Traitor

[Tyrn]

I'm sure that at least some of you have heard about John "Abdul Hamid" Walker who joined the Taliban in their war effort. Supposedly there are two other US citizens (makes me sick to grace them with that) in the same situation but I haven't heard/seen anything on them.

I have only one word for such: traitor.

[Guest $iLk]

I would have to say that he shouldn't get a military tribunal because he IS still an American Citizen.

He should be tried in an American court for Murder (CIA agent) and Treason (I think they still have firing squads available in time of war).

As for the other two, same thing. Sorry to his pop, but his dad does sound like he did too much opium or something the way he talks. A Far Left liberal if you ask me. They know how to raise kids to be "tolerant" and "understanding" I guess.

Think that's why Mister "Taliban" Walker praises the 9/11 attacks and fought against Americans.

[Fendi]

But isn't it possible to have dual nationalities in the US? I guess after this, that might have to be reviewed. I was having an argument with someone the other day about multiple nationalities and guess what? I asked what would happen if the countries that he has sovereignaties with goes to war with each other. He says that that will never happen. Well I guess I proved him wrong as anything can happen nowadays.

[Ravonaf]

Where does it say just because he is a US citezen that he can't have a military tribunal. He took up arms against his own country. It is a military matter. Not a civilian court matter. He didn't break any US laws. US law doesn't even apply to Afganistan. Even if it did, good luck proving he broke some wishy washy US law. I bet we can prove though that he took up arms against his own country. That is a military matter.

Ravonaf

[Soback]

What I heard is you can't try him for treason because we are not oficially at war. Politics suck, but someone has to do it. I was thinking about it and decided that all those guys in the white house, writing laws, discussing our strategies, should we declare war or not, other complicated stuff, we shouldn't really trash them. I think the whole thing is more complicated than it seems on the surface.

Anyway, as for that guy, someone proposed an idea that he was working for US as a spy on the inside of taliban, and if he was then I doubt we will hear about it because then taliban will be more carefull with their recruits.

[Guest]

I hope he's imprisoned, because his fellow inmates are gonna give him hell!

[Guest]

I call him FIRING SQUAD chow.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

But isn't it possible to have dual nationalities in the US?

---

Congress passed some nice little laws way back that penalizes people for seeking a dual citizenship who were born in this country. But it's not always enforced.

quote:

---

Where does it say just because he is a US citezen that he can't have a military tribunal.

---

President Bush's Executive Order governing the use of military tribunals. In the part where it says it ONLY applies to non-citizens.

quote:

---

He didn't break any US laws.

---

Treason.

quote:

---

What I heard is you can't try him for treason because we are not oficially at war.

---

You don't need a war to have treason. Ask all the nice little people who were tried and executed or imprisoned during the Cold War for collaborating with the USSR.

quote:

---

should we declare war or not

---

Unneccessary, we were attacked. Legally you could argue other wise, but we are acting in self-defense.

Sadly however I believe this will become a show trial and the guy will get off on death row and enjoy a pardon by the next president.

Not to mention all the bed-wetting leftists who are going to complain.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

A Far Left liberal if you ask me. They know how to raise kids to be "tolerant" and "understanding" I guess.

Think that's why Mister "Taliban" Walker praises the 9/11 attacks and fought against Americans.

---

Call me overly sensitive or emotional if you prefer, but I am deeply insulted by the implication that leftists are pro-Taliban. It's total bullshit.

[Charles Lindsey]

Menchise, I don't think $ilk meant what you think he meant. Perhaps his parents did raise him to be tolerant and understanding. That's a good thing. But I don't think it automatically means you are pro Taliban. I'm not asking you to change your comments just understand where they are coming from.

And I don't remember reading he praised the attacks of Sept. 11.

More of the story is he left at an early age to go study Islam and the Taliban "touched his heart".

I personally feel he was mentally disturbed to begin with.

If you haven't, read some more on this story. I almost hate to admit it but I use Yahoo at work. They made it my start page so I figure I have free reign there. The news page links to Reuters and AP. There are numerous articles on this already.

So Ok then he took up with the Taliban. So what? Was that Treason? Nah... He liked their religion. Did he actually try to subvert the US Gov't? I doubt it. I really do.

Did he take up arms against the US? Not unless he fired an anti-aircraft gun. At least in my opinion. The US has not been in an offensive on the ground yet so far as I know.

Is he a traitor? Pretty much.

[Ravonaf]

$ilk

President Bush's Executive Order was put into effect before we new any Americans had taken up arm's with the Taliban. I'm pretty certain Americans have been tried in Military Tribunals in the past. Bush can change his mind. All that aside we couldn't even convict OJ with a mountain of evidence. How in the hell can we convict this traitor of treason with little to now evidence. He was with the Taliban way before 911. No laws broken there. We have no witnesses saying that he fired any shots period let alone that he attacked US troops. What are we going to do. Bring Northern Alliance troops to the US to testify? If we can't try him under a military tribunal my guess is he will walk. Sadly it would be a bad political move to try to nail this scumbag. We should let the new Afghan government execute him with all the other forein troops that fought with the Taliban.

Ravonaf

[Ravonaf]

Menchise

There are many many leftists in this country who "want to give peace a chance" and let the terrerists continue to have free reign. The 10% or so who oppose the war would be a perfect example. If you are not for this country then you are against it. If you are against this country you might as well be pro Taliban. Look at Berkely (sp?) in California. Look at Hilary Clinton. She won't even say the pledge of alligiance and she's a US congressman.

Ravonaf

[Põdi]

The guy is no worse than a mercenary, except he fights for his beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, whereas mercenaries simply fight for money and really don't give a shit who pays them.

What is interesting is that this ties up with $ilk's racial profiling thread. Give this guy a shave, a wash, some nice clothes and a few flying lessons....

I would hardly call him a traitor based on the current evidence, there has been no US ground involvement, so he can't have come into direct conflict with US troops and there's no evidence he actually fought Northern Alliance troops. He probably surrendered without firing a shot, along with 1000s of his Taliban mates. Just a case of a misguided loon if you ask me.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Paddy Gregory ]

[Guest $iLk]

I'm back!

quote:

---

Call me overly sensitive or emotional if you prefer, but I am deeply insulted by the implication that leftists are pro-Taliban. It's total bullshit.

---

Don't be insulted by not understanding Menchise, I rarely imply anything and usually mean exactly what I write.

I'm simply voicing my analysis of the CNN and MSNBC coverage of the interview with John Walker's father. His father strikes me as a far-left American liberal by his comments and views.

quote:

---

And I don't remember reading he praised the attacks of Sept. 11.

---

CNN and MSNBC actually quoted the guy as praising September 11, but his father said that after all he had been through fighting for the Taliban that it is natural and to understand why he felt that way. His father however did disagree with the 9/11 attacks, and said that it was one of many father/son disagreements, starting with John Walker praising the bombing of the USS Cole in late 2000.

quote:

---

So Ok then he took up with the Taliban. So what? Was that Treason? Nah... He liked their religion. Did he actually try to subvert the US Gov't? I doubt it. I really do.

Did he take up arms against the US? Not unless he fired an anti-aircraft gun. At least in my opinion. The US has not been in an offensive on the ground yet so far as I know.

---

Once again CNN and MSNBC (I think Fox news too) gave confirmed reports that he was carrying an AK47 and quoted him saying that he had no choice but to use it and fired on the US Special forces and the CIA agents in the prison revolt of last week. I think that that's enough to convict considering he took up arms against Americans on the ground.

Your opinion that it wasn't taking up arms since it was not an offensive action puzzles me, but I'm sure you'll correct it after learning more.

quote:

---

$ilk

President Bush's Executive Order was put into effect before we new any Americans had taken up arm's with the Taliban. I'm pretty certain Americans have been tried in Military Tribunals in the past. Bush can change his mind. All that aside we couldn't even convict OJ with a mountain of evidence. How in the hell can we convict this traitor of treason with little to now evidence. He was with the Taliban way before 911. No laws broken there. We have no witnesses saying that he fired any shots period let alone that he attacked US troops. What are we going to do. Bring Northern Alliance troops to the US to testify? If we can't try him under a military tribunal my guess is he will walk. Sadly it would be a bad political move to try to nail this scumbag. We should let the new Afghan government execute him with all the other forein troops that fought with the Taliban.

Ravonaf

---

It is confirmed by John Walker's father and John Walker himself that he is a member of Al Quaida. However being a US citizen, and President Bush's insistence he won't try a US citizen leads me to believe this will be handled in the US. It could always go to a military tribunal, but it would be a politically bad move for Bush to make, considering he has insisted he wouldn't. All it takes is two witnesses to say that he used arms against US forces to try him for treason.

quote:

---

I would hardly call him a traitor based on the current evidence, there has been no US ground involvement, so he can't have come into direct conflict with US troops and there's no evidence he actually fought Northern Alliance troops. He probably surrendered without firing a shot, along with 1000s of his Taliban mates. Just a case of a misguided loon if you ask me.

---

See above in case you missed out on that 3 or 4 day prison revolt last week. He used an AK47 against NA and American Special forces during the revolt. Just because he may not have hit anybody doesn't free him of responsibility. He surrendered (according to him) the revolt began and he started shooting. Then was one of the few to surrender at the end.

So he did come into contact with Americans (and British I believe) and was in arms with the Taliban and is a confessed member of Al Quaida. What more do we need?

I'm not meaning to sound like I know it all, but I do read pretty much every quality news page on the net every day, and compile what I learn from all of them in order to be more informed.

So in conclusion, I was not implying that leftist agree with the Taliban, though many leftists agree that we should "understand" them. I fail to see why I need more "understanding" after seeing planes slam into buildings and killing thousands and knowing who's responsible. All I want to "understand" is that they are dead when we get our hands on them.

Naked force is the greatest shifter of political power we have available, not "understanding". When has "understanding" someone taken away their ability to cause more harm to you? Let's say a bully beats you up in school. You "understand" that it might be because he is disadvantaged and was raised in a bad home, so you let it go and the next day he beats you again. But instead of that what if you beat the hell out of him? It would make him think twice. Now replace bully with "bad guys" and you with "good guys" and you have a good analogy.

As for John Walker, I say give him a speedy fair trial so long as he doesn't renounce his citizenship. If he renounces his citizenship, let the last time he is seen alive be being drug on board a Navy ship heading out to see to face a tribunal.

Legally he is a citizen, and has constitutional rights we must uphold. That's my feeling on the matter. He cannot lose that citizenship except by his own free will.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

There are many many leftists in this country who "want to give peace a chance" and let the terrerists continue to have free reign. The 10% or so who oppose the war would be a perfect example.

---

You've contradicted yourself. Wanting peace is the exact opposite of letting the terrorists have free reign. Terrorists want war, that's why left peace activists are against all types of terrorism (what I mean by all types is a debate for another time).

quote:

---

If you are not for this country then you are against it. If you are against this country you might as well be pro Taliban.

---

Popular rhetoric, but the logic is deeply flawed. Here is an example of why:

The US wants peace between Israel and Palestine. Does that mean that the US is against Israel and pro-Palestine or vice versa? Of course not! But that's the conclusion that would be reached by joining the 'for or against' bandwagon.

quote:

---

Look at Berkely (sp?) in California. Look at Hilary Clinton. She won't even say the pledge of alligiance and she's a US congressman.

---

Another example of why the 'for-against' attitude is false: you're saying that Hillary is not only against America for not saying the pledge of allegience, she is also pro-Taliban.

[Ravonaf]

Menchise

They contradict themselves. The leftists such as the Berkely idiots want a revolution. They are against this country and what it stands for today. They say we have no right to defend ourselves. They say we should negotiate. Sorry to burst your bubble. But these people only want war (the terrorists). Of course the leftists don't say this out load. They say this in thier actions. They want us to see the terrorists side of things. They say we should give in to them in order to have peace. They want peace by letting the terrorists win. That my friend, is being on thier side.

And I stand by my words. If you are not for this country then you are against it. Many people from around the world come here. They come here for the standard of living. But when it comes time to defend it where are they? Many of them stand up to defend it. Many won't, and hate what this country stands for. They think we are immoral. They think we are godless. They shelter terrorists. Of'course, many born in this country do the same thing.

When Hillary was asked to say the pledge of alligiance this is what she said:

"I pledge alligiance to what this country could be.."

She refused to pledge to the flag and to the united states of america. That is anti-american if you ask me. Slick-willy is beyond a doubt the most corrupt president this country has ever had. She is just as corrupt.

Ravonaf

[Guest $iLk]

Liberals like those in Berkeley do not represent the majority, however they are adept at usurping the will of the majority. Same goes for those in Congress. They represent a minority of wackos and extremists and silence the voice of the majority (red blooded Americans).

[XenoZohar]

Er, on an off topic note, I enjoy reading these threads, but I'm not really sure what each term means exactly, like left/right, etc....(yes, I'm politically ignorant, but hey, I'm trying to rectify that situation)

Can anyone clue me in or point to a site?

[Guest $iLk]

There's disagreements as to exact Left/Right, because some organizations are sort of both, but suffice to say that Leftism includes Communism, Liberalism, Socialism, etc. While Rightism includes Conservatism, Facism, Libertarianism, etc.

For instance, Extremist Nazis are Extreme Right Wing traditionally, while Extremist Communists are Extreme Left Wing, although the Nazis incorporate many Left Wing ideas into ideology.

Personally, I believe the bigger you want your government to have a say in your life, the further left you should go, and the less government involvement, the further right, but there are areas on both sides which are the opposite of what they should be. (i.e. Nazism should be Far Left near Communism and Socialism)

My belief is that government should serve the will of the people and that government should have NO say in how you run your private life unless you are depriving someone of their Life, Liberty, or pursuit of happiness, and shouldn't be able to call on government unless you are being deprived of these. (i.e. the constitutional government as envisioned by our founding fathers, specifically in the anti-federalist papers) Personally I'm somewhere between Conservatism and Libertarianism. I believe Libertarianism is TOO extreme and Conservatives compromise TOO much.

Want a test to see what you are?

click here.

I haven't been TOO thorough but for some ideas do some research of your own using google.com to search on the topics: LEFT WING, RIGHT WING, IDEOLOGY, POLITICAL SPECTRUM, etc.

It will help you along with the quiz I gave you above.

[J.Smith]

I say string him from the rafters

[CommanderJohnson]

The idea that our country should be at "peace" is badly flawed. First, a few notions that need to be addressed:

Notion: We are killing innocent civilians in our war on terrorism.

Reality: If you study a number of authors, you'll realized that it is maintained that personal freedom is more important than life. During United States slavery, all of the slaves were living in a constructed world, much like the Matrix. The fact that slaveholders let the slaves be free of work for 3 days, and instead let them get so drunk they were miserable, is an example of how the society was constructed to deprive the people of their freedoms, by making life SEEM good. That is what is going on in Afganistan and many of the terrorist harboring countries. Although I truly believe that US citizens are brainwashed to some extent by the media, it is worse in the Middle East. In many Middile Eastern countries, especially Afganistan, people are living in a constructed world. They believe the propoganda fed to them by the terrorists, Taliban, Islamic Extremists, and Osama Bin Laden. They are being completely brainwashed.

Notion 2: It is impossible to win the war on Terrorism.

Reality: Think logically for a minute. Yes, bombing Afganistan to hell will not end the war on terrorism, neither will bombing Iraq, or any other Middile Eastern Country. That's why we are setting up a new government in Afganistan, and probably will in any other terrorist harboring country. I doubt the United States will make the same mistake twice, in this specific instance. After the terrorist harboring countries' governments are replaced, it will become much harder for terrorist groups to operate. Yes, terrorism won't be eliminated, but it will likely be lower than pre 9/11 levels, because they will be unable to operate in the open because of governments crushing them.

Notion 3: We are acting like terrorists by bombing Afganistan.

Reality: It's a clash of ideals, they declared war by attacking the WTC, and Afganistan didn't hand them over. That's like saying we acted like Nazis for bombing German cities in WW2. Get out of my country you traitors!

Notion 4: We are doing what the terrorists want.

Reality: Bin Laden doesn't want his top military and terror advisors dead. That's like Bin Laden saying that he wants us to chop off his hands and legs so he'll be more effective against us.

Notion 5: People who oppose the war are not for the Taliban.

Reality: Think of an analogy. You steal someone's wallet. They punch you in the face. You don't do anything. They punch you in the face again. Now, common sense would tell you that there are two things you can do.

1. Give the wallet back, and hope they still wont be mad over it.

2. Disable the person's ability to punch you.

The terrorists are mad. The only way to make them happy is the destruction of America, and/or the withdrawl of support for Israel (which would cause them to declare their nuclear status and start a Middle Eastern Arms race, not much fun when a bunch of "kill the non-islam fanatics" have nukes) The only option is to disable the person's ability to punch you AKA, destroy terrorists and their supporting countries. Anyone who is "pro-peace, anti-war" is saying, "let them keep punching us". If that's not pro-Taliban, nothing is.

The war on Afganistan, and any other terrorist supporting country, is needed. The "innocent" civilians, are totally brainwashed, and will not have any sort of freedom until we save their countries. Their lives aren't worth living if they are mindless drones for the Taliban. The destruction of Terrorist supporting countries will highly limit the capabilities and activities of terrorist groups, and in the end protect American security.

Anyone who's going to argue this, please read the entire post, respond to the entire post, and you better have some evidence backing you up because my position is the popular one which almost every reputable news source is basing their reporting on, and it better not be something simple like "civilians shouldn't die". Go fight in a goddamn war (WW2) like my Grandfather did, then you have a right to start complaining about the civilians dying.

It's so disheartening, that's the problem with people today. People think "fighting is wrong", and never stop to think about all of the people who have spilt their blood and died fighting for the United States. Never thought about the people who died for what the United States stands for, and realized that the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror.

If we don't stand up for our country, our freedom, and our nation now, then the last 224 years have been for nothing. If we weaken now, all of the people who have died for this country have lost their lives in vain. Nowhere is it said that our country should value peace above everything else. Our country is based around freedom, and with terrorism in the world, we will never be free.

[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Captain Dread ]

[Menchise]

[Guest $iLk]

And many other ways it could be arranged Menchise... I can't explain it exactly because there are so many different arrangements I've seen. As far as American politics go, Liberalism is about as left as Socialism which is about as left as Communism. I believe the further right you go, you should end up in anarchy. But like I said, there are some Nazi type groups who basically are Communist to a T with only a race angle.

quote:

---

I think I have some better words: If you are not for peace then you are against it. Both the USA and the Taliban are against peace. Therefore, it is impossible for peace activists to be against one country and for another, because they're both on the same side.

---

I disagree because I don't think peace means so much an absence of conflict as it does a presence of justice.

Freedom and Peace have a price. Even if no shots are being fired between states, doesn't mean there is peace as the states are still militarily intact as well as terrorists and their arsenals. That's not peace, that's complacency.

I believe the object should be to protect your citizens and to protect the rights of other countries citizens, while at the same time eliminating those who wish to make war. The United States is PRO-Self Defense. We are attacking a clear and present danger to American sovereignty. The only time there will be your kind of peace is when everyone on Earth is dead.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Notion: We are killing innocent civilians in our war on terrorism.

Reality: If you study a number of authors, you'll realized that it is maintained that personal freedom is more important than life. During United States slavery, all of the slaves were living in a constructed world, much like the Matrix. The fact that slaveholders let the slaves be free of work for 3 days, and instead let them get so drunk they were miserable, is an example of how the society was constructed to deprive the people of their freedoms, by making life SEEM good. That is what is going on in Afganistan and many of the terrorist harboring countries. Although I truly believe that US citizens are brainwashed to some extent by the media, it is worse in the Middle East. In many Middile Eastern countries, especially Afganistan, people are living in a constructed world. They believe the propoganda fed to them by the terrorists, Taliban, Islamic Extremists, and Osama Bin Laden. They are being completely brainwashed.

---

If the people are being completely brainwashed into believing that life in Afghanistan is good, then why do hundreds of thousands of Afghanis risk their lives to leave the country for a better life somewhere else? This was happening long before the war started. I guarantee you that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan don't believe a word that the Taliban says, which is why the government resorts to flogging people for disobedience. Secondly, even if the civilians were brainwashed, that is no excuse for their deaths. They are non-combatants, pure and simple.

quote:

---

Notion 2: It is impossible to win the war on Terrorism.

Reality: Think logically for a minute. Yes, bombing Afganistan to hell will not end the war on terrorism, neither will bombing Iraq, or any other Middile Eastern Country. That's why we are setting up a new government in Afganistan, and probably will in any other terrorist harboring country. I doubt the United States will make the same mistake twice, in this specific instance. After the terrorist harboring countries' governments are replaced, it will become much harder for terrorist groups to operate. Yes, terrorism won't be eliminated, but it will likely be lower than pre 9/11 levels, because they will be unable to operate in the open because of governments crushing them.

---

The United States has tried to influence the installation of pro-West governments in the Middle East before. One of them was the Taliban. Almost every Arab government that the US has supported and attempted to pull strings with has either become a terrorist harbouring country, an openly hostile country, or both. The rare exceptions that America continue to support, such as Saudi Arabia, are also authoritarian regimes that suppress the people's freedoms and rights. There is little evidence that the new coalition government in Afghanistan will be any different.

quote:

---

Notion 3: We are acting like terrorists by bombing Afganistan.

Reality: It's a clash of ideals, they declared war by attacking the WTC, and Afganistan didn't hand them over. That's like saying we acted like Nazis for bombing German cities in WW2. Get out of my country you traitors!

---

In case anyone didn't notice, the war started decades ago. This isn't the first time that the US has been attacked by terrorists in the Middle East. They destroyed a hotel full of US marines in Beirut in 1982 using the same methods as the attack on the WTC (except that a truck was used). The US has been sending military responses since the 1970s and the situation has only worsened. Both sides have tried to terrorize each other into retreat. Whether you call it war or terrorism depends on your point of view. In any case, it's destructive and does nothing but escalate the violence.

quote:

---

Notion 4: We are doing what the terrorists want.

Reality: Bin Laden doesn't want his top military and terror advisors dead. That's like Bin Laden saying that he wants us to chop off his hands and legs so he'll be more effective against us.

---

If Bin Laden did not want the US to send a full scale military response, then why did he make sure that they would? He's not a complete idiot: he knew that the US was going to react like this. He wanted to renew the war because he thought that he could win it. The fact that he's losing does not hide the fact that the US is doing exactly what the terrorists want. By destroying Bin Laden's organization, the US is only making room for another, more fanatical organization to take its place. The cause will still exist, and so will the terrorists, and so the war will continue until one side wakes up and sues for peace.

quote:

---

Notion 5: People who oppose the war are not for the Taliban.

Reality: Think of an analogy. You steal someone's wallet. They punch you in the face. You don't do anything. They punch you in the face again. Now, common sense would tell you that there are two things you can do.

1. Give the wallet back, and hope they still wont be mad over it.

2. Disable the person's ability to punch you.

---

Actually, common sense would tell you not to steal the wallet in the first place.

quote:

---

It's so disheartening, that's the problem with people today. People think "fighting is wrong", and never stop to think about all of the people who have spilt their blood and died fighting for the United States. Never thought about the people who died for what the United States stands for, and realized that the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror.

---

The people did not spill their blood so that America could continue spilling more blood.

Secondly, if the United States stands for democracy, freedom, and the ability to live without fear from terror, then why did they support the Taliban's rise to power? Why did the government initially support the Taliban's oppressive regime? Why does the USA continue to support Saudi Arabia's government, a monarchy with no constitution?

[Guest $iLk]

Here's a good story on John Walker. Shows how "tolerance" and "understanding" shaped his life.

quote:

---

Johnnie Walker on the Rocks

In Marin County, Calif., treason is just another alternative lifestyle.

BY CLAUDIA ROSETT

Thursday, December 6, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

Were the story of John Walker Lindh not so horribly real, it could play as a parody of our times. Mr. Walker, a 20-year-old American, goes to war in Afghanistan. Except he fights not for America, but against us, on the side of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. By the time he's captured, AK-47 in hand, Mr. Walker is filthy, wounded and famished, but to a persistent reporter from Newsweek he manages to gasp out his support for the Islamic terrorist attacks that, out of a clear blue sky, killed more than 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11.

Which sounds bad. But hey, dude, John--a k a "Sulayman," a k a "Abdul Hamid"--is from Marin County, Calif., a place where it is, like, totally uncool to make value judgments.

From Marin, the young Mr. Walker's parents spot him on the TV news and hustle to share with the world the alternative reality that shaped this self-described jihadi in the first place. Their son John is a spiritual, questing guy, we are told, a pacifist at heart, young and maybe susceptible to brainwashing. John's mother, Marilyn Walker, tells the press that her son is just a "sweet, shy kid," "totally not streetwise," a peaceful, scholarly type who wanted to help poor people. His father, Frank Lindh, announces that John "is a really good boy" even if he does deserve "a little kick in the butt for not telling me what he was up to."

A Marin musician, Neil Lavin, tells the Associated Press that Mr. Walker was in Afghanistan on a spiritual quest, quite possibly a rewarding one: "I imagine he lost himself there. Or found himself." A family friend, Bill Jones, tells the San Francisco Chronicle that fighting for bin Laden was just "a youthful indiscretion."

Even outside Marin, a lot of folks just don't seem to get it. In one account after another, there is the same perplexed tone: How could it happen that John Walker Lindh, the second of three children reared by broad-minded parents in the emotionally supportive 1990s, in a 3,000-sqare-foot home in one of the wealthiest enclaves on the California coast, ended up questing away with an assault weapon on the enemy side in Afghanistan? Newsweek quotes Mr. Lindh, his father, as saying, "I can't connect the dots between where John was and where John is." The magazine concludes: "Neither, it seems, can the rest of the world."

Oh really? The dots we've seen so far--especially in Newsweek and on CNN--invite some definite connecting.

What jumps out is a sorry sketch of the real world colliding with American culture at its most neurotically all-validating no-fault New Age nadir of nattering nonsense. No where in the nation could this particular picture have more naturally taken shape than in that Mecca of moral muddling, Marin County--a place salted with rich aging radicals of the 1960s, long on dollars but still short on sense. Recite the publicly known details of John Walker's life, and you have a narrative in which every authority figure in sight was so busy validating John and his alternative ways that no one stepped in soon enough to save him, or stop him.

And what he ended up doing, as reported so far, does not sound good. To venture a word that on the evidence seems to have gone missing from the Marin vocabulary (except when invoked to mean "good"), it sounds bad. American authorities now face the job of deciding whether Mr. Walker deserves to be tried for treason, which can carry a death penalty.

By his own account, Mr. Walker went to Afghanistan six months ago and trained for combat at a camp for supporters of Osama bin Laden. He fought with Taliban-linked Pakistanis against India, in Kashmir--a place riven for the past 10 years by terrorist violence and kidnappings. He then returned to Afghanistan to fight on the side of the Taliban against Americans and the Northern Alliance. Mr. Walker was captured among the al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who began the ferocious prison riot that killed a CIA agent, David Spann--a man who gave his life for the country John Walker betrayed.

But hey, give old Abdul Hamid a chance. Named originally for John Lennon, John Walker was raised in an atmosphere so swamped with tolerance it's small wonder he began to drown. His parents are now going through what they describe as an amicable divorce. His father is a Catholic. His mother dabbles in Buddhism, which according to Newsweek she credits for exposing John to a philosophy "very inclusive of all people" and imbued with a "sense of social justice."

John spent only a few months at a regular high school before transferring to the "alternative" Tamiscal High School, a place for artistic types specializing in independent study that, according to the school's Web site "works differently in many ways." Students are left to pilot their own journeys of self-discovery, while checking in with teachers once a week. At age 16, John read "The Autobiography of Malcolm X," and in it found himself yet another alternative--he converted to Islam.

In keeping with Islamic laws, Mr. Walker grew a beard and began praying regularly at a local mosque. He took to wearing Islamic robes and a turban, while his parents gushed over what they are still lauding as his "alternative course." He graduated early from the flexible Tamiscal High, and at 17, with his parents' blessing, he went to Yemen to study Arabic. He came back to California, briefly, but in February 2000 he returned to Yemen. Newsweek reports: "It was during John's second trip to Yemen, says his father, that he became aware that John had friends who had been to Chechnya to fight with Muslim rebels against the Russian army. One friend had been killed in the fighting."

Last October, John and his father had what Mr. Lindh described to CNN's Larry King as "a little father/son debate, much like my dad and I used to have over the Vietnam war" (was the young Mr. Lindh consorting with combat-ready Viet Cong?). Mr. Lindh was upset that the American sailors killed in the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden were the same age as John. John e-mailed him back that the terrorist bombing was justified.

Mr. Lindh concluded, reports Newsweek, that "My days of molding him were over." But the days of funding him went right on. When John moved to Pakistan, enrolled in a madrassa near the Afghan border and asked his dad for money, Mr. Lindh wired $1,200. John told his parents he was heading "somewhere cooler" for a while and disappeared into Afghanistan. Cool, huh?

And here we all are, in the midst of a real war with American lives on the line. And there are Mr. Lindh and Ms. Walker, who say they were horrified by Sept. 11, pleading for mercy for their son who joined the enemy. And they still don't get it. Mr. Lindh, who tells the world, "I'm proud of John," insists "there's no indication he's done anything wrong." In the world they inhabit, could John ever do anything wrong? When he was only 17 they deemed him mature enough to don turban and robes and take a voyage to Yemen. Now that he's 20 and has arrived at the Taliban terminus of his personal journey, suddenly he's too young to know his own mind. But through it all, says his father, "he found this other spiritual path, and I have always supported that."

It's painful to watch. It's tragic. But that doesn't make it all right. Somewhere between the kid in Marin with a book and the man in Afghanistan with a gun, there's a line that has been crossed. Connect the dots and you'll see it.

---