BS: John Walker. What to do?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: JedMarum
Date: 15 Dec 01 - 11:11 AM

Love does not mean we cannot execute him. Love does not mean we must excuse him. Why does John Walker deserve anymore love and leniency then the fellows with whom he so bravely fought? Why more then the fellows for whom his band of Taliban fighters fought (al Qaeda)?

When caught in the common human behavior or adultery, Jesus refused to condemn a woman - and convinced an agry mob they should not do so either. When confronted with the outrage of perversion to the Temple - he reacted with a much more reasonsed and violent act. John Walker has already made his life and death choices ... he already willingly accepted death as a reasonable, appropriate and even likely outcome to his actions (picking up a Taliban gun and supporting their war efforts against Pakistan and against his own country). I cannot see why Jesus would have any objections to John's execution. And applying the golden rule? '... as you would have done unto you?" Whos says John would have it any other way. He wants to be a martyr; why disappoint him?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,sc
Date: 15 Dec 01 - 02:35 AM

Every time I start to respond to all this hawk-hockey, I just back away and leave for I know that all the reason and logic on this planet cannot sway one person from lifelong prejudices. Bennett was so right in saying to invoke that Golden Rule. Whatever your religious beliefs, if you look at the teachings of the ancients, that is the foundation. Boils down to a simple word, Love.

Love cannot be learned from argument, debate or sermon. It must come from deep within the soul. It includes respect for all of creation. It includes empathy for the worm on the hook or the fawn convulsing with gunshot wounds in the pasture or the immigrant crossing into a new hope for feeding his family or a young man fighting for what he truly believed was justice. If you allow your heart to remained hardened by your lifetime experience and propaganda then you can never realize an all-encompassing Love.

I try. I must fight daily the urge to cheer when my country advances in the battlefield. I had to fight the contempt I felt for this guy joining up with the 'enemy' - I must remember, I could have been born in Afghanistan and been fighting for 'my country' from that side or I could have been zapped by zealotry into fighting for 'my god' - Love MUST overcome if society is to continue.

Justice AND Peace! -sc

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,uncle bill
Date: 15 Dec 01 - 01:46 AM

Mr. Walker is a non-issue. Revoke his citizenship leave him with his new brothers over there. Would be nice to send Hanoi Jane over there, though.. The Taliban and Afgans can sort it out among themselves, but as far as the al Queda , think we need to kill them all , kill all of their children, and put Osama's head on a stick since they seem to respect that sort of thing. And while we;re at it, break off all ties with Saudi Arabia, and start buying oil from our new Russian buddies.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Dec 01 - 01:13 AM

Thanks for posting that Dan, very interesting. Not sure it has a lot to do with this discussion, but at least you have set right the rules, as passed by the Congress.

Spud, I'm only a mere child of 71, and I am happy as hell to learn that someone on the Mudcat is older than me! I agree that our immigration laws have been too lax. If they had been more stingent, perhaps 9-11 would not have happened. We, as a country, have been too trusting, for too long. You wanna learn to fly airplanes into our buildings? Come on down! You don't even have to learn how to land them, just to fly them into our buildings.

It's disgusting, disheartening, and I sincerely hope we have learned our lesson. If only there were a way to get our members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to begin drafting legislation that is intended to correct the weakness in our immigration laws, instead of fighting among themselves. The problem is inherent in both political parties. They are more concerned in occupying the majority in both the House and the Senate, than they are in preserving freedom for all the world, and that troubles me deeply.

Sorry. I got infused by the same malady I accused Amos of. Lotsawriting.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: heric
Date: 15 Dec 01 - 12:25 AM

This is interesting. It is specifically limited to those responsible for the WTC. At least it's not "all bad guys."

Text of the joint resolution authorizing the use of force against terrorists, adopted 9/15/01:

To authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on Sept. 11, 2001, acts of despicable violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad, and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence, and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force"

Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2011, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 15 Dec 01 - 12:18 AM

Now, Doug, I don't want to celebrate the man. My position is strictly neutral on the question of Walker's guilt or innocence. I think his case is of little significance in relation to the larger issues of lax immigration security and bureaucratic bumbling here on the home front. I was only trying to express reality in my post. If Truman winked at the law in 1948 out of political expediency, don't you suppose President Bush might do the same in 2001? Maybe, maybe not. I really don't care.

I rarely express a political preference here on Mudcat because there is a noticeable lack of civility shown here in the discussion of contentious issues. I'm 77 years old and I am truly disheartened by the disrespect shown to traditional American values (which are very important to me)as evidenced by the terms in which many of the more juvenile sounding contributors to these discussions couch their arguments.

I do side with you on practically every post you make, Doug, although not vocally. (publicly). I also think Bush is doing a hell of a fine job as President. God help us now, if Gore had won the election. But then, maybe he would have done well, too. We'll never know, will we?

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: heric
Date: 15 Dec 01 - 12:03 AM

Well, if we start bombing terrorist-harboring countries all over creation in the next few months, you'll have a great big I-told-you-so.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: heric
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 11:56 PM

Check this out: Australia's stuck in the same quagmire, and haven't ruled out treason:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s439985.htm

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 11:48 PM

Yeah, you're probably right, Dan. 21 mg is pretty tempting these days. And if your quote really is indicative of our official position on treason then I am once again full of hot air. Funny -- it seemed to make a lot of sense at the time!!

I still think war should be declared, for this nation anyway, by an Act rather than a fiat. Imposing the formality would dampen the rush to hatred which is so often one of our sorrier mass traits.

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: heric
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 11:41 PM

I think Doug is saying you should jump up to 21 mg.

As for the point, where are you guys getting this idea? I looked for a while on google, but I don't see it, this no war no treason thing. Al Qaeda, and the Taliban at least after some point in time before Walker was captured, were enemies of these United States.

I believe you, but can you just save me some time and show me this no war no treason rule.

(Here's Article 3, 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.)

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 11:22 PM

Well received Doug.

What about the point though?

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From:
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 11:21 PM

that's about the most asinine thing I have ever read. Treason is treason regardless of what you call it or what legalistic definitions you can come up with. Maybe we need another word for when we don't have a declaration of war signed and delivered. We really don't. We know what it is. If it gets our people killed or tortured or put in a more vulnerable position it is treason. Call it whatever silly word you come up with. mg

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 11:05 PM

Amos: no disrepect intended, but sometimes I do feel that you get carried away with your own prose, and the above is an excellent example. However, space is free, and all one has to do is direct fingers on the keyboard, so what the hey!

And Spud: Right on! Let's give Walker a homecoming befitting a real hero! Pour the Guinness! Sing the songs! Welcome the hero!

Geeze!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 10:37 PM

Exactly, Amos. No declaration of war, no treason. Unfortunately, as I said in my previous post on this subject, governments tend to make up the rules on this sort of thing as they go along, and in that regard I notice by today's news that the U.S.Navy now has Mr. Walker in custody. Too bad. Understandable, but too bad!

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 10:28 PM

Really set the cat among the tongues with that overlong rap, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 07:34 PM

I'd like to add an important thought about the difference between covert and overt positions in groups.

I believe there has to be a formal, explicit line that a group -- even one as large as the United States -- must cross openly and by announcement to enter the state known as war.

Genuine leaders understand this and while they obviously seek to avoid putting thier group on such a fitting because of its highly destructive nature, when they must abandon gentler approaches and put another group on the footing of "enemy, hostile", with group as a whole commited to that position, they make it known and declare the condition that exists. This is not just a concenience of communication, but a formal transition of states for the group. A group goes onto a genuine war footing because of real survival issues which must be faced up to if the group is to endure. When that happens a LOT of other issues by necessity get put on the back burner. But it is not done by rhetoric alone or by underhanded means.

Both the Vietnam War and to a lesser degree the Afghanistan campaign were decreed, not declared. In the former case I do not believe our Congress ever declared open war against the Government of North Vietnam. In the latter case hostilities were declared first by the loathsome underhanded assault of September, and second by the Executive branch against an enemy that had no face and no nation. It was right and decent to give notice of the state, but it was not formalized by an act of Congress as far as I know.

When leaders want war powers, for real and sufficient reason, then they have to follow the damn formal process, not out of considerations of nicety but because it is a MAJOR change of footing, and a major change of life for all citizens of that group. If you are loyal to a group which for whatever reason has found itself genuinely at war with enemies, those are your enemies at once, because that is the nature of war. That doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it, like the young studs who went around glowering (or worse) at Sikhs because they looked similar to Moslems who looked similar to terrorists. But you're obliged to support your group under such circumstances, if your loyalty to it is based on anything deeper than convenience. And that burden may NOT be thrown onto a whole population's shoulders informally or without due process, in my opinion.

For any President to undertake the actions and deployments of war without the consensus of a formal state declaration is highly risky. To prosecute a war from the executive branch only by PR and media manipulation at length, without such formal declaration of the state, is ingenuous, and deceptive even when in a worthy cause. The end does not justify means which undermine the spiritual fiber of the nation.

The press declared Vietnam a war. The press and the Executranch have declared the deployment in Afghanistan a war, and well they might under the provocation received. But where the hell is the formal declaration? And if it is not in place how can we claim charges of treason against ANYONE? Treason is not a word to be handed out lightly, because someone didn't buy in to a massive wave of group-think, absent a legal status change from media-driven panic to "War". Without such a formal transition neither Walker nor Fonda were culpable because the "state of war" was an opinion up to that point.

Given the attacks of Spetember Ibelieve a state of war did exist de facto and should have been declared. Without it, we are being left flapping by pusillanimity and political craveneass in Congress.

Maybe I am wrong about this. DID we officially declare,/i> war somewhere during the 70's, and I missed it? How about this year?

Whaddya youse think about this position?

Amos

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: *#1 PEASANT*
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 07:09 PM

I think that when topics like this appear here that the responses should be required to take the form of a song. Any way this is a good candidate for a great song! So what can you do?

Conrad

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 05:55 PM

Norton1, yes Steve, I directed my post to you. I definitely see your point, and agree with you actually. Fonda suffered nothing (when I feel she should have been charged with treason) and I am not advocating a specific punishment for Walker, I'll leave that to the military courts if that's the way it goes.

I was proven wrong about someone suggesting the OBL tapes were faked up. No one has yet, at least.

Rick: I think you were absolutely right in the treatment of your cop friend. Maybe he bought an accordian!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 05:35 PM

Hi Doug, ME cynical? Nah!

Actually if you look up 'cynical' in a dictionary..you'll find my picture there! Honest, I've tried not to be, but back in pre-history I got involved with a LOT of groups (mostly political) and I found the same "end justifies the means" approach in every one. Took away a lot of my idealism....and really spurred me on to try and read EVERTHING (on all sides) before I took a stand on an issue.

My fave little weird incident relating to this, happened during a "California Migrant workers" demonstration. (remember Cesar Chavez...him I liked). I'd just come off stage from singing, and one of the cops hired to keep order, came over and said "Hi Rick, how's it goin'? Will I see you at softball this summer"?

A couple of my fellow musicians looked on in horror (communicating with constabulary was unthinkable to them), but the bottom line for me was that, until I saw (or knew of) my ball playing friend being an asshole, he was still my friend. Who knows, maybe five years later he got a banjo and some Pete Seeger records!!

Hi Norton. When are you gonna start a 'bike' thread? Bet there'd be some takers here.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 02:59 PM

DougR - If you are talking to me I have not advocated a non-judicial response to Ms. Fonda. I see absolutely no difference between the two people. It's just like the guy that pulls out a gun and someone near dies of a heart attack. Who killed him? Or was it bound to happen? Or did the incremental addition of stress create the condition that caused the attack to occur. Just because one uses a gun does not necessarily mean that person is worse or better.

Joseph Stalin, to use a very rude analogy, never personnally killed anyone that I know of. But how many millions were purged due to his ideological implementations?

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 02:18 PM

Hi CD! Might get some snow in northern Arizona, but we only get a few flurries ever few years here in Phoenix.

Steve: I don't agree when you say that if Fonda wasn't punished, Walker shouldn't be. I see them as separate issues. I think it is conceivable that Walker fired his gun at his fellow Americans. What Fonda did was aid the enemy in it's PR efforts, and it was unforgivable, in my opinion ...but to me, Walker's transgressions are greater.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 01:11 PM

Mr. Zurofsky - We are probably much closer than apart on our views. We just don't know each other well enough to fully comprehend what motivates either of us to take the view we do. So I'll confine my remarks here to Ms. Fonda. Ms. Fonda went to North Viet Nam, sat in an anti-aircraft gun seat (that fired on Americans), and visited the POW camps. Perhaps you should read what occurred there as a result of her visit. Ms. Fonda used her status as a media personality to influence how the people back home viewed those of us who fought the war. In essence assisting in blaming the warrior for the war. One of the men I came home with was murdered by a group angry at the war and our participation in it. I used to have the newspaper article documenting this but burned it as part of my forgiving the people who condemned me upon my return from the war. Ms. Fonda was quite vocal about her views on troops not actively opposing their commanders and their orders. Ms. Fonda further rendered her convictions as not one of morality but one of a reactionary to the times in an interview on this subject a few years ago. It was the only time I viewed her on the screen. I guess I, like many others, were hoping for an apology so we could begin to reconcile with this facet of the war. It didn't happen but then in my opinion the rich don't really care - in the words of Marilyn Monroe's publicity agent, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." I believe Ms. Fonda falls into this category. It's why I have not supported her over the years. It isn't going to bring down the house of the Fondas but then I never expected it to. Just my quiet way of stating I disagreed with her. So if you can see a black and white difference between my commanders in Viet Nam and Ms. Fonda's actions during the same time period good for you. It's still pretty fuzzy to me.

Whether the war was moral or not is not for me or you to judge - history and God will do that. War is a nasty business and no one goes into it without doing some soul searching. And should someone do something evil to me I would do everything in my power to prevent them from doing it again if that be their stated objective.

Rick - You and I have already covered this subject and it was with lightness that I started my remark to you. I continue to respect the work you did during the war and the music you do today. It is those freedoms I fought for.

You see Mr. Zurofsky I fought for the right to dissent, to speak freely, to hold your own view, and to support that view. My hope is that no one gets hurt in the process. And in retrospect, isn't hindsight a wonderful thing, I probably should have done more over the years to prevent war but I was busy trying to live a life that my beliefs obligated me to do in the stead of those who died for those same principles. For it is principles that we defend. For me the Viet Nam War was a just war since the principles I fought for then are still valid today.

Respectfully,
Steve

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,colwyn dane
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 12:57 PM

Hi DougR,
We are having a lot of weather here at the moment - how are things in AZ are you due a white Xmas?

In wars that involve your country then any action which you take to undermine your country by consciously and
purposely acting to aid its enemies is an act of treason.
Jane Fonda,I believe,should have had the legal book and shelf slung at her for her actions. She should have been made
to defend her actions and to be judged on them by her peers.

Abdul Hamid was already at war before the US became involved - I don't think he hob-nobbed with Mullah
Mohammed Omar or OBL or the Taliban regime - he went "to help the Islamic government" because "the Taliban are
the only government that actually provides Islamic law."
Would a case brought against him stand up in court?
It would be a difficult one for him to defend given the mood of the American people.

If Jane Fonda was not brought to account then I do not think that Hamid should - of the two I know which
one I would send to Philadelphia.

I hope this clears the smoke Doug.

CD.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 12:34 PM

Hmmm. Rick, you sound a bit cynical. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 12:19 PM

Oops! Well Norton, you may have to go back to viewing me with a little more suspicion (I can take it, Ha Ha!) My comments on Jane et al. were specifically to do with why she wasn't CHARGED with anything....BY the Govt. Period.

As a Canadian, my complete opposition to the war, hardly involved the danger it implied for American kids my age. I lived and worked in a house (on Admiral Rd. in Toronto) for a while that was a 'stopover' for American kids fleeing to Canada.

Actually it would seem that my oft repeated point in this thread is simply that TELEVISION EXPOSURE is now the final arbiter in cases such as these. The first set of lawyers to get on Larry King immediately give their client the upper hand.....and I DO seem to get damned emotional about it don't I?

I am by nature, wired to mistrust ALL government propaganda....even when it comes from a suposedly "friendly" party. I never had anything against Jane Fonda (or John Walker for that matter). They are simply inconsequential to me. Religious Fanatics and Movie stars may be diverting, but I see it as just tabloid stuff.

Not to say that just because someone is an entertainer, their views aren't important, or in some cases may make a REAL difference....Folks like Paul Robeson, Pete Seeger, Charlie King, Sy Kahn, and so many others, ALWAYS combined their views and their music, and have influenced hundreds of thousands (including me). It's just the media circus, that I was focusing on here.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 10:33 AM

It must be wonderful to see the world so clearly in black and white, I just can't seem to manage it on issues like U.S. Military intervention which results in the death of many innocents (not to mention long-term ecological damage). Somehow the fact that "they" killed a few thousand of our innocents just doesn't strike me as a legitimate justification for "our" killing a few thousand (likely more) of "their" innocents (not to mention committing war crimes in the treatment of captured members of enemy forces). If someone does something evil to me, does that give me a right to perpetrate evil against innocent bystanders?

John Walker, and for that matter Jane Fonda, reached their decisions against a moral background that was and is considerably more complicated than most of these "hang-him-high" postings seem willing to acknowledge.

I remember opposing the Viet Nam War. I believed then, and I believe now, that our involvement in Viet Nam was wrong whether measured against a realpolitik scale or a moral scale. The soldiers who fought the war for our country were not responsible for the war and it was certainly wrong to blame them. The people who gave the orders, however, were and are criminals in my book.

I do not recall Jane Fonda ever criticizing the soldiers themselves. Her critique was of the war, and she called for draft resistance and for soldiers to refuse to follow orders. I understand why this may be viewed as treason. In my opinion, however, she was morally correct and exhibited a great deal of personal courage by putting her career on the line, and exposing herself to such lasting hatred.

I have always enjoyed her acting, and regret that she has not made a film in many years. I was offended, however, when I saw her in her role as Mrs. Ted Turner caricaturing Native Americans by cheering on the Atlanta Braves through the vehicle of the mass chant and Tomahawk chop. Now that looked like racism to me. Its racism, however, was more than equalled by the racism that was part of what underlay our misguided Viet Nam War. My jury is still out on whether our current Afghanistan efforts reflect a similarly racist attitude that places very little value upon Afghan lives.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Gary T
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 07:54 AM

Innocent until proven guilty applies to normal civilian justice. There's not much left to prove when someone is captured as part of an army, having borne arms, and vocally supporting said army. It's a military matter.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: harpgirl
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 12:45 AM

I thought he was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,bflat
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 12:19 AM

I know that I am simplistic. I prefer to be that way. He is a traitor. He may not have know of any attack on, oning or towards the USA. We really don't know. But, his behavior was not, religious, only fanatical. Innocents died on 9/11, their death is culpable. I look towards Isreal, as my mainstay, I believe that the horror that Jews have withstood in hatred over the centuries; brings me to belive in only one reponse to terrorism. One by one!

Ellen

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 14 Dec 01 - 12:11 AM

Ah Mr. Fielding - I knew I liked you for more than your music. And just because she didn't carry a gun does not change the damage she caused our POW's incarcerated in the Hanoi Hilton. And that doesn't take into account the treatment of the veterans as we came home from her portrayals and actions. Blamed us for the war - I'm not ready to go full tilt on my opinions, in this forum, on her. Let's just say I've never seen a movie she was in, never watched a TV ad she participated in, and certainly hope she and Tricky Dick end up in the same fighting hole in hell. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Steve -

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 11:46 PM

Jane Fonda? Jane Fonda! Jane Fonda never was charged because she was MOVIE STAR! O J Simpson got off because he was a football AND movie star! (anyone else would have had at least one dissenting juror)

The list is endless...Jimmie Swaggart, Marv Albert, Dirty Dick, Bubba, Dubya, Patty Hearst....we don't jail Megastars (and those that really go over the line, ain't in for long) and if John W becomes one, he'll be laughin', no matter WHAT the Govt. wants.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 09:28 PM

Not sure I follow you, CD. Are you saying Hamid is justified in what he did because Jane Fonda set the precedence in Viet Nam? Fonda certainly contributed to the VC's war effort by siding with them, but I don't think she carried a gun.

Could you clarify? Thanks.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,colwyn dane
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 08:07 PM

There was another John Walker who was part of a spy-ring operating in the USN.

The one we are discussing is no longer called John Walker but is now known as Abdul Hamid.
Walker was a convert to Islam and went to Afghanistan about 6 months ago - I do not know why he made the
switch to Islam perhaps a Saul of Tarsus or Alvin York like experience or maybe it was the gathering together of many
different threads of reason which he fashioned into his 'rope' of religious certitude.
A 'rope' that was to lead him to 'help the Taliban build a "true Islamic state."'

Did Hamid take up arms against the USA?
It has been reported he fought with the Taliban against the NA at Konduz and was part of the surrender of
foreign Taliban supporters to General Rashid Dostum. About 500 of the foreigners were interred in Kala Jangi,
the NA fortress, which became the site of a four day battle between prisoners and the NA.
Hamid survived the bombing and the action to suppress the armed Taliban POW's in Kala Jangi - he seems to have used up a
few of his nine lives in doing so. Technically he was a prisoner of the NA who handed him over to the USA.

What should happen to Hamid?
The Jane Fonda case - being involved in propaganda warfare for the NV/VC whilst US forces were dying at a steady rate in IndoChina - surely has created a precedence.

Until state-sponsored terrorism goes out of business Abdul Hamid should be treated as a hostile POW
and interned on Shark Island or wherever the US Colditz is located.

CD.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 07:16 PM

Well, Rick, I may have overdone it a bit with Spaw, and got a bit carried away. I really do give a shit what he thinks.

Bennett: we are so far apart in our thinking there is no point in my commenting on your post. About the only thing I agree with in your last post is, "they are not telling us anything they don not want us to hear." I think that's pretty clear. I don't question your right to think differently though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 06:49 PM

Hey Doug, feel free to crap on Spaw anytime you like.

I'm with Marty on this one though. I watched Don Rumsfeld take questions for an hour today and he said NUTHIN', absolutely NUTHIN' regarding any 'details' of the operation. The difference between him and Colin Powell and others who've had to face the press...appear to answer questions...and even look like their enjoying it, is that Don has a sense of humour and simply CAN'T be rattled. Once again, why on earth would would they compromise any part of their operation by discussing it in detail at this point? I AM getting sick of the same damn questions every day though. If I hear one more time "Do you know for certain if Osama is still in Af....."? If they know, they'd be idiots to reveal it. He says "maybe" every day, but they still ask.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 05:53 PM

What do I know that is not revealed in the administration's press conferences? Only that they are not telling us anything that they do not want us to hear. I also know that as time passes we will learn more about such matters as the number of civilian casualties, the treatment of captured combatants, and whether our "intervention in support of civilization" led to more deaths of innocents from starvation and cold than would have occured if we had not intervened. I also know that we will never know what would have happened if we had pursued a less violent approach, such as the military escort of food and supply shipments to the millions of starving people in Afghanistan while publicizing our reward offers for bin Laden's capture. My experience has always supported the adage that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Our war hasn't caught bin Laden yet, how many innocent lives are properly lost in the hunt?

The bin Laden tape released today is certainly damning. Indeed, its persuasive force with regard to his guilt makes it plain that there is no need for secret evidence, miltary tribunals and the like, but we are both deviating from the subject of this thread.

No one has stated any reason why my suggestion that we follow the Golden Rule with regard to John Walker, and eschew jingoistic analysis of the matter, should not govern the decision of what should be done.

When Bush ran for President he told us his favorite political philosopher was Jesus. I understood him to mean that when he faced difficult decisions he asked himself "what would Jesus do?" While I am not a Christian, I think that's a pretty good question to ask with regard to John Walker and the rest of the September 11 fallout. I doubt Jesus would pursue the Bush administration's approach to this entire problem. I think he would try to follow the Golden Rule.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 05:19 PM

The moon was collateral......What I read into your post, and we all do it no matter how hard we may try not to, was the suggestion of a mindset. If I was wrong, so be it. The fallacy of the written word here is that it is not always clear as to tone and it's something that comes up a lot. Generally I try to take whatever it is in the best fashion and assume the best. In your case, I didn't and just went with the "tone" I felt. Such is life.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 04:49 PM

Spaw, Just read your post; I don't recall any thread about the moon landing videos, and certainly would have not known whether you posted to it, what you would have said, or whether you were that committed to the pro or con position. In all honesty, I would not have cared.

To the extent I respond to a thread, I have to make some allowances for those whom I believe who are perceptively challenged. However, I will not spend the time or effort to exhaustively review the backgrounds and posts of some person who might just open the thread I've posted to. Those who read the posts must accept some responsibility for their feelings and emotions about what they're reading.

I do try and use adjectives that are not commonly construed as "cuss words," but as you know, there are plenty of air-burst adjectives which tend to fly over the heads of those who tend to look to excrement for a modifier.

From your post, I suspect that you can't claim undue sensitivity about other's views either. And when I believe that someone is an idiot, I am real clear about spelling the word "idiot". And in examining my one sentence rejoinder to DougR's post, I do not see anything close to the word "idiot." That said, the rest is on you.

I do respect the views of most of the people who post to the Mudcat, but I do believe that if you take a look at my past posts, I take on both extremes of the political spectrum, (though admittedly I tend to drive on the right side of the road).

But in any case, my comment was an obvious addendum to DougR's, since I suspect that if you replaced a turban with a space helmet, the backgrounds shown in the tapes would look roughly the same. And to be on the safe side, I was examining the dirt in the bin Laden tape for a footprint with parallel tread marks...

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 03:21 PM

Down through the ages we Americans have dealt with our mercenaries in varying ways. And it all depends on the circumstance. But bottom line, any one, and I mean any one, who takes up arms in a government other than the one they claim citizenship in is forfeit of all rights normally accorded citizens of that country.

I'm just sorry the sack of poop lived long enough to get captured. My only hope is he will end up being a lesson for all of us. And no I don't know what the flippin lesson is nor do I care right now.

Mary Garvey - I'm with you on the Fonda - Walker connection. Put both of the jerks in a small space and shove dinner through a slot in the door until there is no one left to retrieve the damn plates.

Merle Haggard said it the very best when he talked about justice being something you could afford or not. That is why Fonda ended up a sniveling rich girl and Walker will most likely end up in jail for a long time.

I'd suggest that those who would like to see this poor screwed up kid given leniency adopt him. Give him a home. Let him marry your sister. Geezzzz......

For those of you who don't know what is going on in the world PM me with your e-mail address - I'll get you added to the Pinkerton Daily Summary list. Then nearly every day you'll get the straight up scoop on what is happening all over the world. I can also add you to the couple day old "Eyes Only" sheets the Green Berets at Fort Bragg receive. They are declassified after a day or two but provide a very in depth world view of what occurs regarding America and our involvements around the globe. I don't get them real regularly but would certainly forward them on to you.

Now that ignorance is not a forthcoming issue let's get real here. Come on - quit holding back - tell me what you REALLY feel about this thing!

I personnally would just as soon he was given to the Northern Alliance and that be the end of it. Oh yeah - and permanently revoke his ability to return to the USA.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 03:12 PM

Sorry, Spaw, I took it the wrong way.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 02:16 PM

He wasn't referring to me Doug.....I'm an Apollo junkie and loved the entire space program. I found the sites that debunked those who believe it was a hoax. What I meant was I found the comment insulting for obvious reasons.....like if I don't agree with Claymore's viewpoint I must be an idiot. If I maligned you in the process, and perhaps I did, I'm sorry....We've known each other here too long to argue about it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 01:41 PM

Spaw: I had no idea Claymore was referring to posts you had made on the Mudcat. I'm sure you were not the only one in the entire world that doubted the legitimacy of the Moonscape tapes. It seems to me, at the time, there were many news stories related to that. Frankly, you having set the tone, I don't give a shit what you think of the tapes of the Moonlandings, and I probably wouldn't have read the posts related to them were I Mudcatting at the time.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 01:31 PM

Unreasonable doubts can always remain, but 'beyond reasoable doubt'? Definitely 'Yes'.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 01:24 PM

No Doug, that tape has been pretty well checked by several sources and I'm happy to say it's quite damning. I hope the rest of the world sees it the same way.......and you and Claymore are both full of shit.....If you'll recall, I was the one who posted all the sites debunking the fake moon landing crap. So let's not wield the brush in too wide an arc huh?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 12:46 PM

Yep, Claymore, you may be right.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 11:50 AM

And they will point to the fact that the background of the bin Laden tapes is the same one they used from the moon landing tapes...

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 11:39 AM

Marty: we obviously have not been watching the same news conferences. I agree the administration is not telling us everything, and agree we do not need to know everything. We don't need to hear anything that would put American or Allied lives in danger certainly.

I'm listening and watching the bin Laden tapes as I type this, and wondering how long it will take for one of my fellow Mudcatters to post a message that the government doctored it to make bin Laden look bad.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: marty D
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 12:53 AM

I was sorely tempted to try and be number 99 in the "99 ways to use Duct tape", but this discussion (if I do say so myself) has gotten very interesting.

Doug, this may well be the most 'open war' we've ever fought, but if the administration aren't hiding 90% of their operation they'd be total idiots. Those press conferences are an absolute joke. I've barely seen one straight answer to anything that hadn't already made the papers the day before. We still no virtually NOTHING that's happening over there. John Walker is no more than an irritant right now. The LAST thing the administration wants is hundreds, or probably thousands of Americans marching in support of leniency for this turkey. No, maybe he doesn't deserve to die for being sucked in by religion, and maybe he doesn't deserve to die for being part of the war, but I know for certain that he doesn't deserve to be turned into a celebrity (with all that money from book deals and movie rights) which is EXACTLY what will happen in the next few months. It makes me ill. Especially when I think of those who DID die in September.

If I were the CIA, I'd say he slipped on a banana peel and died while in custody! Well maybe I wouldn't, but it feels good to THINK it.

marty

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 01 - 12:25 AM

Bennett: "much is being hidden by the Bush administration ...

Pray tell, Bennett, since you appear to have information no one else seems to have, what is being hidden?

I think that the Bush administration's policy of having daily press briefings by the Defense Department, the White House, and often the State Department makes this the most open war the U. S. has ever fought.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: tremodt
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 08:05 PM

I still say he is just a screwed up young person that does not deserve killing

WE the AMERICANS and the northern alliance LET the prisioners in the camp WITH their wqeapons becaue they were not searched correctly

Perhaps thay worked at airport security befor going to afganistan and were not familiar with the proper way to search people

We have let many Taliban agents and soldiers walk away with their weapons WHY to kill us later gimeeeeea break

this is a SNAFU

is any one else old enough to know what that means

ron