T Nation

Let Him Rot!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_us/american_taliban

20 years isn’t enough for this asshole!
He lawyer has some balls!

[quote]"…and it is a question of the religious experience John Walker Lindh had," attorney James Brosnahan said. "
[/quote]

What is that supposed to mean, and what does it have to do with anything?

I have no pity for him and his ilk.

Religious experience or not, he is getting a good deal - having received 20 years. Here’s a bit on an American Hero Mike Spann. Who died at the hands of John Walker Lindh’s Taliban friends.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jmspann.htm

Fully agree with the previous posted sentiment. Let him rot.

[quote]orangecola wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070404/ap_on_re_us/american_taliban

20 years isn’t enough for this asshole!
He lawyer has some balls![/quote]

Lawyer’s have a job to do… and if nobody was willing to defend the guy… he wouldn’t be able to get a fair trial. That is supposedly an important concept to some people.

Anyway, lock him up for eternity, just skip the torture first… :wink:

20 years is too light a sentence. He should have been executed.

From the nature of the marks on his face it was apparent he was firing an AK-47 during the prison riot. Why they didn’t go after him for this I will never understand.

They are letting these guys off too lightly.

If an Australian recieved less than a year in a comparable case, as they claim, then he shouldn’t be serving twenty.

Let me get that right; If there exists any evidence accusing him of having been involved in terrorist activities against civilians, then let him rot. But from the looks of it, all they have on him are “confessions” while he was naked and bound. The sentence is more a reflexion of the American mood after 9/11 than it is justice.

Out of the Wiki:
"Complicating the prosecution was the nature of the confession. Photos emerged from Lindh’s captivity of him being held naked and bound, wearing an obscenity-covered blindfold.[11]

When details of the conditions of his captivity began to emerge, it was discovered that he had initially been wounded and hidden for a week with limited food, water, and minimal sleep before being captured. After being captured and taken to a room with the only window blocked off, Lindh had his clothes cut off him and was duct-taped to a stretcher and placed in a metal shipping container for transportation.

Lindh was not even released from the stretcher when he needed to urinate. Instead, guards propped him upright. When interrogated, he was denied a lawyer despite several requests, and was threatened with denial of medical aid if he didn’t cooperate. It took more than a week in U. S. custody for his wound to be treated and the bullet removed."

What there’s no doubt about is that he was a Taliban and that’s not nearly enough to get him 20 years in jail. Let me remind you of the active role the US played in emboldening said Islamist group. Where’s the trial for Reagan, Bush 1st and the others?

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
If an Australian recieved less than a year in a comparable case, as they claim, then he shouldn’t be serving twenty.[/quote]

You mean law should be more than a way to carry out the will of the mob?

Amazing concept…

We could blindfold justitia to make sure she judges everyone the same…

Na, that utopian shit won`t fly…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Let me get that right; If there exists any evidence accusing him of having been involved in terrorist activities against civilians, then let him rot. But from the looks of it, all they have on him are “confessions” while he was naked and bound. The sentence is more a reflexion of the American mood after 9/11 than it is justice.

Out of the Wiki:
"Complicating the prosecution was the nature of the confession. Photos emerged from Lindh’s captivity of him being held naked and bound, wearing an obscenity-covered blindfold.[11]

When details of the conditions of his captivity began to emerge, it was discovered that he had initially been wounded and hidden for a week with limited food, water, and minimal sleep before being captured. After being captured and taken to a room with the only window blocked off, Lindh had his clothes cut off him and was duct-taped to a stretcher and placed in a metal shipping container for transportation.

Lindh was not even released from the stretcher when he needed to urinate. Instead, guards propped him upright. When interrogated, he was denied a lawyer despite several requests, and was threatened with denial of medical aid if he didn’t cooperate. It took more than a week in U. S. custody for his wound to be treated and the bullet removed."

What there’s no doubt about is that he was a Taliban and that’s not nearly enough to get him 20 years in jail. Let me remind you of the active role the US played in emboldening said Islamist group. Where’s the trial for Reagan, Bush 1st and the others?[/quote]

This aint no time for facts you pussy, we got ourselves a lynching to carry out… do you want to be next??? YEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW!!

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
If an Australian recieved less than a year in a comparable case, as they claim, then he shouldn’t be serving twenty.[/quote]

Why would an American court applying and adminstering American law care about what happened to an Australian?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
If an Australian recieved less than a year in a comparable case, as they claim, then he shouldn’t be serving twenty.

Why would an American court applying and adminstering American law care about what happened to an Australian?[/quote]

Because, apparently, he was tried here and held at Gitmo.

And more abstractly, if we’re going to pretend that we’re part of a “peaceful world community” or some such, then laws and sentences should be relatively even handed not only within legal jurisdictions but also across national borders.

After reading lixy’s most recent post about John Walker Lindh, I now think he should be immediately released and recieve a formal apology.

He was a non-uniformed combatant, bearing no military insignias, helping the Taliban. Deserves an apology? Are you insane?

[quote]orangecola wrote:
He lawyer has some balls![/quote]

His lawyer is his father. It’s therefore safe to assume that he had healthy functionning balls.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

Because, apparently, he was tried here and held at Gitmo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks[/quote]

Huh? Because he was at Gitmo he should be treated like Hicks? That makes zero sense. But then…

In your collection if idiotic commentary - and it is vast - this make take the taco. We have no such community and never have. Nor would we event want it.

Strange that a self-professed “old old conservative” would even spew such idiocy - but then, holding you the standard of making sense isn’t fair at this point.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

Because, apparently, he was tried here and held at Gitmo.

Huh? Because he was at Gitmo he should be treated like Hicks? That makes zero sense. But then…[/quote]

I stated that JWL should receive comparable treatment to Hicks. You retorted by asking why an American court sentencing JWL would care about what happened to an Australian (Hicks). I countered by pointing out that that Australian (Hicks) had been sentenced by the very same American court, and thus it was perfectly legitimate to apply his sentencing to the case of JWL. In other words, the fact that Hicks is Australian is immaterial. He was held and tried at Gitmo, just like JWL. Both should receive comparable sentences for comparable crimes. There is nothing to dispute here. I am right.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In your collection if idiotic commentary - and it is vast - this make take the taco. We have no such community and never have. Nor would we event want it.

Strange that a self-professed “old old conservative” would even spew such idiocy - but then, holding you the standard of making sense isn’t fair at this point.[/quote]

Nice to see you jumping on your straw horse. You are assigning way more significance to this claim than I did in my post. There is a reason I used the word “pretend” in describing the alleged “international community”. Do I think it really exists? No. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is cited by every American diplomat and president, including Bush.

“Coalition of the willing”…whose idea was that?

International standards of law exist, at least as widely recognized concepts. You can argue all day about their implementation (or lack thereof), but there is no disputing this point.

As usual your critiques of my arguments are baseless.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
He was a non-uniformed combatant, bearing no military insignias, helping the Taliban. Deserves an apology? Are you insane?[/quote]

The fact that he didn’t wear a uniform is irrelevant since the Taliban is a criminal, rather than a military organization.

And his crimes are irrelevant because his prosecution did not follow the rule of law. That’s the bottom line. You’ve got to abide by the rule of law in criminal cases, no exceptions. That’s why I say he should be released.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

Because, apparently, he was tried here and held at Gitmo.

Huh? Because he was at Gitmo he should be treated like Hicks? That makes zero sense. But then…[/quote]

Thunderbolt, I think you’re evading the issue here. You started by asking why an American should be treated the same as an Aussie. The reason your argument don’t hold is pretty obvious. Look at where they were tried!

I honestly expected better from you.

Let him rot indeed.

He was an educated, idealistic young Muslim who chose murder of innocent people as his path in life. He is no different that Mohamed Atta, Zarqawi, or thousands of other terrorists that come from nice middle class families.

Don’t let John Lindh’s PR and legal campaign change the fact that he was the exactly the kind of person that fly aircraft into buildings, and kill innocent Muslims on their “spiritual journey” to paradise. He was and is a terrorist.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

I stated that JWL should receive comparable treatment to Hicks. You retorted by asking why an American court sentencing JWL would care about what happened to an Australian (Hicks). I countered by pointing out that that Australian (Hicks) had been sentenced by the very same American court, and thus it was perfectly legitimate to apply his sentencing to the case of JWL. In other words, the fact that Hicks is Australian is immaterial. He was held and tried at Gitmo, just like JWL. Both should receive comparable sentences for comparable crimes.[/quote]

And I stated that there is no principle in play to suggest that Lindh should get the same sentence as Hicks, largely because the details of each person’s case differs, including, but not limited to, Lindh being an American.

Ask yourself - or your Justin Raimondo decoder ring - were they charged with the exact same crimes? Did they have the same number of charges? The same facts? The same situation while incarcerated? The same plea bargaining process? Did they both give the prosecution anything of value (evidence against others) that would mitigate their sentences?

The same sentence for both people would make sense if their situations were the same - they weren’t, including the complex nature of plea bargaining up to the sentencing.

Heh.

International community? To some degree. International law as the Lefties describe it? No.

Oh yeah? Then show me the “international law” in play in these trials that necessitate they get the same sentence.

You can’t just invoke a touchy-feely “international law” somewhere in the ether that makes you feel better about the situation - if there be an “international law” appropriate to the jurisdiction in question that demands they get the same/similar sentences, surely you can point it out?

Quick, ask the Justin Raimondo decoder ring what you should have for breakfast.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Thunderbolt, I think you’re evading the issue here. You started by asking why an American should be treated the same as an Aussie. The reason your argument don’t hold is pretty obvious. Look at where they were tried![/quote]

See my above post to NP.

Good - see above.