The father of John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban)is asking President Bush for clemency. Should he get it (he was a 20 yr. old fool at the time) or should stay in jail (he really is an enemy of the state)?
Bullet in the head.
well if a 20 year old gang member kills a man he spends life in jail so why would Lindh’s age have naythign to do with his punishment. If he was 12 or 13 sure but at 20 you are an adult and the consequences of your action are yours alone. And on a less philosophical note put a needle in his arm and squeeze.
I don’t personally believe in the death penalty, but I do believe that the law should be applied evenly. If he is guilty of treason, then he should be executed.
Lindh was not convicted of treason. He pleaded guilty to only two counts of the 11 count indictment: violating an executive order prohibiting U.S. citizens from giving their services to the Taliban, and committing a felony while carrying firearms. Under the terms of the plea agreement he got 20 years. Both he and the government should stick to the agreement. A link to the agreement is below.
Absolutely not. He fought extensively against US led forces.
Remember how his face was blackened in the first pictures of him? That is allegedly from firing countless rounds from an AK-47
He should be executed.
My bad on the treason thing. but I agree with Zap on this one - there is no reason for leniency.
Treason = Death. It doesn’t matter how old you are. Look at the Rosenbergs during the Cold War - a little old couple who sold secrets behind the iron curtain. Penalty when they got caught - Death.
Giving aide to the enemy and taking up arms against the U.S. you have got to be kidding no debate here. This man is lucky not to facing a firing squad! I can live with the sentence he was given allthough I disagree with it but by all that is just he should serve every freakin second of it!
To automatically assume treason if an US citizen opposes his own government, that opens an interesting can of worms, doesn?t it?
Where is the difference between him and Washington and Jefferson beside the obvious that the latter won and got to write history?
Because if you think aboutit and let go of the gut reaction “Crucify him, crucify him…” his acts were hardly treasonous.
What information did he give the enemy? The position of the WalMart in his area? The sugar content of glaced doughnuts?
Treason. Pffftt. There are words that actually mean something and should be used with caution.
Treason:
-
Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
-
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
Oh well, looks like it was treason after all.
The first part of my original post, however, is still a valid question IMHO.
[quote]orion wrote:
To automatically assume treason if an US citizen opposes his own government, that opens an interesting can of worms, doesn?t it?
Opposition is allowed and is what we call democracy. Actively seeking and then training to fight against your own government is called treason and he was lucky to get the sentence he did.
Where is the difference between him and Washington and Jefferson beside the obvious that the latter won and got to write history?
Honestly, very little. If we had lost the Rev. War then Britain would have executed all those involved with the rebellion.
Because if you think aboutit and let go of the gut reaction “Crucify him, crucify him…” his acts were hardly treasonous.
I think you need to reread what he did.
What information did he give the enemy? The position of the WalMart in his area? The sugar content of glaced doughnuts?
Treason. Pffftt. There are words that actually mean something and should be used with caution. [/quote]
This part just makes me laugh. Open a book up and learn.
[quote]orion wrote:
To automatically assume treason if an US citizen opposes his own government, that opens an interesting can of worms, doesn?t it?
Where is the difference between him and Washington and Jefferson beside the obvious that the latter won and got to write history?
Because if you think aboutit and let go of the gut reaction “Crucify him, crucify him…” his acts were hardly treasonous.
What information did he give the enemy? The position of the WalMart in his area? The sugar content of glaced doughnuts?
Treason. Pffftt. There are words that actually mean something and should be used with caution. [/quote]
He took up arms against the US and it’s allies.
He was a key participant in the prison uprising that resulted in the death of a US agent (Mike Spann).
Washington and Jefferson certainly were treasonous in the eyes of the British. They knew they would likely be drawn and quartered if captured.
If you support the Taliban and al-Qadea you could make an argument to justify his actions but they are still treason.
Treason is the precise word for his actions.
The reason he was not tried or convicted of treason is the government did not want a complicated trial.
[quote]orion wrote:
Treason:
-
Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
-
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
[/quote]
The United States Constitution has a better definition:
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. "
Umm.No
Just kill him and get it over with.He did not think twice about picking up a gun.I know not everyone will agree with me but its just my thougt on the subject.
I say we give him clemency so long as we put him somewhere that he will get ass raped at least once a day for the rest of his natural life.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
I say we give him clemency so long as we put him somewhere that he will get ass raped at least once a day for the rest of his natural life.[/quote]
San Francisco?
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
orion wrote:
Treason:
-
Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
-
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
The United States Constitution has a better definition:
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. "[/quote]
Good point. But in general, I’m opposed to capital punishment except in cases of treason. Lindh should rot in jail if he isn’t technically a proven traitor.
[quote]dermo wrote:
San Francisco?[/quote]
HA! Last time I checked, the vast majority of rapes if San Francisco were perpitrated by males and victimized females.
This fuckstick (Lind) was from right across the bay (marin county) by the way.