Blame Lindh's permissive parents By Jeff Jacoby, 12/13/2001 Boston
> Globe
>
> IT ISN'T THE CASE that the parents of John Walker Lindh - the Marin
> County child of privilege turned Taliban terrorist - never drew the
> line with their son.
>
> True, they didn't do so when he was 14 and his consuming passion was
> collecting hip-hop CDs with especially nasty lyrics.
>
> And true, they didn't interfere when when he announced at 16 that he
> was going to drop out of Tamiscal High School - the elite
> ''alternative'' school where students determined their own course of
> study and only saw a teacher once a week.
>
> And granted, they didn't put their foot down when he decided to
> become a Muslim after reading ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X'' and
> took to wearing long white robes and an oversized skullcap. On the
> contrary: His father was ''proud of John for pursuing an alternative
> course'' and his mother told friends that it was ''good for a child
> to find a passion.'' Nor did they object when he began spending more
> and more time at a local mosque and set about trying to memorize the
> Koran.
>
> Nor when he asked his parents to pay his way to Yemen so he could
> learn to speak ''pure'' Arabic.
>
> Nor when he headed to Pakistan to join a madrassa in a region known
> to be a stronghold of Islamist extremists.
>
> And his parents didn't balk when he went to fight in Afghanistan -
> but that, at least, they didn't know about: He hadn't told them.
> Perhaps he had learned to take their consent for granted.
>
> Only once, it seems, did Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker actually
> deny their son something he wanted. When he first adopted Islam and
> took the name Sule yman, they refused to use it and insisted on
> calling him John. After all, he had been named for one of the giants
> of our time: John Lennon.
>
> Their refusal must have amazed him. For as long as he could
> remember, his oh-so-progressive parents had answered ''yes'' to his
> every whim, indulged his every fancy, permitted - even praised - his
> every passion. The only thing they insisted on was that nothing be
> insisted on. Nothing in his life was important enough for them to
> make an issue of: not his schooling, not his religion, not his
> appearance, not even whether he stayed in America or moved - while
> still a minor - to a benighted Third World oligarchy halfway around
> the world. Nothing. Except, of course, their right to call him by
> the name of their favorite Beatle.
>

Devout practitioners of the self-obsessed nonjudgmentalism for which
> the Bay Area is renowned, Lindh and Walker appear never to have
> rebuked their son or criticized his choices. In their world, there
> were no absolutes, no fixed truths, no mandatory behavior, no
> thou-shalt-nots. If they had one conviction, it was that all
> convictions are worthy - that nothing is intolerable except
> intolerance.
>
> But even in Marin County, there are times when children need to hear
> ''no'' and ''don't.'' They need to know that there are limits they
> must respect and expectations they must try to live up to. If they
> cannot find those limits at home, they are apt to look for them
> elsewhere. Newsweek calls it ''truly perplexing'' that John Lindh,
> who ''grew up in possibly the most liberal, tolerant place in
> America ... was drawn to the most illiberal, intolerant sect in
> Islam.'' There is nothing perplexing about it. He craved standards
> and discipline. Mom and Dad didn't offer any. The Taliban did.
>
> Even when it was clear that their son was sinking into Islamist
> fanaticism, they wouldn't pull back on the reins. When Osama bin
> Laden's terrorists bombed the USS Cole and killed 17 American
> servicemen, John Lindh e-mailed his father that the attack had been
> justified, since by docking the ship in Yemen, the United States had
> committed ''an act of war.'' Frank Lindh now says that the message
> ''raised my concerns'' - but that didn't stop him from wiring his
> son another $1,200. After all, says Dad, ''my days of molding him
> were over.'' It isn't clear that they ever began.
>
> It came as a jolt to his parents when John Lindh turned up at the
> fortress near Mazar-e-Sharif, sporting an AK-47 and calling himself
> Abdul Hamid.
>
> But the revelation that their son had enlisted in Al Qaeda and
> supported the Sept. 11 attacks brought no words of reproach to their
> lips.
>
> John Lindh deserved ''a little kick in the butt'' for keeping them
> in the dark about his plans, his father said, but otherwise they
> just wanted to ''give him a big hug.'' His mother, meanwhile, was
> quite sure that ''if he got involved with the Taliban he must have
> been brainwashed.... When you're young and impressionable, it's easy
> to be led by charismatic people.'' Yes, it is, and it's a pity that
> that didn't occur to her sooner. If she and Frank Lindh had been
> less concerned with flaunting their open-mindedness and more
> concerned with developing their son's moral judgment, he wouldn't be
> where he is today. His road to treason and jihad didn't begin in
> Afghanistan. It began in Marin County, with parents who never said
> ''no.''
>
> Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected].
>
> This story ran on page A19 of the Boston Globe on 12/13/2001.
>
> © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
>

I think that Jeff hit the nail on the head witht that piece.

My "ideal" punishment for Johnny Boy and mom and dad.

Johnny Boy gets to keep his life and only do 45 yrs hard-time no parole.

"IF" mom and dad do 30 yrs hard time no parole.

I know, I know shotem, hangem etc., but that's too quick and painless and also let's mom and dad go free.

Johnny Boy, mom, and dad must be separated from the general population lest further contamination occur.

Or we could go back to my first idea of shooting Johnny Boy and bringing him back for a fair trial.

Somebody just shoot him already!

Walker is over 18. That means he is an adult and responsible for his own actions. Blaming the parents in this case is ridiculous 20/20 hindsight.

IF I train a vicious dog to be a killer, and because of my negligence the dog gets loose and goes out and kills, whose fault is it???

The parents trained this kid to be "uncontrollable."

While we can debate their punishment, I don't think their is any real debate over whether they are responsible for how he turned out.

Honestly, I don't know if I would have that kind of self-restraint.

[devil]

blame his parents?
garandman, tsk tsk tsk!
i never thought i'd see YOU of all people blindly espousing the liberal media's agenda! [;)]

is anyone else afraid of this being used as his defense in court???

The fact that the parents were negligent in their raising of this child DOES NOT excuse little Johnny from his actions. In this sense, Imbroglio is spot on.

You are confusing the moral liability of the parents with the civil and criminal liability of the son.

The parents are morally guilty for their sons actions, but that really can't be prosecuted in a court of law.

Save the good hangin' judges for Johnny's trial.

I have a better idea! blame Johnny Jihad.

Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe,is that a joke?
Don't tell me you read commie rags.[rolleyes]GI-GO

ahh! but that is my point! of course Imbro|io is right on!

BUT, it doesn't matter whether i am confused or not ~ what matters is that the courts are able to differentiate between the two.

hey, we've all seen stranger things...OJ comes to mind!

True enuf.

The BEST solution is to give JihadJohnny a rather SHOCKING time in the electric chair, and ALSO to chuck this parenting method that says "Allow anything. Let you child express themselves."

THAT is my point.

and a wonderful point it is!
now, how do we convince the residents of the PRK and other mush-minded communities that this the prime example of the failure of their liberal ways?

Daisy cutters come to mind.

[}:D]

[}:D]
heh, heh, heh....

Isn't he the one they tried to can for taking that "public property" piece on sacrifices by the FF and re-printing it in his column? They tried to get him on plagiarism, i think.

YES!

Parents are to blame up to a point, but after a kid hit's 18, they have to live (or die) with the decisions they make.

If we raised our children to know that they will be responsible, to the n'th degree, for all decisions they make as an adult, we would have kids that know that they are accountable for their actions and that they have to live with the outcome.  And Momma nad Daddy, as well as Uncle Sam isn't going to baild them out.  This applies to John Waker as well as any 19 year old that gets a DUI, Speeding ticket or whatever.

Screw John Walker. If you take up arms against your country, you lose your citizenship.  He's no better than the rest of the Taliban dogs in Afganistan.  He made his bed, now he must lie in it.  And all the bleeding heart crap about his fragile nature and his brainwashing is just that, pure crap.

[b]"If you take up arms against your country, you lose your citizenship."[/b]

It seems like it ought to be this way, but apparently it isn't. Mr. Walker is currently being treated as an American citizen.

Maybe it has to do with [b]proving[/b] that he took up arms against his country in a court of law — and until that's proven, he's treated as a citizen?