January 20, 2006
John Walker Lindh should be happy with his 20 years
The father of John Walker Lindh, the American caught fighting with the Taliban against the U.S, is appealing for a reduction of his son's sentence. He calls the younger Lindh's 'maltreatment and imprisonment' a 'human rights violation' and says 'it was based purely on an emotional response to the 9/11 attacks, not on an objective assessment of the facts of John's case.'
So, objectively speaking, let's review: John Walker Lindh was captured in Afghanistan during a battle with American soldiers. He was carrying 'an assault rifle and two hand grenades' given to him 'by the Taliban commanders'. He admits to having met the grand puba himself, Osama bin Laden, on two occasions.
His father says 'this is the story of a decent and honorable young man who became involved in a spiritual quest.' Of course, most spiritual quests don't usually end with the seeker taking up arms against his own countrymen, but that's neither here nor there to Dad Lindh. John Walker Lindh committed the most obvious form of treason. There was nothing hidden about his involvement, he wasn't passing along secrets to the enemy or giving other aid or comfort. He was holding a gun and pointing it at American troops. If that's not treason, then there is no such thing. Twenty years seems a rather short time to serve for turning against your country in so dramatic a fashion. While it may be true that he was a confused kid, at 20 he was still wholly responsible for his actions. Or, to put it another way, if you're old enough to be trapaising around hostile Afghanistan, on your own, you're old enough to understand that you're choosing a side in a war, and John Walker Lindh made the wrong choice.
Update: Dawn Summers has a funny take.
Posted by Karol at January 20, 2006 08:33 AM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: John+Walker+Lindh American+Taliban
Agreed. Lindh should be fried. It is too bad that treason is being treated mildly these days. Pollard, Lindh, all traitors should be executed in compliance with the Constiution.
Posted by: Von Bek at January 20, 2006 09:51 AM"He was holding a gun and pointing it at American troops. If that's not treason, then there is no such thing."
Uh, no.
That's not treason. That's just stupid. Being stupid and being treasonous are different things.
The rest of your post makes sense tho.
Posted by: Dave at January 20, 2006 11:54 AMHow is fighting against the military of your country not treason?!
Posted by: Karol at January 20, 2006 12:00 PMA defining belief of the left is that people are not responsible for their actions. It is society's interaction with them that causes individuals to commit criminal acts.
The father's beliefs are the reason Lindh will spend years in jail. He trained his son well not to take responsibility for his actions.
Posted by: Jake at January 20, 2006 12:48 PMword.
Posted by: Scott Sala at January 20, 2006 12:53 PMI read these articles last night and became livid.
This amoral father who thought it great to send his son into the hotbed of terrorism (remember, folks, in early 2001 we were already at war with al Qaeda, after the embassy bombings and the USS Cole), has the unmitigated balls to re-open the wounds of the Spann family. The family of a real American, whose son died because this little Lindh douc...
I can't go on. I hope some "lifer" in prison takes Lindh out. That's justice.
Posted by: Sean at January 20, 2006 12:55 PMHis father says 'this is the story of a decent and honorable young man who became involved in a spiritual quest.'
When he was teen and still living at home, he hooked up with a radical form of Islam that treated women and those of a different faith like shit. How is that honorable or decent? He had to see how women were treated by the Taliban and the destruction of any sign of religion other then islam, yet he stuck around. Not decent and not honorable.
I'm not sure what his father is trying to do here. The kid has only been in custody for 4 years. Is he sending up a trial balloon? The only way the son can get out is by a pardon. Bush sure isn't going to grant it. And even if a subsequent president does (we know how much the donks love traitors) he hasn't even come close to serving enough time. I would assume he isn't even going to do the full 20 years.
Posted by: ll at January 20, 2006 04:30 PMNDS -
Not treason? What, exactly, do you base that judgment on? How you feel?
Under the U.S. Code, the crime of treason is set forth as follows (18 U.S.C. s2381):
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Under that definition, Lindh could have been, and should have been, charged with treason. I would think that is clear as day.
Do you have any facts to back up your view? Or is some kind of religious/spiritual thing with you?
Posted by: NewSisyphus at January 20, 2006 07:53 PMAs much as this hurts me to say, a prosecution for treason against Lindh wd not be as cut and dried as people think it is. Don't ask me to explain bc it's been 5 years. I don't remember the law and facts in sufficient detail and I'm not that interested in looking it up. Go ask Eugene Volokh -- he'll know.
Posted by: ll at January 21, 2006 01:41 PMNewSisyphus,
Stop sweating me so much that you're responding to comments I haven't even made.
Hugs,
NDS
Posted by: Not Dawn Summers at January 21, 2006 10:41 PMStop sweating me so much that you're responding to comments I haven't even made.
But you were thinking them, right? Admit it. ;)
Posted by: ll at January 22, 2006 05:48 PM
