Jump to content

The Walker Lindh Debacle - Money talks and BS walks


Kevin Trotter
 Share

Recommended Posts

More proof that if you have enough money you can get away with anything. John Walker Lindh accepted a plea bargain from the US Attorney and will serve 20 years. I am completely outraged that a traitor to his country can get off so easily. While twenty years is a long sentence I feel it is doubtful he will serve the duration.

Overseas the killers of Daniel Pearl were found guilty and will be hanged. We ask that our allies

be with us or against us , a thinly veiled threat and then we make bargains with traitors. Does anybody think Moussani the 20th highjacker will be offered such a sweetheart deal? Not a chance!

While race is not the issue in this case many will look at the outcome and assume it was.Another rich white man bought himself out of trouble. This is war and Lindh carried weapons and in all likelihood fired upon his own countryman. In wartime acts of treachery and cowardice are dealt with one way...unless apparently if you have rich parents.

Today my hear goes out to the parents of the slain CIA operative who was last seen alive by the American Taliban. I wonder how they felt justice was served.

[ 07-16-2002, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually don't get involved in these debates, but here goes nuthin'....

While I agree with your sentiments, you must remember that there is no evidence that he carried weapons nor fired at anyone. He was with the Taliban, yes, that much is obvious. He could've been at the wrong place at the wrong time. He could've pretended to be held captive. He could've said a dozen things. In fact, it is my opinion (and others share this) that there was a good chance that most all the evidence against him would've have been thrown out of court at some point.

I think the Justice dept. knew that they'd have a hard time convicting him of treason (he isn't a military combatant) and even without that, it would drag on.

I have full confidence that he will serve the full twenty years. Is that fair? Dunno. Life sucks. And then you die.

Apart from serving twenty years, he is already a disgrace to his nation and that alone will follow him to his grave. Even his children (if any) and grand children will bear that curse. I suspect that as soon as he is released, that he will leave the country. After all, if he liked it here so much (as some of us do), he would'nt have been in Afghanistan to begin with. So, just like Manson et al, come 20 years from now, the hullabaloo will not be about him coming out, but where he is going to be going.

War is combat. In combat people die. Regardless of how many people died in that uprising, why should any one person be held accountable? What about the others who die in combat from weapons fire coming from unknown enemies - or even friendly fire? Would you rather a soldier find all of them, bring them to justice and give them a life or death sentence? Or would you rather they be shot on sight. On the battlefield?

The mistake in all this was bringing him back alive. But thats the human nature and the US combat forces playing by the rules. As such, we all have to bear the consequences. US forces were justified in capturing him. Besides, like others, he surrendered - knowing the consequences that were to come.

Mike Spann's death is not unlike any other combat associated death. And while I sympathize, I fail to see what the big deal about combat death is. People die all the time. As do soldiers in combat. Why should there be such a ruckus over Walker getting 20 yrs instead of the death penalty just because a Mike died in an uprising?

Perhaps, in fact, life without parole was offered and he rejected it. Either that or the justice dept cut a sweet deal with him in return for information which would provide critical info in their fight. I for one was surprised by the 20 yr sentence, to tell you the truth. If anything, life would've been more appropriate. So, something definitely went on behind the scenes. We just don't know what. And I don't think it has anything to do with money changing hands (are you kidding?!?!)

I for one support Bush's decision to not try him for treason (he's not a soldier or a US force, remeber?) and waste a ton of tax payers money (which is better spent on more weapons in this fight) and prolonging this farce. Life without parole would've been better, IMO. Not prolonging this was a good decision - IMO - for all concerned. Whether he got the death penalty (which I am not an advocate of) or not is irrelevant, he's going to be punished and nothing that could otherwise be done (including killing him) would bring back Mike Spann or the hundreds of combatants and innocents (US citizens, allies, Afghans etc) back to life.

The only thing I see here is the press being disappointed that they're not going to have another courtroom drama to make a spectacle of. Hell, they hardly cover Moussaoui's shenanigans.

And don't forget, Daniel Pearl's killer is appealing the sentence. He's not likely to win. Did you want that to happen here too? I don't think so.

[ 07-16-2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what really got me was Lindh's fathers statement about John loving this country. If he loved it so much why did he go join up with our enemies? anyway back on topic, I too think that life would have been better but whatever went on I hope it was worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC, I am as usual impressed with your keen insight and erudite commentary and flattered that you responded. Let me make it clear I do not intend this as a start of a long exchange like some of the other threads in this forum. However

I wanted to clear a few things up.

First I did not mean to infer money changed hands. What I meant that money affords you better representation and that because his family has money he is percieved differently. I think as unlikely as it may seem, some people see him as more sympathetic as if he is a victim.

Secondly in his statement in front of the judge he admitted to being in combat and bearing a weapon against his own countrymen. There is precedent for harsher sentences being carried out on civilians.

Lastly I think it sends a mixed message to our so called allies. One that is devisive and not at all the image we seem to be trying to project. However I will admit to a certain degree of anger that might make me less than objective. I hope the information we got is worth the anguish felt by the parents of those we lost in battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twenty years in prison! He has something worse then the death penalty. They are going to have to keep him in segregation (for those of you who don't know what that is: an inmate is in a cell by himself, when he comes out of the cell he is restrained with cuffs and chains, only get three showers a week with less then 30 minutes to take one, an hour outside in a small cell twice a week, and breakfast, lunch, and dinner in bed). If they stick him in general population he would be dead in less then a week. Not only is he going to have watch his back from other inmates but from the officers that are suppose to watch him. If he survives a year I will be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krekol beat me too it.

I also feel he got off lightly, but then something recent comes to mind....I don't think he is going to serve 20 years, and I don't think he is comming out alive. Think Jeffrey Dahmer here folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MIKE113

His parents having money is what got him there in the first place! They let him indulge in whatever whimsy he fancied. How many people just let a 19 year old go off to a place like Afghanistan to study! Study what? They footed the bill then so now they pay the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

First I did not mean to infer money changed hands. What I meant that money affords you better representation and that because his family has money he is percieved differently. I think as unlikely as it may seem, some people see him as more sympathetic as if he is a victim.

Secondly in his statement in front of the judge he admitted to being in combat and bearing a weapon against his own countrymen. There is precedent for harsher sentences being carried out on civilians.

Lastly I think it sends a mixed message to our so called allies. One that is devisive and not at all the image we seem to be trying to project.


  1. OK, I see. This didn't come across in your original post.

  2. Are you sure? As I understand it, he was only responding to the charges against him. In fact, he never was classified as a combatant. Further, the Taliban bears arms. So, naturally, he would be bearing arms. So, unless he actually came out and said that he actually fired up his countrymen, the sentiment is without merit and should be easy to toss out of court. I'm quite certain that the prosecution knew this. And the last time I looked, it wasn't illegal to bear arms against someone firing at and/or bearing weapons against you. Friend or foe; is irrelevant. It was war, not some civil unrest where a different stance is required.

  3. I don't think it sends any mixed message. He didn't get killed - like the others - because he was smart enough to surrender. Anyone in combat, should go in expecting to die. So, if any other countrymen and/or allies decides to bear arms against a combat force because of Walker's example (what example? the wimp surrendered), they should expect the same. To die and/or surrender, be captured, jailed for a long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by KreKol:

Twenty years in prison! He has something worse then the death penalty. They are going to have to keep him in segregation (for those of you who don't know what that is: an inmate is in a cell by himself, when he comes out of the cell he is restrained with cuffs and chains, only get three showers a week with less then 30 minutes to take one, an hour outside in a small cell twice a week, and breakfast, lunch, and dinner in bed). If they stick him in general population he would be dead in less then a week. Not only is he going to have watch his back from other inmates but from the officers that are suppose to watch him. If he survives a year I will be surprised.


Exactly. Some thing that 20 yrs is a walk in the park. Just try sitting in a room, without a pc for an hour and see how it feels. Hell, I was almost catatonic when I was barely on dial-up when I recently moved!!! Believe me, a LOT of people take freedom for granted. Until it is taken away from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Just try sitting in a room, without a pc for an hour and see how it feels. Hell, I was almost catatonic when I was barely on dial-up when I recently moved!!! Believe me, a LOT of people take
freedom
for granted. Until it is taken away from them.

Hell I KNOW what you're talking about.. i got even worse... my mother once punished me for something (can't remember what) I did, and i couldn't use my computer FOR A WEEK, nor go at my friend's house (my mother has their numbers... so she could call to check if I cheated, which I didn't). I like biking, but it was horrible!

It was many years ago too, but that doesn't change things much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grayfox

quote:

Originally posted by the Supreme Commander:

Believe me, a LOT of people take freedom for granted. Until it is taken away from them.


exactly. but try explaining that to people, especially adolescents, these days.

then they cry that their rights have been violated...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I want to say on this is that I see our justice system...from police, to court, to prison needing some serious overhaul.

The idea of competent representation having to be purchased is the farthest thing from the notion that there is equality under the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Dredd:

The main problem with our justice system is it's there to punish, not rehabilitate. If you can't fix someone, ADMIT IT, then just lock em all up for life.


LOL!!! Man, that is so true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has about 2 mil personal incarcerated I think it was (that's more then Soviet Union ever had) half those are non-violent offenders. Most of those I believe are minorities.

Those who are not real criminals tend to learn about crime in jail and come out with skills to break the law and make license plates.

Some people's crimes are so heinous throw away the key. However, in my opinion, the vast majority could be rehabilitated.

A good look at what a country is all about is how it treats the criminal population.

Amnesty international has put out reports that tell a tale of rampant abuse, mostly involving female personnel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lothar you are soooo right.Even though this thread is a little off topic it raises a valid point. Worse , prisons are now a growth industry.

For profit prisons are a reality and in many states more prisons are built than schools. In Pennsylvania where I reside, small cash strapped counties are building large modern facillities that accept prisoners from all over the state ,particularly Philly and Pittsburgh. Full prisons mean tax dollars for these municipalities. There is no political gain for changing this as local

state and national legisaltors benefit from high population counts in their districts since they are counted by the census as residents and this aids them in apportionment. There has to be a better way to do this ..any ideas out there?

[ 07-18-2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Race Bannon IV ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Lotharr:

Some people's crimes are so heinous throw away the key. However, in my opinion, the vast majority could be rehabilitated.


How? The US justice system and the legislation around it is not set up to rehabilitate. Look at Megan's Law. If they rehabilitated sexual predators, why would they need legislation warning people? If they let people out on parole, why do they need to have a parole officer unless they think they aren't rehabilitated!

Lets assume that prisons intend to rehabilitate. If your in prison for 20 years, i'm pretty sure that you'd have taken all the "rehabilitation classes" by at least 8. What are the other 12 years for? The entire justice system needs to be re-worked to rehabilitate, or they shouldn't be letting ANYONE out of prison (at least for violent offenses).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...