on his own troops. He was the muslim convert, and when captured says


You see this guy, this guy is a traitor. He obviously put his religion in front of his nation. And I'm sure many conservative here see no problem with that, neither do I. His killing the other soldiers due to his religion isn't wrong IMO. What makes him a traitor to me, is he had no honor. Either defect and join the other side, or pull a Mohammed Ali and say "put me in jail, I'm not going to fight my own people"

No Hassan is a traitor because he is a snake. He had a pact a commitment with those men and he betrayed it.

Back to Lindh

Aevans you spoke about the problems of this country. What about honor?? Lindh had made a pact, in essence his word to stand with these men(the taliban) before any U.S. troops invaded. So he was not a traitor then. Then we invade... would he be a hero if he did the exact same thing Hassan did?? What if he put his country first, just like Hassan put his God first?? What if he would have said... "oh you are fighting my country men" and started dropping grenade in the tents of his fellow men at arms?? And then ran to the nearest U.S. soldier. Would that make him a hero to you?? Is that honor??


Aevans you talked about courage. People have spines and grabbing a pair... Well how are you defining courage?? To me, courage is not standing without fear, but standing in the face of fear. If you aren't scared of anything, then nothing you do is courageous.

Legally speaking, John Lindh did not recieve justice. Because as you say... spineless Americans. The only evidence they have against john Lindh is confessions. However, he reports he asked for a lawyer, did not recieve one. They left him tied down with a bullet in his arm left to fester for a week. and that a week after he was in American hands. Now they take this case into an American court... our court system... and the Judge accepts a plea deal knowing the charges brought against Lindh. Which were:



The only evidence presented was a confession. This guy was bound naked and blindfolded, sleep deprivated, malnourished, denied medical attention, denied a lawyer, and the judge does not throw this case out on it's tail??? Where was this Judge's courage?? Was he afraid to be known as "the Judge that let the traitor go" When justice demanded he stand, he layed down and now Johnny boy is in jail.

And IMO I'm not sure the average citizen should care, we were not in the position of power and authority to make the right call. The Judge was coward that feared the ramifications of making a clear-cut easy decision while America was still going through it's rage stage. Or maybe the judge was enraged and thought of Lindh as a traitor as well, which means the judge should have reclused himself.

Should the Federal Government reduce John Walker Lindh's prison sentence

No, they should let him go. Legally speaking, they had no evidence.

Should the Federal Government reduce John Walker Lindh's prison sentence?

I think the only difference between the cases is that Lindh’s arrest and trial happened at the height of post-9/11 hysteria. And Hicks languished in Guantanemo while the powers-that-be determined what to do with him before he was finally tried. Which is worse – financially supporting the Taliban’s “cause” or actually picking up a rifle and fighting with them? Who knows.

My gut feeling is that both of them deserve prison sentences. One took up arms against his country, and the other supplied money to enable others to take up arms against his country. Deluded or not, they should be held accountable for their actions. So, no, Lindh should not have his sentence reduced. I assume he's eligible for parole somewhere down the line.

Interesting to note that, as part of his plea bargain, Hicks had to sign a statement that he had never been illegally treated while in US custody.

The man should receive no mercy. And forget 9/11, as the Taliban were otherwise simply guilty of crimes against humanity with respect to the treatment of their own people and we ought to be having a tribunal in that regard as well. From the man's own statement to the court at sentencing:

"Last year, I felt that I had an obligation to assist what I perceived to be an Islamic liberation movement against the warlords who were occupying several provinces in Northern Afghanistan."

Yeah, "liberators", as such explains why she was veiled at home behind blackened windows and why he was beat with a stick if he didn't have a beard. And for the mother of all lies:

"Since returning to the United States, I have learned more about the Taliban, such as reports of the Taliban’s repression of women, which I did not see or hear of while I was in Afghanistan, and which I believe is strongly condemned by Islam."

Sorry, John, their treatment of their own people was no secret, even here at home, and how you could have missed it while there simply defies rational explanation.

And for what some on the "left" always leave out, from the indictment:

"On July 4, 1999, President of the United States William J. Clinton declared a national emergency to deal with the threat posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban. Specifically, the President found that:

[T]he actions and policies of the Taliban in Afghanistan, in allowing territory under its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Laden and the Al-Qaida organization who have committed and threaten to continue to commit acts of violence against the United States and its nationals, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign Policy of the United States.

In his Executive Order 13129, the President prohibited, among other things, the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of the Taliban."

Now to continue with the indictment:

"7. On June 30, 2000, the national emergency with respect to the Taliban was continued. One year later, the national emergency was again continued, pursuant to a finding by President of the United States George W. Bush that "[t]he Taliban continues to allow territory under its control in Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and base of operations for Usama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organization who have committed and threaten to continue to commit acts of violence against the United States and its nationals.
*****
5. In or about May or June 2001, after several weeks of training in a HUM military training Camp in Pakistan, JOHN PHILLIP WALKER LINDH (hereafter "LINDH"), informed HUM officials that he wished to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

6. In or about late May or June 2001, LINDH crossed from Pakistan into Afghanistan for the purpose of taking up arms with the Taliban.

7. In or about late May or June 2001, LINDH reported to the Dar ul-Anan Headquarters of the Mujahideen in Kabul, Afghanistan, which was used as a Taliban recruiting center. After presenting a letter of introduction from HUM, LINDH told personnel at that facility that he was an American and that he wanted to go to the front lines to fight.

8. In or about late May or June 2001, LINDH agreed to attend an al-Qaeda training camp for additional and extensive military training, knowing that America and its citizens were the enemies of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and that a principal purpose of al-Qaeda was to fight and kill Americans.

9. In or about late May or June 2001, LINDH traveled to a Bin Laden guest house in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where he stayed for several days.

10. In or about June 2001, LINDH traveled to the al-Farooq training camp, an al-Qaeda facility located several hours west of Kandahar, in Afghanistan. LINDH reported to the camp with a group of approximately twenty other trainees, mostly from Saudi Arabia.

11. In or about June and July 2001, LINDH remained at the al-Farooq camp and participated fully in its training activities, after having been told early in his stay at the camp that Bin Laden had sent forth some fifty people to carry out twenty suicide terrorist operations against the United States and Israel.

12. In or about June and July 2001, as part of his al Qaeda training, LINDH participated in terrorist training courses in, among other things, weapons, orienteering, navigation, explosives and battlefield combat, which included the use of shoulder weapons, pistols, and rocket-propelled grenades, and the construction of Molotov cocktails.

13. In or about June or July 2001, LINDH met personally with Bin Laden, who thanked him and other trainees for taking part in jihad.

14. In or about June or July 2001, LINDH met with a senior al Qaeda official, Abu Mohammad Al-Masri, who asked LINDH whether he was interested in traveling outside Afghanistan to conduct operations against the United States and Israel. LINDH declined in favor of going to the front lines to fight.

15. In or about June or July 2001, LINDH swore allegiance to jihad.

16. In or about July or August 2001, after completing his training, LINDH traveled to Kabul, Afghanistan and was issued an AKM rifle, with a barrel suitable for long-range shooting.

17. In or about July or August 2001, LINDH carried the AKM rifle while he traveled, together with approximately 15O non-Afghani fighters, from Kabul to the front line in Takhar, in northeastern Afghanistan. There, LINDH's unit was placed under the command of Abdul Hady, an Iraqi.

18. In or about July 2001 to September 2001, LINDH's group was divided into smaller groups, which rotated in one to two week shifts in the Takhar trenches, opposing Northern Alliance troops.

19. In or about July 2001 to November 2001, LINDH carried various weapons with him, including the AKM rifle, an RPK rifle he was issued after the AKM rifle malfunctioned, and at least two grenades.

20. After learning about the terrorist attacks against the United States on or about September 11, 2001, LINDH remained with his fighting group. LINDH did so despite having been told that Bin Laden had ordered the attacks, that additional terrorist attacks were planned, and that additional al Qaeda personnel were being sent from the training camps to the front lines to protect Bin Laden and defend against an anticipated military response from the United States.

21. From in or about October through early December 2001, LINDH remained with his fighting group after learning that United States military forces and United States nationals had become directly engaged in support of the Northern Alliance in its military conflict with Taliban and al Qaeda forces.

22. In or about November 2001, LINDH's fighting group retreated from Takhar to the area of Kunduz, Afghanistan, and ultimately surrendered to Northern Alliance troops. On or about November 24, 2001, LINDH and other captured fighters were trucked to Mazar-e Sharif, in Afghanistan, and then to the nearby Qala-i Janghi ("QIJ") prison compound.

23. On or about November 25, 2001, LINDH was interviewed in the QU compound by two Americans, CIA employee Johnny Micheal Spann and another United States Government employee, who were attempting to identify al Qaeda members among the prisoners.

24. On or about November 25, 2001, Taliban detainees in the QIJ compound attacked Spann and the other employee, overpowered the guards, and armed themselves. Spann was shot and killed in the violent attack. After being wounded, LINDH retreated with other detainees to a basement area of the QIJ compound. The bloody uprising took several days to suppress.

25. From on or about November 25, 2001 though on or about December 1, 2001, LINDH remained in the basement area of QIJ with other Taliban and al Qaeda fighters until their recapture..."

And so, yes, he did take American life, a point made by a surviving relative here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/05/...liban-Spann.php

Now, re him wanting a lawyer, don't some always claim that after the fact? The other side to the story is:

"Affidavit in Support of a Criminal Complaint and an Arrest Warrant

I, Anne E. Asbury, being duly sworn, depose and state:

1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department of Justice, assigned to the Washington Field Office. I have been employed by the FBI as a Special Agent since January 1991. My primary duties are to conduct terrorism related investigations.

2. This affidavit contains information necessary to support probable cause for this application. It is not intended to include every fact or matter observed by me or known by the Government. The information provided is based on my personal knowledge and observations during the course of this investigation, information conveyed to me by other law enforcement and government officials, and my review of records, documents, and other physical evidence obtained during this investigation.

3. This application is submitted in support of a criminal complaint and an arrest warrant charging John Philip Walker Lindh, a/k/a "Suleyman al-Faris," a/k/a "Abdul Hamid," ("Walker"), a United States citizen, with: (1) engaging in a conspiracy, while outside the United States, to kill nationals of the United States outside of the United States, namely, United States nationals engaged in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332(; (2) providing, attempting to provide, and conspiring to provide material support and resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations, namely, al-Qaeda and Harakat ul-Mujahideen ("HUM"), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2339B and 2; and (3) engaging in prohibited transactions with the Taliban, in violation of Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 545.201 and 545.204, Executive Order # 13129, Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1702 and 1705, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

Background

4. From my review of reports and other statements prepared by law enforcement officers, U.S. military personnel, and other government officials, I have learned that, on or about November 25, 2001, Johnny Micheal Spann who was, at the time an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, and an individual identified herein as "confidential source 1" ("CS-1"), an employee of the United States Government, were conducting interviews at the Qala-i Janghi ("QIJ") compound near Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan, of al-Qaeda, and Taliban forces who had been captured by, or who had surrendered to, Northern Alliance forces in the course of the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. Among those interviewees was an individual later identified as the defendant, Walker. Shortly after Walker's interview, prisoners - who numbered several hundred - staged an uprising that took several days to suppress and which resulted in Spann's violent death. During the course of the uprising, Walker retreated with other detainees to a basement area of the QIJ compound, where he remained for several days before being identified by military and medical personnel as a United States citizen. Walker has remained in the custody of U.S. military forces since that time.

Walker's Admissions

5. On or about December 9 and 10, 2001, a Special Agent of the FBI interviewed Walker. Before conducting the interview, the Special Agent advised Walker of his Miranda rights. Walker acknowledged that he understood each of those rights, and then waived those rights. The Special Agent also presented Walker with a form on which those rights are set forth and Walker signed below the waiver clause in which he acknowledged that he understood his rights, that he was waiving those rights, and that he agreed to be questioned by the FBI outside the presence of a lawyer."

Now to continue with the affidavit in question:

"6. I have since read the Special Agent's report of his interview of Walker. In sum, the report indicates that: (1) Walker, a resident of California, converted to Islam in or about 1997; (1) (2) in 1998 and again in early 2000, Walker traveled to Yemen to study Arabic and Islam; (3) in or about October 2000, Walker traveled from Yemen to Pakistan to continue his studies; (4) in or about May 2001 Walker joined a paramilitary training camp run by the Harakat ul-Mujahideen ("HUM"), in order to fight in Kashmir on behalf of that terrorist organization; (5) in or about June 2001, Walker traveled to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban; (6) from a Taliban recruiting center in Kabul, Afghanistan, Walker was referred to an Arabic mujahideen group that Walker was told was run by Usama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization; (2) (7) Walker underwent a seven week terrorist training program at al-Qaeda's al-Farooq training camp; (8) during the course of Walker's training course, Usama Bin Laden visited the al-Farooq camp on several occasions, addressed the trainees, and, on at least one occasion, met personally with Walker in a small group; (9) after training at al-Farooq, Walker was deployed with other al-Qaeda mujahideen to the front line in Takhar; (10) after Walker's position in Takhar was targeted by U.S. air strikes, he and his group retreated to Kunduz; and (11) eventually a withdrawal and surrender was negotiated with Northern Alliance forces and Walker and other members of his al-Qaeda group were transported to Mazar-e-Sharif and ultimately to QIJ.
***
8. The report further indicates that, according to Walker, HUM arranged for Walker's travel to Afghanistan in or about late May 2001. With a letter of introduction from HUM, Walker reported to the Dar ul-Anan Headquarters of the Mujahideen in Kabul, which was used as a Taliban recruiting center, and told them that he was a Muslim who wanted to go to the front lines to fight. After several interviews - including some by individuals who Walker reports were later killed at QIJ - Walker was told that he would have to go to the Arab group because, among other things, Walker was an American who did not speak the Urdu, Pashtu, or Dari spoken by the other mujahideen groups. During this interview process, Walker was told that the Arab group is Usama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda group and that, because Walker's HUM training was insufficient for their purposes, Walker would have to attend an al-Qaeda training camp for additional and extensive military training. Walker further stated that he knew at the time that Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were "against America and the government of Saudi Arabia," and that al-Qaeda's purpose was to fight Americans."

Lastly, the words of Robert Young Pelton:

"John Walker Lindh aka John Walker aka Suleiman Ferris aka Abdul Hamid aka The American Taliban is a person that I will mostly likely to be associated for some time to come. I am sure on my obituary there will be a bombastic note that I was “the journalist who “discovered” Lindh after the battle at Qali Jangi” (the afghans have that dubious honor) Many have told me that Lindh’s story was a big deal back in the States. I will never know. I was in Afghanistan covering combat operations with in the ongoing war against the Taliban for CNN so I will never have the chance to the get the full impact of finding an American professing his love for the Taliban.

<snip>

Privately I warned his lawyers to keep me off the witness stand because I would send their little Johnny to prison. Wisely, Lindh copped a plea and I was spared months of inconvenience. Some people wanted a trial to get to the bottom of Lindh’s nefarious activities, among them the grieving family of Mike Spann. Lindh’s plea bargain denied them and the country of that truth finding.

So it was left to me to set the record straight. My decades of travels with jihadis and terrorists, my time with both the Taliban leadership, the Northern Alliance (aka the United Front), Dostum’s forces — as well as my own time spent during and after talking to the players involved with Qali Jangi — lead me to believe that I am uniquely qualified to pass judgment on Lindh and to accurately describe who he was and what he was doing there.

<snip>

Quite simply, in my opinion, Lindh was a terrorist, a member of what we call al Qaeda, and a man who chose to stay with killers even though he was afforded numerous opportunities to separate himself from his murderous associates. Twenty years in jail may be a blessing compared to how many of his friends have been dealt with since.

Frank Lindh cannot be blamed either for the emotions behind his need to reinvent history or for doing what he can to get his son out of jail. But he is lying. His son did not “love America”: He fought for bin Laden, against us. His son is not “honest”: He lied to his parents and others. His son is not a “decent” young man: He trained to be a murderer. His son went to kill strangers in a stranger land. A spiritual quest? What part of grenades and AK 47s can be described as spiritual? What part of patriotism is eating bin Laden’s food, listening to Usama’s droning hate-filled speeches against America, and sitting obediently within strangling distance of our greatest single enemy?

<snip>

See: http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_crame...ruth_about.html


Edited to remove fully copied article in accordance with forum Rules.

Hmmm, well KT,if that reporter is telling the truth- then he certainly deserves alot harsher treatment than he recieved.

And I would love to hear your rational here. This man was not a “captured US serviceman” – as McCain, or even a captured and indentured civilian. He joined the Taliban and willingly took up arms against his country. For which, in all past conflicts the penalty is death. Which is what this traitor should have received.

Here is a list of American volunteers for the Waffen SS during world war II, along with the punishments. Some were killed in combat, but none of them were executed for this offense. The harshest punishment was 25 years hard labor (Second Lieutenant Martin James Monti), paroled after serving about 12 years. Lindh's 20 year sentence seems appropriate to me, I don't think it's unduly lenient nor do I think it too harsh. He could/should probably be released early if his behavior is good.

I acknowledge there is not a direct parallel. But what about my other example? Why didn't we execute everyone who fought for the Confederate Army? Wouldn't they be "traitors" too? Just because of greater numbers?

When you say "... took up arms against his country. For which, in all past conflicts the penalty is death," you sound pretty conversant with this topic. I'm asking this, not to repudiate your information or knowledge, but because perhaps you know more on this than I do. Can you please provide some examples of this law, and it's use in past conflicts?



Ummm... thanks?



Ummm... Aevans, this is probably the most unchristian thing I've ever heard you say. You wish someone had shot him? You make suggestions about ways to torture him?



Yeah it takes a lot of courage to kill people! Makes ya a big man! Urga urga me strong!!
You have it exactly backwards. It takes no "cajones" at all to spank your kids. That's the easiest method of discipline in the world. And it doesn't make men great to sell weapons to our enemies while supporting other terrorists in Nicaragua. Ronald Reagan was a traitor. The esteem in which he is held needs to be executed - point blank.

No. Not on your life. If I remember correctly when Lindh was caught he was hold up in a basement with a rifle and grenades after a skirmish with US soldiers. If he wassn't charged with actually killing anyone it's because they couldn't specifically prove it. He was however charged and convicted of taking up arms against US soldiers. He is so lucky he didn't get the death penalty.

Having said that, let's not pretend that an early release wouldn't be a death penalty. I mean, can you imagine this guy walking around the US? Safely? He would have to make for an Islamic country ASAP to prevent from being lynched. And who knows what more trouble he could cause? Leave him rot. He's like any other human, he must take responsibility for his actions. All this nonsense about getting him help is really hurting my head. He did the crime, he'll do the time and when he is released it will most likely be to his detrement.

Yep... you're the expert QH. Sure. Maybe an expert on being subversively liberal...
Check this out:
http://www.forbes.com/2004/06/07/cz_rk_0607reagan.html

Maybe the world doesn't see life so far from the left.

Secondly, I didn't really discuss torture. I spoke of cutting off his beard. That's not really torture, unless of course you believe that T-Ball teams for kids shouldn't have scores and that America's apathy and lack of determination should flow rampantly. Guess that's where we disagree. Life is alot harder than a beard trim.

We definitely disagree on what makes America strong. However... consider this. The way you feel about Lindh, and stringent and decisive action in general lends itself to a question. What if we'd followed your doctrine in WWII? With N Korea? With the USSR in the Cold War? Having a spine HAS and continues to put the US in a position of power that allows everyone on this board to have a computer and internet connection (and most likely a car, microwave, cable tv, etc). Once again, I assert that some of you should get out of the US. See what the world is like. Everyone wants what we've got. A big hug and singing "kumbaya" surely hasn't kept the evil of the world off our doorstep.

QH, as I've said 100+ times on America's Debate... there are men in this world willing to accept liberal subversive tone and still make painful decisions regardless of American apathy or cynicism. Maybe executing Lindh won't be a popular decision on CBS news, but the action should be taken. I pray it will.

Reagan a traitor? Good Lord. You're the expert... sure. You're the expert...

Absolutely Reagan was a traitor- he did far, far, far more DIRECT harm to our soldiers- he sold arms to our enemies- you know, Iran? So yes, he was a traitor, and deserved death for that- not to mention he supported terrorists (contras) and death squads- he is far, far, far more of a traitor than Johnny Taliban could have hoped in his wildest dreams- I mean, he didn't give arms to the Iranians did he?

We need "subversive liberals" to counter the goose stepping nazis that the republican party has become, after all.

Without folks like QH, we would have concentration camps already, and genocide in Iraq, round up all the brown poeple and kill them- typical republican/right wing response- correct?

Oh, am I generalizing, or reading more into your comments of your hatred of America than you really wished?

I can hardly believe what I am reading. A lot of the Republican party's views on foreign policy have more to do with preserving America's global power than actually protecting American borders. Remember, the Taliban did not invade America. Rather, America invaded Afghanistan and John Walker Lindh chose to stand by his muslim brothers.

Now for the luxuries that you wrote about in that paragraph, did you know that America with 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of the world's oil production? Our access to cars and the Internet to a large degree, are dependent upon reliable supplies of oil from foreign countries. You may speak about evil in other parts of the globe but America's gluttonous behavior is considered evil by many of the terrorists. If America's military campaigns are about protecting our own material comforts instead of defending our borders, then Johnny Walker's act of picking up a rifle with the other side should not be considered treason.

Mrs. Pigpen:

As noted in the article you posted, the British took a different view, the correct view. Some otherwise try to break down the SS into its more military role and its more exterminationist role, but the latter wasn't possible without the former and how do you kill that many and not know? With the other point simply being, well, even when the soul served as propaganda man, that freed some German up to kill some Allies.

Now for why we might execute him for treason and for conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, welll, to end the debate between quarkhead and aevans, the reason why we let some live and killed some others is that we allowed some to surrender on terms which did not require their execution as traitors and/or souls guilty of conspiring to commit crimes against humanity, though we might have reserved the right to make certain determinations in our discretion in this regard.

In rather stark contrast, we captured Mr. Lindh following the failed prison uprising, and if he wasn't and isn't so guilty, well, if in the basement, hiding in the corner over there, then how did he get shot during the course of the failed prison uprising? So he knew and didn't say a word. An American was then murdered. I'll let some others concern themselves with any notion of merger of offenses, but that sounds like capital murder, conspiracy to commit capital murder, and, well, how about the criminal violation of another's civil rights. And if escape from detention is a felony, we can add the felony murder rule and charge him with the murder that resulted during the course of the commission of the likely violent felony [his wound is witness as to just how violent it was, well, his wound and his dead friends, and Mr. Spann]. So he, and dad and mom, ought to consider themselves rather lucky, as Mr. Pelton said, I mean, if the choice was left to some other Americans, me, well, let him explain to juror me the bullet wound and just how it was that he didn't know of the uprising when he had occasion to meet up with the late Mr. Spann and our confidential government employee.


Cruising Ram:

Leave off our man, Ronnie 'Send The Rockets To Russia' Raygun, okay? One would otherwise tend to think that you'd cut him some slack simply because he played second to a chimp in Bedtime For Bonzo. But apparently, that's not enough. I'll only otherwise say, well, what was it that the one member of the Huks said [with Huks being the members of the Hukbong Mapagalayang Bayan, or People's Liberation Army]? We were no angels. Indeed. And neither were the Sandinistas. And neither were we. I otherwise imagine that the soul writing here had both you and Frontline in mind:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A960948260

By the way, that part of me that still is Roman Catholic, well, hard to forgive some who claimed to believe in this thing called the theology of liberation when they thought for so much as a mere moment that our theology of liberation could ever partner up with godless Marxists.

Lastly, the Miskitos appear to have a different view of the matter than you and some others. Don't suppose that you talked with any of them when you were there? The report from them otherwise is:

"Miskito Indians Accuse Sandinistas of Crimes Against Humanity

By Filadelfo Aleman Associated Press Writer
Published: Aug 18, 2005

MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) - Miskito Indian leaders on Thursday asked the independent Permanent Human Rights Commission to probe crimes against humanity they allege were committed against their people under Nicaragua's Sandinista government of the 1980s.

The leaders said at a news conference that they also would demand that government prosecutors take legal action against those who allegedly killed at least 150 of their people, burned houses, destroyed crops and slaughtered livestock.
............
One of those who filed the complaint, Mario Flores, said five of his relatives had been killed by the army around Christmas 1982."

And for a glimpse of what we were fighting against, and on a worldwide basis:

"Former Sandinista Foreign Minister Tomas Borge said the complaint had been inspired by the U.S. government as a way to denigrate the Sandinista party ahead of the 2006 presidential election. "Otherwise, why now after more than 20 years?" he said when contacted by telephone.

Borge said both sides had committed abuses and said he had punished Sandinista troops who committed them."

Now for the blogger's comments here, see, http://bolicarreras.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html :

""Enano" Borge is a cynic, he was head of the State Security Aparatus for the regime, the one that was trained by the East German Stasi, and was crawling with Cuban advisors. Amazing how someone who was tortured -almost to death- became the head of such a feared (and brutally efficient) organization. That is the kind of contradictions you can live with, when you are that dedicated to Marxist-Leninism. Boy was he a piece of work! the guy had crosses on his office wall, no doubt impressing the many "Peace and Justice" types from U.S. churches."

He then goes on...

And so none were angels...And what do we call the forced relocation of an indigenous people? I know what some call our prior treatment of the people indigenous to what we now call the US of A. So going back to that other thread, if not hate America first, then why no love for our Miskito friends? Is it because they were on our side in that struggle? See also:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...22792-1,00.html
http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/revi...754C0A960948260

And, sorry, but the "left" has the "right" beat on internment camps, hands down, and far and away, it's not even close. quarkhead is otherwise the good-hearted but naive soul who pays for such naivety with his life, or that's the way it usually played out last century. Lastly, for the why of why it's hard to forgive some, well, as the NYTimes reports the one elderly Miskito as saying:

"''Oh my, it is so bad,'' says an elderly man on the verge of tears. ''Just like there was no God.''"

For godless Marxists, there isn't. And so who is he to stand in the way of their socialist progress? Oh, and the "left" have also always been the greatest liars as well. And so when the curtain was parted, we all saw the horror that some called their "workers paradise".

I stand proudly by Quarkhead. By default all liberals are subversive experts; we fail miserably at being good little authoritarians.

Lindh's story begins with a federal grand jury indictment in district court. The prosecutor overcharged Lindh and, not surprisingly, the grand jury signed off on the indictments. Prosecutors overcharge to pressure a defendant into agreeing to a plea deal. Here is Lindh's plea agreement. Twenty years for two charges (ten years each), and a few years of supervised release after he serves his sentence. I'm not sure how many more years his parents can take off, since points are already deducted according to federal sentencing guidelines.

Lindh waived his right to a jury/bench trial. I wish he had not, because although he may have been found guilty of more than just the two items he plead guilty to, the abuse at the hands of his interrogators and the violation of his civil rights would have been on public display. He's eligible for parole in 17 years. I doubt his parents will convince a review board to knock the sentence below that.

Difference between your view and mine? I saw it first hand. the contras were evil thugs that killed and raped babies for fun. And that is no exageration. And Raygun gave weapons to Iran.

If you are to be consistant of your condemnation of Johnny Taliban, you need to condemn Raygun for more, for he not only knew better, he betrayed America with eyes wide open, in an elected position. At least the idiot of Johnny was less treasonous than Raygun.

That is what really chaps my panties about you moralists types- you condemn on one had the lessor crime of someone that doesn't jive with your worldview- and you give a complete pass to a far worse monster that pandered to your worldview.

There is no greater traitor in my life time than Ollie North and Ronald Reagan- but you guys lionize those scumbags.

After your article about Johnny by the CNN guy, I am all too happy to see him fry. But to be fair, I feel the same way about the scumbags of the Reagan era.

Ok, I'm won over!

Ronald Regan was a war criminal, and Lindh is a misguided poor little brainwashed soul.

Let's let him out. Tomorrow. Let's just let him go.

I'm very serious. I think you're right. If we let him out that would be real justice.

No, I don't want Johnny Taliban to be let go- I believe 20 years in jail is right on, after re-reading the accounts of the CNN corespondent- I just wish the same treatment for the other traitors- to be morally and ethically consistant.

If you support terrorists with arms and money, then, you are no better than bin laden. Reagan did both.

There is a difference between war criminal and a terrorist- Reagan supported terrorists- that much is a fact. Johnny Lindh took up arms against his country, and, were his father's accounts true- he would have turned himself over at first opportunity- and I would be on the side of leniancy- had he run to the first American that would have let him get away- screaming "i surrender, I am American, I did something stupid, please help me"-

Instead, he sidestepped every opportunity to do the right thing.

QH- brainwashing is very, very effective if the isolation and technique is done correctly- Stockholm syndrome is also a very real phenomenon- however- I don't believe this is the case with our spoiled brat Johnny- he is an arrogant and snotty kid, by all accounts- even the taliban didn't like him!

Ronald Reagan and Ollie North KNEW what they were doing was wrong, and did it anyway as well- that is the moral relativity that conservatives decry while being the biggest practise-ers of this relativity.

If you want to go hard on traitors- go hard on all of them.

If you are a person that "lives in the grey"- taking each case one by one, and not applying your silly strict morals on every thing you come into contact with- then, if you want to debate the moral relativity of each case- fine- I have far more respect for you, but when you support Ronald Reagan, while decrying some slime like Johnny- you have no moral grounds to make that decision- it is just hate for no other reason than your own blind reasoning.

I hate Ronald Reagan, because I saw the aftermath of his policies- I am comfortable with hating someone that commisions and pays for death squads and baby rapers.

I have contempt for spoiled rich kids like Johhny Taliban that use thier privilege to turn on the society that gave them privilege- if he had guilt about his society- with his money and position, he could have made a difference in his own nieghborhood- by, oh, opening a business and giving those less fortunate than himself a freakin' job!

Scumbags are Scumbags, and most politicians, if not all of them at the federal level, are scumbags, in a major way. I believe they are all sociopaths, every single one of them.

Scumbaggery- (hey, did somoeone already create this word- I like it!) knows no political boundries. They are in both parties. I am comfortable with calling republicans or democratic politicians scumbags, and generalizing the lot of them. You have to be a sociopath to even wish to have so much control over another person's life, and to ambitiously seek out those offices, that will subjegate every belief you have to political power.

Johny Taliban is a arrogant, selfish little piece of animal offal. But so is ronald reagan, and every president that followed him. I don't give Clinton any more of a 'pass" than I do reagan.

Too bad conservatives can't apply thier morals in a consistant fashion either, with a very few notable exceptions.

CR,

Just as I often accuse the liberals of not being able to see both sides of an argument, there are a few things in life that I am the same way about. I see your point and respect it, but I am so thick headed that I will always believe that Ronald Reagan did it for some benefit. The benefit to the US being??? I don't know. You got me. I will concede that I am an idiotic robot on this one.

Locke

JL- I grew up in a fundamentalist christian household, and my father, a soldier, a life long republican. It wasn't until I was in central america that I discovered how very horrible his policies were. I went in 1982 to the recruiter- to avoid attending bob jones university- the American equivilent of the Taliban or Wahibist- though, truly, the Wahibist is a liberal free thinker compared to Bob Jones-ies.

You have no idea what you are even talking about when you talk about "liberals of the 60s".

I was born in 1965, in Texas. My grandfather, a WW2 vet, was a new-deal democrat liberal. guys like him built every thing you have today- and you know what? They were nearly ALL liberal. Eisenhower- by todays standards- YOUR standards, was a bleeding heart liberal- in fact, every president since FDR is a "liberal" by GW or Rovian standards, or even Reagan standards.

Liberals made this country a super power- conservatives were drug kicking and screaming the whole way. It is very, very hard to point to a positive benefit of ANY conservative leader in our country- something that anyone can agree is a positive thing.

the "liberalism" you decry of the 60s was an outgrowth of the civil rights era-

every time I hear some person complaining about the "good old days" of the pre-60s, makes me want to slap some sense in to them.

It was great- for white guys only- everyone else suffered. What- you want to go back to days when water fountains said "no coloreds" or something?

Why do you think so many folks think of conseravatives and racists in the same light? Because you can't seperate the "liberals" of the 60s, and the policies that flowed out of there, and the civil rights movement- they are one in the same.


Reagan myths, and this hatred of liberals (BTW- I don't have too much time for the soft headed liberal too, that think prisoners need hugs and love and such, I am a libertarian- NOT a pacifist NOR a liberal)

comes from the Atwater/Rove/Goebels school of propaganda. Reagan had nothing but a negative effect on our entire country- there is 0 things you can credit positive to him- nothing, zip , nada- and lots of negatives- like the ascension of the neo-con and the religious right- the most profoundly anti-freedom movement our country has seen since the civil war itself.

Johnny Taliban did the bad thing for all the wrong reasons, despite having all the advantages- a person like that deserves no leniency- if he was a poor kid, with no real friends, and no resources of his own- predatory behavior by groups like the skin heads LOOK for folks like this- but Johnny Taliban was no disaffected uneducated youth that is desperately looking for a family that he could call his own, someone he could trust- this idiot had everything he could ask for and more.

he is just a scumbag, and scumbags SHOULD be locked up, and possibly even killed, if thier crimes bad enough.

the only reason I am against the death penalty is because our own goverment is also so very often nefarious and dubious of moral and ethical character- or, in some cases, just so stupid, as an entity, that they simply get the wrong guy.

After reading links posted here, and careful research of my own- this idiot deserves no leniancy- he is a moral and ethical outrage, and dangerous to society, and any "conversion" or changing of his mind that he states to the public SHOULD be suspect, just like ANY jail house conversion should be suspect.

Just as ANY politican should be suspect.

I don't believe I am off topic in my comments on Reagan- because, at the heart of this debate- is the concept of "equal justice for all"- if Hicks got a lenient sentence- why shouldn't our US taliban bloke? equal justice for equal deeds, correct? And therein lies the debate- are we being more harsh on one traitor than the other- and does this fly in the face of the concept of our own pledge "liberty and justice FOR ALL'- not just one set of scumbags, but for ALL scumbags.

Seems like conservatives have lost that concept completely from 1980 until present.

CruisingRam,

I understand your points, I just have to subscribe to a different philosphy. I refuse to believe that pre1969 everyone except white males from the northeast led a terrible life.



That's just not so. Perhaps in their time they were liberals. Teddy Roosevelt was the same. Jack Kennedy was the same. But if they were alive to day, it is my opinion that they would cry tears for what has become of the "progressive" movement. What were once righteous programs to benefit the people are now voting block carrots, strung out before a decrepit public.

You say I don't know about 1960s liberals, but I grew up with people whose parents were those 60s liberals. I live 2 hours away from Chico, 1.5 hours away from San Fransisco, 1.5 hours away from Santa Cruz, and 2 hours away from Redding. I am surrounded by radical liberals in every direction. And to make it worse, I kinda enjoy their culture. I spend many weekends in San Fransisco, I take day trip to the commune markets up past Redding to buy inscents from hardline communal hippies who have forsaken the government and the US as a whole. I'm not gonna lie I enjoy talking to these people of the hard left because they're real people. But like the politicians of San Fransisco, politicians are generally corrupt, trying to mobilize a base with hand outs that don't help them, and then liying to the rest of the public to gather a majority. The difference between the men who built the country and the liberals of today is that conservatives are trying to maintain what was built by them, and liberals are taking it apart one peice at a time and handing it to people who don't work. Obviously that is a wide generalization but this is not the place to get into the minutia of all that. As it is we're way off topic. Sorry about this everyone.

CR, I still repect your opinion and I don't doubt that your a good person. I just don't trust liberal poiticians. That being said I don't trust republican politicians either. Only a real conservative can be trusted in my opinion. BTW I don't know if you've noticed but I'm not a blind Bush supporter. You may think I used to be when I used to be on the boards more regularly, but I'm not. I gave Bush a chance, probably too many and I got screwed, just like the rest of the nation. You and I probably have different reasons for why we don't really like him, but you should know that Ronald Reagan is the only politician I have ever supported blindly.

Cruising Ram:

As an initial matter, I haven't mentioned Mr. North much less "lionized" him. I don't "lionize" Ronnie Send The Rockets To Russia either. But the criminal law knows this thing called the defense of lesser evil. So we were no angels, and neither were they. The position is simply that, yeah, some of it was evil, but on the whole, it was the lesser evil. You might otherwise have to make your case with Lech Walesa as well:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110005204

And, so yeah, we are the "moralists", and so is Dubya. And no surprise that hostile to our religion you probably won't also admit the role that John Paul II played as well. From the Vatican at that time:

"The Vatican recognizes that the U.S. is a great power with global responsibilities. The United States must operate on the political plane and the Holy See does not comment on the political positions taken by governments. It is for each government to decide its political policies. The Holy See for its part operates on the moral plane. The two planes (politics and morality) can be complementary when they have the same objective. In this case they are complementary because both the Holy See and the United States have the same objective: the restoration of liberty to Poland."

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rieb...00504040753.asp

Even one Slate piece gives Ronnie some credit:

http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/

As the Slate piece makes plain, even Gorby saw it:

"This analysis may have calmed Gorbachev a bit, but not entirely. At a Politburo meeting in March 1986, Gorbachev said, "Maybe we should just stop being afraid of the SDI! Of course, we cannot be indifferent to this dangerous program. But [the Americans] are betting precisely on the fact that the USSR is afraid of the SDI. … That is why they are putting pressure on us—to exhaust us.""

Oh, and re faith and politics working to together:

"The geopolitical dynamic would of course soon change, during Reagan's second term, with the 1985 ascent of Gorbachev. Historians will debate the extent to which Soviet changes were sparked by the insistence, of both Reagan and John Paul, on the fundamental importance of the dignity of the human person. But when the Soviets faced these two leaders of shared purpose and conviction, they faced their worst-case scenario: a moral-political meta-power. As Cardinal Silvestrini had said, “The two planes (politics and morality) can be complementary when they have the same objective.” That there was no formal Vatican alliance with the West only gave the pope’s moral stance all the more weight. Perhaps, ultimately, that was part of the essential genius of his policy."

Lastly, so you know that some of us see the angles here, well, here's the link and then the short form version of the point:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2HUNDR.HTM

[i]"Then there are the other social forces and ideological movements which oppose Marxism by setting up systems of "national security," aimed at controlling the whole of society in a systematic way, in order to make Marxist infiltration impossible. By emphasizing and increasing the power of the State, they wish to protect their people from Communism, but in doing so they run the grave risk of destroying the freedom and values of the person, the very things for whose sake it is necessary to oppose Communism."[/i]

Sorry, one more, I can't resist, and so you may be more "Roman Catholic" than you think:

"48. These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of state intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called "Welfare State." This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State." Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.[100]

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care."

Sorry, even one more, for those who wonder about our "obsession" with "family values":

"In order to overcome today's widespread individualistic mentality, what is required is a concrete commitment to solidarity and charity, beginning in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and the care which the different generations give to one another. In this sense the family too can be called a community of work and solidarity. can happen, however, that when a family does decide to live up fully to its vocation, it finds itself without the necessary support from the State and without sufficient resources. It is urgent therefore to promote not only family policies, but also those social policies which have the family as their principal object, policies which assist the family by providing adequate resources and efficient means of support, both for bringing up children and for looking after the elderly, so as to avoid distancing the latter from the family unit and in order to strengthen relations between generations."

I must disagree with your entire premise. A citizen of the United States does have obligations to the government. Just being born here requires that you are loyal to the country.

trea·son audio (trzn) KEY

NOUN:

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

By any definition that you want to give - John Walker Lindh committed treason. And yes he not only received justice, but mercy as well. He should have been hanged for his actions. As for evidence, well let's see he was armed in the service of a group that was fighting Americans. That's a lot of evidence to me, in fact it is proof positive that he was guilty.

As for his age, we have people fighting and dying to protect us that are only 17 or 18 years old. He was more than old enough to commit an adult crime, he can serve an adult sentence as a result.

I quite agree Loreng- and, furthermore- he was offered many opportunities to correct his error- that is the clincher for me- the guy could have asked to get out several times. He didn't do that- had he, at the first American he saw, where his own safety was not at risk, could have said "I made a horrible mistake, get me out of here"

IIRC- that happened to several Iraqi-Ameircans in Gulf 1- Some folks, visiting thier familes, were conscripted into the Iraqi Army- no choices here- and, upon seeing an American soldier, while waving a white flag said something to the effect of "what took you so long, I have been waiting all week to surrender"

That is the kind of involuntary conscription that the law can make allowances for- justice would not be served by charging those Americans with treason- though they technically met your definition- agreed?

But Johny (middle name moron or spoiled brat?) Taliban made a decision, every step of the way, to stay with some very, very evil poeple.

Justice would be hanging, mercy would be a 20 year mandatory minimum.

My position has changed alot the more I look into this dude- he is a classic narcisitic personality disorder IMHO- only remorseful when caught- extremely dangerous because he has no empathy for others- only himself, and they are reallly permanently dangerous to society, even when NOT serving in a foriegn military.

Though I agree, for instance, with SOME of what Jane Fonda was saying during Vietnam (as far as a historical perspective- I was not very political at 5 )- I consider HER to be a traitor, for her behavior in that AckAck bunker- that is crossing the line into treason as well, and she should have been hung by the neck until dead.

In John Kerry's case- I respect him, he fought the enemy, and then fought for change- that is the legal, and honorable way to go about stopping an unjust war ( I don't believe Afghanistan to be an unjust war OR a waste of resources, to clarify)

I think Patty Hearst deserved no jail time, THAT was brainwashing, the real deal, there- I have seen it before in abused adults-

but I believe clearly that Johnny Taliban is just a very spoiled, arrogant rich kid that deserves the noose and only got 20 years instead.

And the prosperity and domestic peace affording us such freedom of travel and communication was paid for by the blood, sweat, and tears spilt by us and our families, friends, forefathers, and ancestors. Great societies consume resources. We need to transition to cleaner domestic energy sources, but for now, I'm not the least bit embarassed to be living in a prosperous land of opportunity. If I were, I'd shame the memory of those who paved my way here.

Yes, the same terrorists who see nothing evil about strapping a bomb to themselves and massacring as many innocent infants and peaceful citizens as possible. Quite frequently, those who are willing to call evil "good" usually also call good "evil". If the terrorists hate freedom and prosperity, then freedom and prosperity are probably very good things.

While I would agree that American politicians have been unwise to enter many military campaigns justified by a lax definition of "national security interests", I can at least distinguish between those who have a legitimate difference of opinion with me and those who seriously deserve to be shot; apparently such a nuanced distinction is lost on my fellow Libertarian.

Citing KT's sources, Johnny Taliban is an enemy of everything Americans hold dear, an accessory to mass murder if not a mass murderer himself, a traitor to the human race, and, like many genocidal maniacs, the son of a loving father. Others in this topic have claimed Eisenhower was liberal. Then, let's follow General Eisenhower's liberal policies and show Johnny Turncoat the same courtesy he showed American troops-- a firing squad. Now, I really just made that last statement for effect-- Justice demands the death penalty, while Mercy commutes a death sentence to life without parole. So, I'd rather show Johnny Benedict Arnold a little mercy by keeping him locked in solitary confinement the rest of his miserable life, for his own good.

Is every citizen who picks up a rifle for the "enemy" guilty of Treason? When the Founding Forefathers, British citizens themselves declared Independence and took up arms against Great Britain, are they too guilty of treason and deserve to be shot? I certainly hope not. The current Government that America has is not a government that I'm going to defend under any circumstance.

Suppose a German citizen living under Nazi Germany decided to defect to the Allies and fight against his own country, would he deserve to be shot as wel