Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/18/2002 8:08:27 AM EDT
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/national/16LIND.html[/url]
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:11:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:13:24 AM EDT
Can someone post the article? I dont want to go through registering on their site.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:20:56 AM EDT
login with name:anonymous pass:anonymous this works on a lot of popular registration sites.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:26:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: Can someone post the article? I dont want to go through registering on their site.
View Quote
Lindh Cites U.S. Argument in Bid for Dropping Charge By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE ASHINGTON, May 15 — Lawyers for John Walker Lindh, the Californian accused of fighting with the Taliban, sought today to dismiss a firearms charge against him based in part on the Justice Department's new interpretation of the Second Amendment. In papers filed in federal court, the lawyers said that charging Mr. Lindh with firearms violations would violate his Second Amendment right "as an individual" to use and possess a firearm. They are seeking the dismissal of a charge that Mr. Lindh used firearms and "destructive devices" in crimes of violence. In a recent filing with the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the Second Amendment conferred a broad right to bear arms. The firearms charge is one of 10 counts against Mr. Lindh, who has pleaded not guilty to all of them. Three counts carry a life sentence, and the others carry terms that could add up to 90 years in prison. The indictment says that several of the acts he was accused of are crimes of violence, which increases the number of years he can be sentenced to prison by 30 years each. But his lawyers argued today that they were not crimes of violence. In a second set of papers, the defense argued that the government's charges against Mr. Lindh were overly broad and based on nothing more than guilt by association. The indictment alleges that Mr. Lindh received military training in a military camp run by Al Qaeda, but it does not claim that he provided anything to Al Qaeda or the Taliban other than himself, which, his lawyers argue, is not illegal.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:27:48 AM EDT
"There is nothing illegal about providing military training, and fighting in a foreign military conflict is not per se illegal," George C. Harris, one of Mr. Lindh's lawyers, wrote. "Central to First Amendment freedoms is the right to associate with unpopular and disfavored groups," Mr. Harris wrote. Today's filings in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, combined with filings on Monday and more expected Thursday, contain the defense's most detailed arguments to date in trying to get the case dismissed. The trial is set to begin Aug. 26. The Second Amendment argument was in a footnote in today's dense legal motions. Experts said that this case appeared to be among the first to rely on the Justice Department's newly stated view that an individual has a right to bear arms. In a case in February, the Justice Department said it believed the Second Amendment, which refers to "a well regulated militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," covers an individual's right to keep firearms, whether or not that person is in a militia. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the case. Mr. Lindh's lawyers quoted from the government's brief today, saying the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms." Mr. Lindh's lawyers said he was protected from any firearms charges for two reasons. One is the individual right to possess firearms. The second is the principle of "combat immunity," which they argued in papers filed on Monday. Under that principle, the defense argued that Mr. Lindh's participation in a foreign army as a foot soldier was not illegal because all soldiers in combat are immune from prosecution. They said today that "combat immunity" also protected him from firearms charges.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:31:22 AM EDT
My question as a juror would be "How can he be charged with these crimes when they were allegedly committed outside the courts jurisdiction"??
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 1:01:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 2:09:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: My question as a juror would be "How can he be charged with these crimes when they were allegedly committed outside the courts jurisdiction"??
View Quote
He should be cleared of all charges...And set free to walk about the streets of NY. I know I'll be waiting for him.[devil]
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 5:18:44 PM EDT
THe SOB should be shot for treason. Plain and simple. The firearm charges should be thrown out at the first hearing. What right does our Govt. have to tell someone who is in a foriegn country what to do. I can't see how we have jurisdiction beyond our sovern borders.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 5:33:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:10:14 PM EDT
Shot for treason? Too late now, he's out of the war zone. He should be handcuffed to Hillary for 7/24 for the rest of her Senate term. That'll turn him into a conservative!!!
Top Top