Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Apr 13, 2007.
I'm as much against this administration and it's "war on terror" as can be. I despise them for undermining our civil liberties, economy, science and on and on. However, that does not translate into sympathy for this character.
Sorry. He was caught. He was tried in a court of law. He was sentenced.
Even if this is the worst administration since 1900, Lindh is a traitor. He deserves everything he gets. I only wish that the Bush gang joined him in that facility after a trial for war crimes. I think their sentences should be much greater than his, considering they did much greater damage and committed much greater crimes. But Lindh, may he rot in prison. I hope he has to serve out his entire sentence - if anything, the sentence was too light.
I think Lindh definitely is a creepy character. However, I also think he was made into the poster boy for the "War on Terror". Just from what I've seen, I don't think he was as bad as he was made out to be, but I could be wrong. My feeling is that he was a kid caught up with the wrong people at the wrong time, and did some things he has grown to regret in a big way. I don't necessarily think he was inherently evil. Again, I could be wrong.
I don't understand why he is so vilified. He went to fight in a civil war in another country, something many Americans and Britons have done over the years. He was also treated abominably by the US Authorities and their stooges, and was witness to several of their atrocities. Why is there any reason to think he is "evil"? And what does that mean? The sooner everyone stops bandying around words like "evil", the sooner we will be able to talk sense with each other.
I think the fighting in the civil war is fine until you start killing American troops. Once he went after Americans (or at the very least participated in battle against the Americans), he crossed the line into treason. Would this be the Edwardian high treason demanding hanging/drawing/quartering? I don't think so. lee makes a good point that he's probably not as bad as he seems. I would suggest he's guilty of something along the lines of the petty treason, bringing the Edwardian hanging until dead.
The founders didn't really make the distinction, so I believe he should have been the first since the Rosenbergs. I don't think he deserves the respect that vilification affords. As with all traitors, his actions and punishment should be remembers and he should be forgotten.
I was under the impression that he was part of a specific group that did do so. When you rob a bank with a group and it is accepted by your group that you will be attacking the people there, if someone else in your group is the one pulling the trigger, it doesn't matter. You're still guilty.
Did he kill anyone? Who knows. As a foreign fighter, was he part of the uprising that resulted in deaths? Yes. Working with an organization that was actively waging war against the US was bad enough - being part of that small group that resulted in deaths should have been sufficient witness for the capital treason charge to stick.
If you are talking about the riot in Mazar-i-Sharif when hundreds of captives trapped in a courtyard were massacred by a C130 gunship and one CIA man was killed, you are being somewhat disingenuous. The behaviour of the "good guys" in the Afghan conflict was so appalling as to render any contrast with the "bad guys" - in your President's charmingly naive parlance - almost meaningless.
if you go back and read the original post for this thread, you'll find it quite clearly states what he was charged with and what he pleaded guilty to
Your point is?
If he is being transferred for his safety (a very real possibility), then it makes sense.
I was not reading much about this case, or any other, as the events were taking place. From what I gathered, he was captured in Afghanistan, as a soldier fighting for the side opposite. What made this heinous was the fact he was an American who changed sides. Is this right?
If so, why was he not taken as a prisoner of war? There is a big difference (for me anyway) between someone fighting on a foreign battlefield, and a citizen engaged in domestic terrorism, and/or espionage.
If he was just a soldier, fighting for a foreign power, he should be governed by the Geneva Convention. I would strip him of citizenship, and never allow him to return home. That is unless he stand-up for the crime of treason.
Sorry, Skunk, were're usually on the same side politically, but I gotta disagree here.
"He was charged with conspiring to kill Americans and support terrorists but pleaded guilty to lesser charges, including carrying explosives for the Taliban government."
Do you see nothing wrong with it? Even the lesser charges are extremely serious. Put in terms you'll perhaps understand: it's as if a guy volunteered to insert himself into the civil war of Spain on the side of the fascists, and then carried explosives for the Nazi regime of Hitler.
And make no mistake: the Taliban, ultimately in my mind are no better than the Nazis. They don't have the power of the Nazis because their country is a broken wreck, but their ideology is as murderous.
To then collaborate actively with such a government Nazi or Taliban is simply treason.
There's no question in my mind that we made tremendous mistakes in Afghanistan and certainly committed crimes (I supported and still support the Afghanistan operation, though) - how could we not, with this crew in charge of the White House. That does not excuse Lindh's treason. He is a bad man, who supported militarily an evil ideology (when I say "bad" and "evil" I'm using it as a shorthand, not in a metaphysical sense... just it's more concise in such a short space).
He was in Afghanistan long before the US got there, and, for whatever misguided reasons, he was apparently fighting on the side of the Taleban (otherwise known as the government, with whom Cheney et al were trying to do a pipeline deal just before 9/11) against the Northern Alliance (an unsavoury collection of woman-hating warlords, opium exporters, gangsters and all-round vicious bastards - with the possible exception of Ahmed Shah Masood). It doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as you make out.
Apparently it depends on how rich your family is as clearly seen in the case of Patty Hearst.
it seemed you were having trouble understanding the facts of the case
Well when they started talking about killing Americans he could have said "Hey guys, sorry, but I can't be a part of this. see ya!"
And since when is the Taliban not "an unsavoury collection of woman-hating warlords, opium exporters, gangsters and all-round vicious bastards"?
Lindh knew what he was getting into, and for whatever misguided reason, still chose to participate. I don't see any point in trying to justify his actions by pointing at the actions of our government.
He wasn't charged with treason with extenuating circumstances based on the atrocities or failed policies of the US government.
He conspired against the US. The fact that he was to immature and misguided to be a real threat doesn't change his participation. The fact that the US government screws up with stunning regularity also doesn't change or excuse Lindh's choice.
When asked about the fact that Dick Cheney reported more income in 2006 than he did, the president responded, "That's true, but he also made more decisions."
I don't think anyone is saying he should be left off the hook.
Well, they might have cut down on opium production:
But otherwise, check, check, check, check, check.
The Taliban sucks man. I hate those m***erf**kers. They did far worse than what you just mentioned, trust me. I just think this kid got himself into some really bad sh**, thinking he was being all "revolutionary" and such. I don't really think he knew exactly what he was doing. Think Patty Hearst without the kidnapping.
Big difference, don't you think? Lindh wasn't kidnapped into fighting for the Taliban - he volunteered.
There's no excuse. I'm not even going to excuse Patty Hearst 100% - OK, maybe one can claim extenuating circumstances, but still what she did was not right, and there should have been consequences. But Lindh? Throw the book at him. He has zero excuses.
OK, let's clarify. Did I say he should be let go? NO. He deserves what he gets. Patty Hearst isn't excused either.
However- I still don't think he deserves to be thought of as the US version of bin Laden. I don't think he is. He's probably not even Timothy McVeigh. I think he truly regrets what happened from what I've seen and heard. In other words, the guy did some really stupid things with people he met over there. I'm just not convinced he was completely aware of what was really happening.
That said- it doesn't excuse his actions at all. BUT- I don't think he's a wacko sociopath on the level of Dahmer or someone like that.
Let me put it this way: If you put me in a room with Lindh and James Dobson and told me I could kill one of them with no consequence, I'd kill Dobson. He's a much more frightening individual.
I'm with Lee on this one. Definite over-reaction, one which reeks of injured pride and revenge-seeking. Your government is quite happy to support Pakistan, which organised and set up the Taleban, armed them and sent them into Afghanistan. Of course they were an unsavoury bunch, and of course Lindh was foolish and misguided to join up with them. But he joined up long before 9/11, when the Taleban were fighting the warlords, and which was the less unsavoury side was a moot point.
Now, now, skunk. "Your government is quite happy to support Pakistan, which organised and set up the Taleban, armed them and sent them into Afghanistan." is sorta stretching things more than a bit.
Governments do what they have to in order to further goals. In this case, the deal was to try to get the Paki government away from any support of the Taliban, was it not? To assist, then, in getting rid of the Taliban? And, since that's pretty much the way things went, in breaking the power of a bunch of nut-cases, I'd have to say it was for that point in time, a Good Thing.
I doubt that you can find any government that does not at some time enter into some cooperative effort with some other government that otherwise is of no interest. That's what governments do..."Governments do not have friends. Governments have interests." Something like that, I sorta recollect.
I'm against it when we do something as bad as those we're fighting, and this is no different. Even if he hated us and all we stood for, doesn't excuse the actions. I don't really know enough about the case to say he may not be as bad as they say (could be, could be worse), but I don't like the "poster boy" thing. Didn't like it when they did that to Tillman or Lynch either.