Posted on 02/15/2002 1:45:12 PM PST by AlKipple
Maybe some of my fellow readers can help me through my confusion.
I read in the Washington Post:
ALEXANDRIA, Va. –– John Walker Lindh will likely go on trial in late August on charges that he conspired to kill Americans and aided terrorists while a foot soldier for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
My confusion comes from a number of things.
1. There is no crime defined for serving any foreign power, in civil service or the military. It is not abnormal for Americans to serve in the military of a foreign power, and in fact many are required to do so by the dual nationality and draft laws of many nations. There is a long history of Americans serving foreign powers running from the flying tigers, the Philippines Tigers, the Americans that joined the Canadian military before the US entered WWII to those serving in the service of other nations now.
2. There is a huge difference between the Taliban and al-Qaida,. The Taliban was the legal government of a foreign nation, with normal diplomatic relations with the US. That situation was in place at the time that Lindh joined the Taliban, and remained in place until only a few days before his arrest. Any concept that he had a responsibility to leave on the involvement of the Americans is tempered by the fact that on the first day of their involvement all methods of exit were cut off.
3. Although the charge says that he conspired to kill Americans, there is no claim that he did in fact make any attack or have any authority to make any decisions. In fact the US government has been very outspoken that he was a bottom of the rung soldier, having no rank or authority.
4. He is also charged with aid to a terrorist, under a law that was passed after his arrest. It is also a stretch to apply that law since our government has made it clear that he was not part of al-Qaida, but part of the Taliban, the officially recognized government. The Taliban, as a government was charged was harboring a terrorist, but it would be quite a stretch to apply that to one employee following orders.
5. He is also charged with using a firearm to commit a felony, which is a joke. How do you serve as a part of any military, without a fire arm.
6. The US state department makes it every so clear, on their web site, and on material distributed to US citizens, that when in any foreign nation, you are subject to the laws of that nation, not to US law. Exactly what crime was committed in the US. I can not even find a crime committed against the US.
7. The funny part is that under US law, the failure of a member of the Military to follow a legal order is defined as a crime. Please note that citizens of other nations serve in our military, and we place our military under the command of foriegn officers, but the rules still apply.
I suggest he be released now and returned to Afghanistan in the same condition he was found.
Then he can make his way to the country he really loves.
The U.S. never recognised the Taliban. In fact only ONE country on earth had any diplomatic relations with the Taliban and that was Pakistan.
Any questions? ;)
Non-Afghan fighters were never considered "military". John Walker is a non-Afghan combatant. This, BTW, is central to why were are not classifying the Gitmo detainees as P.O.W.s. Same thing.
I believe it is because he joined and trained in a TERRORIST group ... known as Al Queda. The Al Queda, for the most part, were illegal combatants who as a group conspired to kill Americans. Certainly little Johnny Walker found himself in Afghanistan, a non-citizen of Afghanistan, with a group of Arabs and Pakistanis, carrying an AK-47 in a cellar in which an American agent was killed.
This is very different in the law from serving in the [organized, uniformed] military of a duly constituted de-facto state or government regardless of whether or not it had diplomatic relations with the USA.
In this, he is like the Gitmo prisoners...there is no obligation to treat them under Geneva convention-- and no obligation not to just hang them at the yard arm of any legally constituted vessel by her lawful captain.
Because to me it has always looked like we rescued widdle Johnny from that awfull, freezing and flooded Afghan prison where he'd otherwise be rotting to this day and to the end of his days, whichever came first. We rescued him with a knowing wink, saying in effect, we're gonna have to charge you boy, but worry not, 10 years to life means just two and a half years in the slammer in this country (as the rest of us learned in the aftermath of the Soliah case, when her attorney bragged he'd have her out in 2 1/2.)
Nope sorry to say that is wrong. We were already well into the bombing of Taliban forces when poor Johnny was arested. Also he knew that he was fighting against Americans. Is that a crime? Well yes him being an American citizen I would say it is.
I got a grandkid in law school, and she says:
This issue was debated with enthusiasm and passion resulting in nearly unanimous decisions that:
1. Technically, strictly, the prosecutors don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on, but
2. Sooo many legal decisions have gone down, unconstitutional legal decisions, that this is minor noise, and
3. Considering the emotional passions, especially amongst politicians lusting for approval,
Lindh is toast. Likely he'll get a Noriega-like permanent home courtesy of the taxpayers. Better room and board than Lindh got in Afghanistan. And not a butt-buddy state prison, but a nice comfy federal prison.
That last is my comment, she doesn't talk like that.
kj
1. There is no crime defined for serving any foreign power, in civil service or the military. It is not abnormal for Americans to serve in the military of a foreign power, and in fact many are required to do so by the dual nationality and draft laws of many nations. There is a long history of Americans serving foreign powers running from the flying tigers, the Philippines Tigers, the Americans that joined the Canadian military before the US entered WWII to those serving in the service of other nations now.
It was made illegal to do about three years ago. Its definitely illegal to do so when the other nationality is having hostilities with the US.
2. There is a huge difference between the Taliban and al-Qaida,. The Taliban was the legal government of a foreign nation, with normal diplomatic relations with the US.
Wrong, the Taliban had diplomatic relations with only two countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. None of the other arab or muslim countries recognized them as the legitimate government of anything. We certainly didnt recognize them.
Any concept that he had a responsibility to leave on the involvement of the Americans is tempered by the fact that on the first day of their involvement all methods of exit were cut off.
We didnt drop bombs on unarmed civilians attempting to lead Afghanistan. In fact millions went to both Iran and Pakistan.
3. Although the charge says that he conspired to kill Americans, there is no claim that he did in fact make any attack or have any authority to make any decisions.
What part of conspiracy dont you understand? To be guilty of conspiracy, one doesnt have to actually commit the act.
4. He is also charged with aid to a terrorist, under a law that was passed after his arrest. It is also a stretch to apply that law since our government has made it clear that he was not part of al-Qaida, but part of the Taliban, the officially recognized government.
I believe that law was passed BEFORE he was captured. Remember he wasnt captured until late December or so. Again, the Taliban wasnt the officially recognized government of anything. He trained in an al Qaida terrorist camp. He was trained in terrorist type activites (bomb making, etc). He was given the choice between becoming a suicide bomber and fighting with the Taliban and the only intelligent decision he made was not to become a suicide bomber. Perhaps he was chicken or didnt buy into the 72 virgin stuff.
5. He is also charged with using a firearm to commit a felony, which is a joke. How do you serve as a part of any military, without a fire arm.
Joke or not its another felony. Remember these are criminal activiites and he wasnt in the military.
6. The US state department makes it every so clear, on their web site, and on material distributed to US citizens, that when in any foreign nation, you are subject to the laws of that nation, not to US law. Exactly what crime was committed in the US. I can not even find a crime committed against the US.
No, no, no. They are not saying you are FREE from US law if you commit crimes against America while in another country. They are saying if you commit crimes or what are perceived to be crimes by the authorities in the country you are visiting, you can and likely will be punished by that country. US just this past year convicted some foreigners of the attack on the USS Cole in Yeman territorial waters.
7. The funny part is that under US law, the failure of a member of the Military to follow a legal order is defined as a crime. Please note that citizens of other nations serve in our military, and we place our military under the command of foriegn officers, but the rules still apply.
What legal orders are you talking about? The Taliban wasnt legal nor was al Qaida. We have a legal government and a standing army wearing the uniform of the US. I dont see your point. Are you saying he could have been shot by the Taliban for failing to fight. Sure. They dont like cowards either. But his fear for his life is not sufficient reason that he not be convicted for his heinous crimes against this nation.
I suggest we release him in Time Square at midday after announcing that fact for a week.
KirklandJunction said: "I got a grandkid in law school, and she says:
This issue was debated with enthusiasm and passion resulting in nearly unanimous decisions that:
1. Technically, strictly, the prosecutors don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on, but
2. Sooo many legal decisions have gone down, unconstitutional legal decisions, that this is minor noise, and
3. Considering the emotional passions, especially amongst politicians lusting for approval,
Lindh is toast. "
If she were my granddaughter, I would warn her that the German judges convicted at Nuremburg took a similarly pragmatic view of their reponsibilities. UnConstitutional legal decisions are more than just "noise", they are the voracious termites eating away at the foundation of our nation.
How did you establish what government was criminal and what was legitimate? Based on any clear criteria, or just sentiments?
The Nazis were legitimate and recognized when they had power. They became evidently criminal when finally defeated.
The legal argument is that while he may not be much of a villain (or any villain at all), DOJ needs to scapegoat him to keep people from noticing how little they've accomplished otherwise.
All prosecutions begin with the needs of the prosecutor and the details follow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.