Alliedassault - View Single Post - On the subject on John Lindh (an excellent article)

SoLiDUS · 09-08-2002, 05:47 PM

[quote="Mr.X":28c73]...yep, so what if that article is about legal inconsistency, so the law is (frequently) an ass...no suprises there,
it's still Solidus pushing his John Lindh barrow....again....[/quote:28c73]

No, it's an informative article detailing how Lindh ISN'T a fucking terrorist as
you so perfectly label him. He fought for a cause over there WAY before any
of these attacks were made and he had NOTHING to do with them.

Why he decided to fight with a resistance group over there is beyond me,
but it's NO EXCUSE for labelling him a terrorist and throwing him in jail 20
(jesus, murderers get a fifth that sentence) fucking years. He was indeed railroaded.

[quote:28c73]Now let's consider the case of John Walker Lindh, who so far as we know killed no one yet got 20 years-and that with a plea bargain! "I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban last year from about August to November," he said as part of the plea arrangement. "During the course of doing so I carried a rifle and two grenades." Technically, this was a crime; President Clinton had signed a little-known 1999 executive order linking the Taliban to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization. However, both Clinton and George W. Bush violated such executive orders themselves by dealing with the Taliban-and by providing them with financing and arms in attempts to bribe their way to an oil pipeline deal and reduce heroin production. So why aren't those two criminals chanting morning prayers in Guantánamo? Shouldn't they have to cut a deal too?

Lindh didn't go to Afghanistan to fight the United States-an act that would have made him a traitor had war ever been declared. He joined one side in the Afghan civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. During that conflict, from 1996 to 2001, the U.S. assiduously avoided favoring one side over another.

At Mazar he was captured by the Northern Alliance, not the U.S. The fact that CIA agent Spann traveled with Alliance forces and interrogated prisoners doesn't change that reality, and the government offered no evidence that Lindh attacked or offered resistance to U.S. personnel. The United States never declared war against the Taliban-therefore, there was no legal basis for charges against Lindh.[/quote:28c73]

Did anyone here actually read this investigative essay before proceeding to
his beheading anyway?

	(#25)
SoLiDUS is Offline Senior Member Posts: 5,158 Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Gatineau, Qc, Canada	09-08-2002, 05:47 PM [quote="Mr.X":28c73]...yep, so what if that article is about legal inconsistency, so the law is (frequently) an ass...no suprises there, it's still Solidus pushing his John Lindh barrow....again....[/quote:28c73] No, it's an informative article detailing how Lindh ISN'T a fucking terrorist as you so perfectly label him. He fought for a cause over there WAY before any of these attacks were made and he had NOTHING to do with them. Why he decided to fight with a resistance group over there is beyond me, but it's NO EXCUSE for labelling him a terrorist and throwing him in jail 20 (jesus, murderers get a fifth that sentence) fucking years. He was indeed railroaded. [quote:28c73]Now let's consider the case of John Walker Lindh, who so far as we know killed no one yet got 20 years-and that with a plea bargain! "I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban last year from about August to November," he said as part of the plea arrangement. "During the course of doing so I carried a rifle and two grenades." Technically, this was a crime; President Clinton had signed a little-known 1999 executive order linking the Taliban to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization. However, both Clinton and George W. Bush violated such executive orders themselves by dealing with the Taliban-and by providing them with financing and arms in attempts to bribe their way to an oil pipeline deal and reduce heroin production. So why aren't those two criminals chanting morning prayers in Guantánamo? Shouldn't they have to cut a deal too? Lindh didn't go to Afghanistan to fight the United States-an act that would have made him a traitor had war ever been declared. He joined one side in the Afghan civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. During that conflict, from 1996 to 2001, the U.S. assiduously avoided favoring one side over another. At Mazar he was captured by the Northern Alliance, not the U.S. The fact that CIA agent Spann traveled with Alliance forces and interrogated prisoners doesn't change that reality, and the government offered no evidence that Lindh attacked or offered resistance to U.S. personnel. The United States never declared war against the Taliban-therefore, there was no legal basis for charges against Lindh.[/quote:28c73] Did anyone here actually read this investigative essay before proceeding to his beheading anyway?