Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/15/2002 5:53:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2002 5:55:18 AM EST by CockedandLocked]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 5:59:15 AM EST
"Under terms of his deal with prosecutors, Lindh, 21, would serve two 10-year prison sentences and would cooperate fully with U.S. authorities in the investigation of the al-Qaida and terrorism." 20 years and your out - of course that doesn't count time off for good behavior! [b][red]20 years!!!![/red][/b] For treason and taking up arms against the United States!!!
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 6:02:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 6:10:47 AM EST
I can live with this. Saves the cost of prosecution, 20 years of his life in prison, and help in getting more of them. -legrue
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 6:23:15 AM EST
The case against him was hardly a sure thing. The government likes to talk about treason, but, as in the Wen Ho case, often has a very tuff time proving it once in court. Especially when the government wants to protect its sources of information.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 6:39:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By imposter: The case against him was hardly a sure thing. The government likes to talk about treason, but, as in the Wen Ho case, often has a very tuff time proving it once in court.
View Quote
Tuff? Anyway, your post gives the reason why Lindh's case was tried in Virginia. Have you ever stopped and wondered why it wasn't held in say, California? Why was the trial in Virginia of all places? This article explains why [url]http://www.ishipress.com/whyva.htm[/url] [b]Everybody familiar with the justice system in Virginia knows the answer. In Virginia, defendants are routinely denied the most fundamental and basic rights to defense. In Virginia, if the state is sufficiently determined, anybody can be convicted of anything. You can be convicted of murdering my long deceased grandmother. Evidence deemed inadmissible by any other court in the United States is allowed in Virginia. There is no constitutional right to a fact hearing before being indicted by a grand jury. Defendants are not allowed to know what they are accused of doing until the trial is underway, by which time there is no opportunity to offer a refutation. Once convicted, defendants have no real chance to appeal. Appeal will turn solely on whether the judge committed error. The few well-known errors can be avoided by any trial judge. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant.[/b]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 6:44:22 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 7:47:04 AM EST
[b]raven[/b], that article that you posted is full of crap! The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures and the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in any Federal criminal case. Further, any appeal of the case by the criminal defendant is handled according to Federal Rules, and not any state rules in Virginia! How can the POS who write this article be so wrong? Well, first off, look at the Links he's provided! I especially love the 'John Walker, True American Hero' link, which drones on in the following manner: "Fighting for the Taliban, John Walker, like almost all Aryans, towered above his fellow Arab combatants. With his ragged hair and black beard, he almost resembled a fierce Germanic warrior (straight from the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest). "Many non-Germans in World War II decided to join the Waffen-SS as volunteers to fight the onslaught of Western decadence (capitalism and the rule of the 'cash crop') and oriental despotism (bolshevism and enforced atheism) in order to preserve the Christian heritage of Europe. "Today the West is in its ultimate stage of decline. [b]Islam is one of the few bastions left in this world that still carries the beacon of spirituality.[/b] The Taliban fighters are therefore warriors of God because God is Truth (as Mahatma Gandhi famously stated), and truth can only be found in oneself, not drowned in materialist orgies (as the Western media wants to make it out by propagating consumer excess). "Like the members of the Waffen-SS set shining examples of a spiritual force determined to make the ultimate sacrifice for the preservation of the noble heritage of the occident, the Taliban fighters are glorious defenders of the ancient ideals of an age-old religion. "About 20,000 Bosnian and Albanian muslims fought as volunteers in the Waffen-SS, at the bidding of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, el Husseini. They comprised the famous Handzar (Sword) division and fought against Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia (as a successful anti-guerilla unit). They were also responsible for maintaining public order and control in Hungary (police and security duties). Reichsfuehrer-SS Heinrich Himmler was fascinated by the Islamic faith and thought Muslims to be fearless soldiers. "John Phillip Walker, a white American from a middle-class family in California, follows in the footsteps of all the foreign volunteers that joined the Waffen-SS to fight for cultural dignity and the spirit of idealism. "It was surely a sign of Providence that John Walker was one of only 86 survivors (out of almost 3,000 Taliban fighters) of a brutal four-day battle in the Northern Afghan fortress of Kala Jangi. "Remember these eternal words of Ernst Juenger: 'Again we have to subsitute the sword for the pen, the blood for the ink, the deed for the word, the sacrifice for the sensibility - we must do all this, or others will kick us into the dirt.' Hail John Walker!" Now, is that the kind of crap you want to listen to? It sure ain't the kind of crap that most of the rest of us care to listen to! Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 7:55:53 AM EST
Youthful Idealism is a queer thing... I truly believe that Walker didn't know what he was getting into when he left for the middle east at sixteen years of age. He is an easy scapegoat. We all want someone to grab ahold of and shake the hell out of for the events of September 11th... A spoiled brat that joined the Taliban is a good example. But keep in mind. Our war was never with the "Taliban". We simply deposed of them because they wouldn't hand over Bin laden. Our war is with Al-Q. So much as I know, he was a member of the hard-line Islamic Taliban. Not Bin Ladens possee. And I don't believe the two are a synonym for each other. I believe the kid should do time. He was indeed a combatant, and should be treated as such. But I don't buy treason. If he had gone to Afghanastan in order to fight the United States, I would be the first one to call for the firing squad... But he didn't. He went because he subscribed to their beliefs, and wound up in a situation where he was on the wrong side of the fence. He fucked up BIG TIME!, and i'm sure he realizes that now... But I don't call it treason. 20 Years is fair. If they could prove he shot at Americans, that's a different ballgame. But all they could prove is he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with teh wrong people.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 8:12:47 AM EST
Will wonders never cease? I agree totally with McUzi!
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 8:18:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/15/2002 8:23:00 AM EST by SIX]
Originally Posted By legrue: I can live with this. Saves the cost of prosecution, 20 years of his life in prison, and help in getting more of them. -legrue
View Quote
Your right - I can live with this too [b]IF[/b] A) The screws make damm sure he REALLY enjoys his stay. B) When released - every media source and the municipality where he lands PUBLISHES his address until he is whacked. Never forget - this was treason. A crime that should unequivicalably be punishable by death. McUzi - now correct me if I am wrong - but he did take up arms against US forces. Given the circumstance of why US forces were in country - that constitutes treason. We whack 'em.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 8:21:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter: Will wonders never cease? I agree totally with McUzi!
View Quote
We cerebral folk gotta stick together. [:D]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 8:47:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]raven[/b], that article that you posted is full of crap! The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures and the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in any Federal criminal case. Further, any appeal of the case by the criminal defendant is handled according to Federal Rules, and not any state rules in Virginia!
View Quote
The author claims that that's not the case. I took him at his word that he knew what he was talking about. [b]"The case of John Walker will be tried in the federal courts, not in the state courts. However, there is a long established rule that the federal courts will adopt the procedures followed by the state courts in the jurisdiction where the case is tried."[/b]
How can the POS who write this article be so wrong? Now, is that the kind of crap you want to listen to? It sure ain't the kind of crap that most of the rest of us care to listen to! Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Well, ok, I am sure that all is true, you being a legal professional, but can you come up with an explanation of why Lindh's trial was held in Virginia? And yeah, the author of that article is a real eccentric, and a Muslim at one time I think. It was an argument I've never read anywhere in the press or in any opinion journals, and the idea that due process doesn't apply in VA was news to me, even if only on the state level.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 9:11:27 AM EST
I can guarentee that he will live through his incarceration. That SOB isn't gonna see another human being, with the exception of his guard, for the next 20 years! On the outside however, he is a dead man. Keving67
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 9:35:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By raven: Well, ok, I am sure that all is true, you being a legal professional, but can you come up with an explanation of why Lindh's trial was held in Virginia?
View Quote
Sure. Because they couldn't try him in Afghanistan, obviously, they could try him anywhere they wished in the United States, and they chose the Arlington, Virginia, venue because of what one article says is it's 'Rocket Docket'! In other words, because the trial may proceed quickly and without undue delays. It is, BTW, the same District in which the Zacarias Moussaoui's trial is being handled. See this article:[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p03s01-usju.html[/url] from the Christian Science Monitor. Eric The(LegalBeagle)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 10:18:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By SIX: McUzi - now correct me if I am wrong - but he did take up arms against US forces. Given the circumstance of why US forces were in country - that constitutes treason. We whack 'em.
View Quote
For future refrence, it's impolite to edit questions into your post after the desired respondant has spoken. Anyway... This is such an extrordinarily complex situation, you can't just pigeon-hole it into one platitude of reasoning... "Well, he took up arms against the US..." It's far more complex than that. Let's start with the fact that the kid was living amongst the native combatants, thus I suppose one could argue that there may have been a wee bit of diress on his part. You have to consider that he moved to Afghanastan before the hostilities. He moved there to pray. To argue treason, you would have to maintain that he had a clearly defined premeditation to undermine the United States via moving to Afghanastan. Such just isn't the case. Like I said. He was clearly an unlawful combatant, thus is going to serve his due time. But his acts weren't treasonous.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 10:41:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By raven:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]raven[/b], that article that you posted is full of crap! The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures and the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in any Federal criminal case. Further, any appeal of the case by the criminal defendant is handled according to Federal Rules, and not any state rules in Virginia!
View Quote
The author claims that that's not the case. I took him at his word that he knew what he was talking about. [b]"The case of John Walker will be tried in the federal courts, not in the state courts. However, there is a long established rule that the federal courts will adopt the procedures followed by the state courts in the jurisdiction where the case is tried."[/b]
View Quote
This "long established rule" was reversed by the Supreme Court in 1938. Federal courts now use federal rules, and have done so for over 60 years. Your source's informaion is a little dated.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 10:43:32 AM EST
Originally Posted By McUZI: "Well, he took up arms against the US..." It's far more complex than that. Let's start with the fact that the kid was living amongst the native combatants, thus I suppose one could argue that there may have been a wee bit of diress on his part.
View Quote
Has anyone said anything about Lindh being under duress? I haven't heard anything. I read "My Jihad," by Aukai Collins, Avtomat_Doctor over on the AK board. He fought the jihad in Chechnya, Kashmir and Kosovo, and had to duck and dodge to get in, but didn't have any trouble getting out of any of them when he decided it was time to do so.
You have to consider that he moved to Afghanastan before the hostilities. He moved there to pray.
View Quote
He went to Pakistan to learn the Koran and to pray at a madrassa there, but there weren't any big, well known mosques or Islamic scholars in Afghanistan. If he just wanted to pray, he should have stayed in Pakistan. What was he looking for in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?
To argue treason, you would have to maintain that he had a clearly defined premeditation to undermine the United States via moving to Afghanastan. Such just isn't the case.
View Quote
You'd need more than that. You'd need two direct witnesses to his treasonous actions, which would be damned hard to find in that environment.
Like I said. He was clearly an unlawful combatant, thus is going to serve his due time. But his acts weren't treasonous.
View Quote
Agreed, at least in the legal, Constitutionally-defined sense.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 10:47:48 AM EST
I wonder if he'll hook up with the black Muslims in prison for protection? I think his stay in prison will be measure in weeks or months, not years, and that he'll come out in a box. Even criminals have their standards.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 11:10:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22: Has anyone said anything about Lindh being under duress? I haven't heard anything.
View Quote
I don't think anyone had to say anything. Imagine you go to a new friends house who is a fellow shooter. You are at his house for the first time, amongst all his friends. You are enjoying looking over his gun collection, when all of a sudden, the ATF surrounds the house, guns drawn. Your new "friends" grab guns... You don't want any part of this.. You just came over to BS about hardware.. But you are beginning to realize that if you don't take action [i]with them[/i], you just might be in more danger than you would be with the ATF. So, the ATF raids the house, shoots up a few of the guys you were holed up with, and drags you out of the house with an AK strapped to your back... You were there to look at guns, but would up in a situation you wanted nothing to do with... Similar possibility. Walker went there to pray. That's his right. He got caught up in a situation that was volitile as hell, and found himself having to make some hard choices. As an American, and as a "Muslim"...
He went to Pakistan to learn the Koran and to pray at a madrassa there, but there weren't any big, well known mosques or Islamic scholars in Afghanistan. If he just wanted to pray, he should have stayed in Pakistan. What was he looking for in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?
View Quote
It doesn't matter. Whatever he was looking for, he was entitled to look wherever he wanted. And just because he looked in a place that later on became a global pariah, that doesn't mean he was intimatley involved in the events that occured long after he had moved-in.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 11:37:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By McUZI: He is an easy scapegoat. We all want someone to grab ahold of and shake the hell out of for the events of September 11th...
View Quote
Exactly. Uniting the American citizens around a common "enemy" is just a way of controlling the masses. This was a witch hunt from the start.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 1:02:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By McUZI: Imagine you go to a new friends house who is a fellow shooter. You are at his house for the first time, amongst all his friends. You are enjoying looking over his gun collection, when all of a sudden, the ATF surrounds the house, guns drawn. Your new "friends" grab guns... You don't want any part of this.. You just came over to BS about hardware.. But you are beginning to realize that if you don't take action [i]with them[/i], you just might be in more danger than you would be with the ATF. So, the ATF raids the house, shoots up a few of the guys you were holed up with, and drags you out of the house with an AK strapped to your back... You were there to look at guns, but would up in a situation you wanted nothing to do with...
View Quote
As favorably-illustrated as your analogy is, I am a damned sight more picky about my friends than either the protagonist in your story or John Lindh apparently are.
Walker went there to pray. That's his right. He got caught up in a situation that was volitile as hell, and found himself having to make some hard choices. As an American, and as a "Muslim"...
View Quote
He went there to pray? I still don't buy it. If you want to pray, you stay at the church school. You don't go into one of the worst neighborhoods in the world and go to their church. He gets to think about his mistake for the next twenty years.
Whatever he was looking for, he was entitled to look wherever he wanted. And just because he looked in a place that later on became a global pariah, that doesn't mean he was intimatley involved in the events that occured long after he had moved-in.
View Quote
He's responsible for being a soldier of the Taliban when US forces were fighting the Taliban. If he didn't want to be involved, he should have dropped his shit and headed for Iran or Pakistan, like the tens and hundreds of thousands of refugees that did. Instead, he stayed and fought it out. Doom on you, Johnny. His goo-gargling father compared him to Nelson Mandela on the news. Just look what ol' Nelly did for South Africa...[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 1:21:20 PM EST
Post from Mach1 -
Exactly. Uniting the American citizens around a common "enemy" is just a way of controlling the masses.
View Quote
What kind of 'commiespeak' is this: 'a way of controlling the masses'? The American people [u]didn't[/u] need to be controlled after Sept 11th, they just needed to be able to smack the crap outta the guys that pulled the Attack on America! The Bush Administration's response of totally defeating the Taliban and dispossessing the Al Qaeda of its terrorist bases in Afghanistan was the key to beginning the long road of bringing these bastages to justice. To say it any other way is pure unadulterated dreck!
This was a witch hunt from the start.
View Quote
When 'witches' are the desired target, then witch hunts are wholly proper! Are you trying to say there were no 'witches' on Sept 11th? Get a grip, [b]Mach1[/b], this is rather recent US history to have been forgotten so very quickly! Eric The(NeedRemedialHelp,GoLookAtThat'Enya'Tape!)­Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 2:25:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from Mach1 -
Exactly. Uniting the American citizens around a common "enemy" is just a way of controlling the masses.
View Quote
What kind of 'commiespeak' is this: 'a way of controlling the masses'? The American people [u]didn't[/u] need to be controlled after Sept 11th, they just needed to be able to smack the crap outta the guys that pulled the Attack on America! The Bush Administration's response of totally defeating the Taliban and dispossessing the Al Qaeda of its terrorist bases in Afghanistan was the key to beginning the long road of bringing these bastages to justice. To say it any other way is pure unadulterated dreck!
This was a witch hunt from the start.
View Quote
When 'witches' are the desired target, then witch hunts are wholly proper! Are you trying to say there were no 'witches' on Sept 11th? Get a grip, [b]Mach1[/b], this is rather recent US history to have been forgotten so very quickly! Eric The(NeedRemedialHelp,GoLookAtThat'Enya'Tape!)­Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, my previous post was directed in reference to John Lindh, not terrorism in general. Yes, we certainly have enemies, but lets get the right ones, not make sweeping judgements against individuals without proof. If you think Lindh had anything to do with 911, then you need to remove your lips from the Crack pipe. Yes, he made some serious judgement errors, but a terrorist?... Doubtful. He isn't even a spoke on the wheel.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 3:10:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By Mach1: Exactly. Uniting the American citizens around a common "enemy" is just a way of controlling the masses. This was a witch hunt from the start.
View Quote
Horseshit. If it was a witch hunt they never would have let me plea bargain. I get so sick and tired of all the hand wavers bleeting about "controlling the masses." If you people had been around during WW2, Europeans would be greeting each other with "Heil Hitler" today.
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 4:14:47 PM EST
Post from Mach1 -
If you think Lindh had anything to do with 911, then you need to remove your lips from the Crack pipe. Yes, he made some serious judgement errors, but a terrorist?...
View Quote
Boy, are you confused![:D] Who the hell said that 'Jihad Johnny' Walker Lindh had anything to do with September 11th? And why wouldn't your thesis include terrorism in general? Huh? No one here said anything of the sort, and certainly not I, and yet you insult me with the crack pipe reference! Nothing in your post indicated that your statement was solely directed at Jihad Johnny. Tell, me, is American anger at Osama Bin Laden simply a way to control the masses, and, if so, is there no rational basis for Americans to be mad at Osama, irrespective of the desires of their government? How is it that the American public is much angrier at Osama than it is at Jihad Johnny? I thought we were being controlled? [:D] Eric The(C'monBoy,SitUpStraightAndAnswerTheQuestio­n!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/15/2002 5:32:05 PM EST
I think some of the state/federal confusion comes from two facts. First, a federal court takes much of its procedural and time limit law from the state it is in (stuff outside the FRCivP and the jurisdiction statutes) for CIVIL lawsuits for damages, and much of it's actual criminal law for crimes on federal land (as opposed to the more commonly known federal crimes) from the home state, but the procedure and caselaw rules for conviction are controlled by federal caselaw, not the states. For an example, if you walk on an army base and shoot an MP because he is an MP, you will be tried for the federal death penalty crime of killing a federal enforcement agent under federal law and federal procedure and caselaw rules. If you walked on the same base and just raped any old person for fun, you would still be tried in federal court under federal case management rules and procedures, but you would be charged with rape as defined under the state's laws that the base is in, and the court would use the same caselaw rules for defining the crime as used by the state's courts. Since Walker commited a federal criminal offense his trial would have been strictly federal rule and caselaw driven.
Top Top