Why was this pos not shot as a traitor ?

Seriously, why not ? The plea agreement had to have been ordered by higher ups so I'm not mad at the US attorney. If we shot him that would really send the message that we mean business. Obviously we are sending the message in afsinkinstan, but why not shoot this loser too ? He is 18 right ? He was helping the enemey. He should die.

This fvckstick should be swinging from a lightpole by now!

my take is, they gave him the plea bargain to gain more information. they had 10 indictments over him with a max of 10 yrs each. not even Mohammed's minions live that long.  so, a 20 year sentence is much better for the little fucker, plus singing like a bird for the Feds.  dont worry guys, most of the criminals in the Federal Penitentiary may be who they are, but they didnt sell out their country. im sure they got plans for lil Johnny as we speak.

edited to add:
i was wondering why they didnt shoot the cocksucker either.  

The govt. was afraid his confessions while under military custody were going to be thrown out by a liberal judge and if that happened they wouldn't of had a case, so they made a deal. Personally I think he should be shot for treason during wartime, but I'm glad he was at least punished. I only wonder what it will be like for him when he's released when he's 41. It is still a relatively young age. What appalled me today was the media coverage. All 3 major news casts opened with stories on the stock market. They spent the first 10 minutes bashing bush before they turned to the Lindh case. They spent 3 minutes on him and then did another 4 minute in-depth report on the market, all in an effort to blame Bush.

it wouldn't take a liberal judge to get him off...lets see.  an american citizen is captured, and interrogated by us government.  he isn't given access to legal council.  well i'd think that the us government got a gift.  any self respecting constitutionalist judge would have made his confession in admissible in court.

now before i hear all the argument about what was done in WWII let us not forget that we are not at war.  ole GW might like to say that we are at war, but that is not in his power to declare.  war is a political condition.  congress is that body that is designated with the power to declare war.  the president can do a lot with the military but he can not declare war.  until we declare war, the lindh is just another American citizen that is afforded all the rights that any of us are.

so so before yall go goose stepping in line with popular sentiment, please think critically and consider the legal president that is being set here.  unfortunately the courts follow legal president and constituently come into play less and less anymore (ie all the anti-gun laws that most of us know are illegal).

You lose your citizenship when you take up arms with another country/group and fight against US servicemen. Technically he should have no rights.

You don't even have to fight. You just have to join the military of another nation.

They should have choppered a State Department fag into that prison over there to revoke his US citizenship just like it says in your passport, then handed him over to the Northern Alliance. He'd have ended up in that cool mass grave with all those Chechens and Egyptians.

so let me get this straight.  if an american goes off and joins the french foreign legion...he looses his american citizenship?

He very well can, if the State Department gets off its fat, pinky-raised, tea-sipping, Harvard-educated ass and does something about it.

Post from sloth -

That is all bullshit! Want to know why? Just ask me!

Strange, isn't it, that the US Congress hasn't declared war since December, 1941!

So, I take it that you consider all 'wars' fought since then to have been illegal and unconstitutional?

Does that mean that our soldiers need to give their medals back? Forfeit their pay? Give up their benefits? What?

The legal precedent has already been set! So tell us what we should do?

Eric The(Anxious)Hun[>]:)]

hopefully he will be put in the general population of a prison and he'll be raped viciously and bleed to death.

The only plea bargain I'd have offered that shitbag would be to plea down to being shot with a .308 caliber weapon, as opposed to .50BMG. F*ck that little POS.

Think i'd rather see him shot to death with .22CB's from 50 yards, with a LR thrown in every 20 rounds or so

Hey, look for a bright side on this:

Maybe some prison lifer, will plant a shiv, between his shoulderblades. Even regular prisoners need something to occupy their time!

[b]THIS COMMENT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG![/b]
[}:D] It would be too quick...  
I was kinda hoping he gets anally raped and beaten for several years BEFORE he gets brutally killed.

Islam ---->  The "Peaceful Religion"

OH yes , RAT BOY !!! He'll get his as soon as he's released in the prison yard. I would like to believe that people who are incarcerated are still AMERICANS (ok, some of them are). That creep won't last long. And he probably thinks it was bad in Afghanistan. Wait 'till he gets to Assramistan !

i'm glad that everyone understood that i wasn't defending lindh, but rather concerned with how he was legally treated.  (i was afraid i was going to be flamed beyond belief).

if it is true (and i'll admit my ignorance) that once an individual joins a foreign military unit he looses his citizenship, i think that the government acted appropriately.  

my concern in the whole matter is how this sweeping president will eventually effect domestic law enforcement.  what is mcveigh did what he did today?  would he be treated as an "enemy of the state"?  would he have been treated any differently that he was at the time  (i do not agree with what he did, but want to address how he would be treated post 9/11 as opposed to pre 9/11).  i can't help but think he's now be whisked away to some military lock up and interrogated without access to legal representation or any of the other rights afforded to an american citizen.  

there are legal presidents being set that really concern me for our future rights collectively as gun owners.  especially as how GW has stated this is going to be a very long war.  lets face it, there will always be terrorist gunning for us.  does that mean as long as a threat still exist, we will continue to be at war?  

hun, why was my first comment b.s.?  i'd like to hear a reply to see where i am lacking in my understanding of these circumstances.  as for the recent military actions, i don't know what to say.  they were necessary but could be considered to be illegal.  i don't want the medals taken back or anything silly like that, but am concerned with the road that we are heading down concerning our civil liberties.  

consider jane fonda...we all despise and are disgusted for what she did during vietnam, yet she wasn't tried as an enemy of the state.  now i understand that these two examples (fonda and lindh) probably aren't exactly identical, but yet have some strong similarities.  

in a few days, there will be information coming out about johnny taliban that i doubt his family wants out.  likely make the rest of us puke.  mcole

I think that most of us believe that Hanoi Jane should have been tried on treason charges as well!  Just because she wasn't doesn't mean that Johnny Taliban should escape prosecution.