 sj |
||
|
||
BS: John Walker. What to do?
|
|
|
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 - 11:56 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: 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: 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 - 12:25 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Amos Date: 15 Dec 01 - 11:24 AM Kind of tough on his folks, though. Thing is, if he were to transition to a more balanced place in the world, less fixated on the Beyond and less ready to dramatize violent killing, he'd probably be a very smart and able guy. I guess its up to him which turn in the trail he wants to follow. If he is fixed on martyrdom, he is stupider than I'd have thought, and will just be stuck porpoising through the life cycle one more silly time. He's not central to the unfolding politics of the larger stage by any means. We can afford some tolerance here with as many gray issues as there are surrounding rights and wrongs. The final deal will probably be that he may be tried for taking up arms against the US, which he arguably did do. Arguably, although we were just fielding "advisors" and forward air-strike control troops at the time. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 01 - 03:36 PM I can't really see what he's supposed to have done wrong.
The man goes out to a country where the regime in power is in fact one which has been armed and supported by the USA, gets recruited by the organisation that is ruining the place. Not a regime I like, but that's not relevant. Right, he's in uniform, insofar as they have uniforms. Probably does some fighting in the civil war against the Northern Alliance that has been going on for ever. But in no sense did joining the Taleban mean that he was taking up arms against the USA.
Then the Americans get involved, after September 11th, which noone suggests was a Taleban operation. The only reason they came into the picture was that they refused to hand him over, which may have been foolish, but wasn't an act of war in itself.
So the Americans respond by getting into the war in support of the Northern Alliance - but they aren't exactly in range of a foot soldier with a gun, even if he wanted to take up arms against the, They are dropping bombs and sending missiles and so forth. The actual fighting is still against the Northern Alliance. It doesn't seem particularly likely that an ordinary foot soldier would ever have come up against any of the relative handful of non Nor then Alliance ground soldiers, American or British or whatever.
Then he gets captured and taken at a holding facility where a confusing time was had by all, and large numbers of prisoners were killed during and following a mutiny. And an American is killed by some of them - no suggestion that John Walker has any involvement in this either.
And then he turns up as one of the handful of survivors.
What's he supposed to have done that was wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 01 - 03:42 PM I can't really see what he's supposed to have done wrong. The man goes out to a country where the regime in power is in fact one which has been armed and supported by the USA, gets recruited by the organisation that is ruining the place. Not a regime I like, but that's not relevant. Right, he's in uniform, insofar as they have uniforms. Probably does some fighting in the civil war against the Northern Alliance that has been going on for ever. But in no sense did joining the Taleban mean that he was taking up arms against the USA.
Then the Americans get involved, after September 11th, which noone suggests was a Taleban operation. The only reason they came into the picture was that they refused to hand Bin Laden over, which may have been foolish, but wasn't an act of war in itself.
So the Americans respond by getting into the war in support of the Northern Alliance - but they aren't exactly in range of a foot soldier with a gun, even if he wanted to take up arms against the, They are dropping bombs and sending missiles and so forth. The actual fighting is still against the Northern Alliance. It doesn't seem particularly likely that an ordinary foot soldier would ever have come up against any of the relative handful of non Nor then Alliance ground soldiers, American or British or whatever.
Then he gets captured and taken at a holding facility where a confusing time was had by all, and large numbers of prisoners were killed during and following a mutiny. And an American is killed by some of them - no suggestion that John Walker has any involvement in this either.
And then he turns up as one of the handful of survivors.
What's he supposed to have done that was wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Amos Date: 15 Dec 01 - 04:26 PM The only specific I have heardis that he was interrogated by the CIA guy who was later killed in the prison uprising, and failed to tell hm any such uprising was in the offing or even that theprisoners were heavily armed and still bloody-minded. So it could be said he betrayed the United States by that omission, electing to continue his role as a Teleb. But if he had not, he might have been in grimmer risk of his life. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: heric Date: 15 Dec 01 - 05:14 PM McGraw, I don't think it's nearly as clean as you suggest. The U.S. was accusing the Taleban of harboring the terrorist bin Laden for up to a year before the WTC, and had, I believe, threatened bombing before September 11. At the minimum, Walker was aiding an abetting a group that was knowingly, at a minumum again, providing aid, shelter, safe harbor and support after the fact to a declared enemy of the U.S. Walker was aligned with conspirators against the U.S. It seems likely that the Taleban were conspirators before the fact, as well, even if they were not the direct actors in the WTC. They knew what bin Laden and his gang intended against officials and civilians of western nations, what he had been accused of and what he had taken credit for in the past. They had negotiated his "extradition," (according to news reports), to no agreement, before 9/11. They also (according to news reports) accepted his money in exchange for their "protection," such as it was. The degree to which Walker may have known the Taleban were enemies of the U.S., before the U.S. declared it and made it official, is a question of fact, known currently only to him. Walker's best defense seems to be that he only knew of them as conspirators after the fact, and feared any attempts to extricate himself from involvement. That's a weak defense when the loss of others' lives is at stake. Still, I can't imagine wanting to kill him. I can readily understand wanting to cut him loose and let him drift away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: sc Date: 15 Dec 01 - 05:18 PM Maybe he didn't know, Amos. Not everyone is privvy to every escape plan in prison ya know; particularly if they are a potential 'rat'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: gnu Date: 15 Dec 01 - 05:28 PM Gee. He's just a boy. I say send him home and let his old man spank him. Wait, spanking's not legal anymore, is it ? Perhaps that's how he got there in the first place ? Why is he still alive anyway ? Why is he not laying beside the rest of the sonsobitches that laid the ambush that they did. They gave up, kept weapons and rose up to kill those to whom they surrendered. All's fair ? Okay then. It wouldn't have even made the news had I been in charge that day... just a smoking hole. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie Date: 15 Dec 01 - 05:36 PM My sentiments tend toward Gnu's. "Politically" I don't think this little snot is worth a bullet. It means next to nothing in my perspective that a nation as populous as America produces ONE lost soul. Remember the dozen or so American POW's in Korea who decided to stay with their comrades after the war. For a while; I think most eventually drifted back to the US if they could. So let him stew in his own juice. What really pisses me off--and this is so chauvinistic I'm putting my flak vest on--is that all America knows the name of this little tird and nobody knows about any of the first group of Rangers, for example, that went in on the ground in that first raid. Equal time for those doing it right, I say. CC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 01 - 05:48 PM "Walker's best defense seems to be that he only knew of them as conspirators after the fact, and feared any attempts to extricate himself from involvement "
If that is the defence, it looks a pretty solid one.
Whatever involvement the Taliban may have had with Al Qaida or whatever is pretty high level stuff, hardly of any relevance to charges against the equivalent of a private.
As for the prison mutiny or whatever it was, that is very murky territory. Given the way it panned out, it sounds suspiciously like a massacre in which some of the prisoners, having been allowed to keep their weapons for some strange reason, used them. More like Wounded Knee than anything. Maybe that wasn't how it actually was - but it doesn't, on the face of it, sound much like something where an insignificant prisoner (which is what Walker appears to have been) would have had any advance confirmation to give, even if he'd wanted to.
This just isn't something where talk of trials, let alone executions and so forth, makes any sense at all. Of course that doesn't mean it might not happen that way, but if it does it will be a real own goal.
Trials after all wars should be reserved for war criminals, whatever side they are on. Roll on the establishment of a properly organised international war crimes tribunal to help that along. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: heric Date: 15 Dec 01 - 06:26 PM >>>If that is the defence, it looks a pretty solid one.<<< No, not that he knew after the fact that they were conspirators. He knew (or should have known), while fighting on their behalf, that they were conspirators-after-the-fact (after the crime.) He knew (or should have known) they were harboring, aiding and abetting a criminal (and enemy of the State) after the criminal had been accused by the State. Not a good place to be. He took up arms against his countrymen to protect an accused criminal who has threatened to do more harm to Walker's countrymen. Bad, bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: DougR Date: 15 Dec 01 - 06:29 PM It doesn't warrant an international war crimes tribunal, McGrath. My opinion only of course. The terrorists attacked the United States, not the world, and the U. S. should determine what happens to him. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 01 - 08:26 PM Attacking the World Trade Centre involving the deaths of people from all countries was surely very much an attack on the world as a whole, specifically an attack on America.
As a criminal act carried out on United States teritory there is obviously good reason for the relevant trials to be carried out under the American legal system in America.
In fact I can't see that it would count as a war crime, which is as well. War crimes tend to go unpunished, which is something I would like to see changed, which is why I would like to see an International War Crime Tribunal set up, which is something that almost all civilised governments have indicated that in principal they are agreed on.
But that's got nothing to do with Walker's involvement with the Taliban, since there doesn't seem any reason to think he was a terrorist. Being on the losing side in a war is not in itself a war crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST,Dan K. Date: 16 Dec 01 - 06:32 PM Whatever the facts, this boy did take a walk on the wild side. http://www.msnbc.com/news/673497.asp?cp1=1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Dec 01 - 09:56 PM A large pinch of salt with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: JedMarum Date: 17 Dec 01 - 10:01 AM It was clear from some of John's earliest comments that he had been trained for terrorist actions, and that he had direct conact with al Qaeda training, camps and activities. I don't think any of that changes the argument much. He took up arms against his country, based upon his beliefs. Assuming he stands by those beliefs he will face the consequences of his actions. If he changes his stand, and either fights through legal means any court actions, or if he decides he was a victim of some powerful foreign brainwashing oranization, he will face the consequences of his actions based upon how well the court believes him. If I were deciding his fate I'd decide how to proceed with his case depending upon how he cooperated and how strong a man of conviction I thought he was. The best he could for is a US Civil court, and I'd only go there if I was sure of the evidence and his level of cooperation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 17 Dec 01 - 10:12 AM Well it is all a mute point - he has an attorney now. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 17 Dec 01 - 10:13 AM And moot also - Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST,colwyn dane Date: 17 Dec 01 - 08:39 PM It now seems that an Australian,David Hicks,has been involved in Afghan politics. This was reported in todays (18th) 'Sydney Morning Herald', I cut and paste most of this report as they only keep the page active for 24 hours. Start Quote Australian David Hicks, who trained extensively with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist group, was handed over to United States authorities early yesterday, more than a week after his capture by the Northern Alliance. Hicks's capture raised "a number of legal questions relating to potential offences under Australian law" which were still being considered, the ministers said. "We can assure Australians that if Mr Hicks has committed a crime against Australian law, the Government will do whatever is necessary to bring him to justice."
But the legal position is unclear. If Hicks was working with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and not connected to
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST,McGrath Date: 17 Dec 01 - 08:48 PM "If Hicks was working with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and not connected to hostilities against parties outside the country, he may not have committed an offence."
That was essentially the point I was making in respect of Walker. If it turns out he was involved in other ways, that's be another matter. I'd be reluctant to rely on anything said in military interrogation - there's too much history in Northern Ireland for example that throws very severe doubt on that kind of stuff. Those are circumstances in which people are likely to say anything at all, if they think that is what the interrogators want to hear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: DougR Date: 17 Dec 01 - 10:21 PM Latest news reports that Walker was a trained membre of Alqueda (sp?), McGrath. Does that mean he committed an offence? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Art Thieme Date: 17 Dec 01 - 10:57 PM He ought to be held up as a prime roll model for any young person seeking his own road less travelled---someone who went down a certain path because he was dedicated to his beliefs as much as John Payne, Che Guevara, La Passsionaria (Delores Ibarruri) or my own mentor, Pete Seeger. The mistake he made was being on the side that is losing. For sure, his story will not be told by friendly biographers. I feel that is probably as it ought to be. I don't stand behind what he did. But I admire his misguided attempt to be the master of his own adventure while being true to a youthful ideal. That's what youth is for as I see it. Not for going down the wrong road (hopefully) but choices are always a bit of a crap-shoot. It's a classic tragedy---the person whose fall is ordained by his own failings and shortcomings. I doubt it'd make a very good folksong---but it might make a great opera ! And if Shakespeare was still around----and enough time went by to allow hatreds to fade and one more good story to inspire art once again... Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: marty D Date: 18 Dec 01 - 12:56 AM Well put Art. I SORT OF agree with you. I'm perhaps not objective enough yet about the guy to see it that way, but I understand where you're coming from. Does anyone else want to do a part two of this? I thought we'd get about 40 posts, but Walker's story appears to be just starting. I think Rick is spot on that it's going to be a TV public relations battle from now on. But I wish it wasn't. marty |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: DougR Date: 18 Dec 01 - 01:16 AM Well Art, you have a right to admire whomever you please, of course, but I do too. I admire those young people who make good choices, Walker doesn't seem to have made many in his young life, at least that's the way it appears to me. Had he chosen to become a good Muslim, as the majority of them appear to be, I would agree with you. His choice was to join a radical wing of Islam that plans and executes innocent people. There's nothing much to admire about that in my view. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST,both eyes open Date: 18 Dec 01 - 02:35 AM Who caused more young American lives to be lost for nought? Jane Fonda? Or Richard Nixon? Or Henry Kissinger? At least Jane apologized for her idiocy. Nixon (the great crook) and Kissinger (who some would still love to try as a war criminal) grew older and became (God knows how) respected senior spokesmen. Just because we're right at this point in time to destroy Bin Laden and the Taliban doesn't mean we have a squeaky clean record over the years. And once this current mess is over, or nearly so, hopefully we as a country will take a look at the bigger picture and see that we are not entirely blameless. When Malcolm X spoke of the "chickens coming home to roost" after JFK's assassination, there was much public indignation. There was also some sound logic behind his comment. If we, as a country, spent more time and energy exporting true democracy, and less support for petty tyrants we might find ourselves viewed as something other than the "great satan." If we forced our corporations to pay a living wage and real benefits to all workers instead of utilizing sweat shops and exporting work to "developing" countries, we might be less despised. We have the potential for greatness. Unfortunately we settle for mediocrity and millionaire politicians with special agendas. John Walker, like so much else, is a symptom, not a cause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 18 Dec 01 - 09:44 AM When did Jane apologize? I watched that interview and I think she may have alluded to an apology - but do you have a quote? And after doing some negative things does that excuse it? Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Dec 01 - 11:46 AM I notice Norton ignored the point about how none of the people who ran the war and caused the killing ever having apologised.
And the killing is still going on, remember - people are still dying from the effect of Agent Orange out in Vietnam, and babies are being born mutilated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST Date: 18 Dec 01 - 03:58 PM I'm sure that people like Creepus Lex who object to CNN will find Al-Jazeera's balanced reporting more to their liking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Dec 01 - 07:02 PM Just in case of misunderstanding - when I said there about "none of the people who ran the war and caused the killing ever having apologised" I wasn't talking about the people who were out there in Vietnam doing the fighting, I was talking about high-ups who ran the war, and ran the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST,both eyes open Date: 18 Dec 01 - 07:12 PM Well, I looked up the text of what Jane said during the war as well as subsequent apologies. Lots of good stuff at http://www.snopes2.com Her (spoken) offenses were far greater than I had ever believed. Her (half-assed) apologies were ridiculous. One would think she just doesn't get it. People like that...I guess I'd have to say the hell with Jane Fonda. She's pretty much dropped out of the public eye and hopefully will stay there. Steve, if I were you I think I would consider the woman unworthy of another thought. The less her name is in print or mentioned, the sooner she will be forgotten. While I stand by the rest of what I said, I stand corrected on the issue of "that woman." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Art Thieme Date: 18 Dec 01 - 08:07 PM My friend Ed Balchowsky, an American member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade who lost an arm in the Spanish Civil War only to be addicted to morphine for the next 30 years as a result of being given too much as pain medication following his recouperation, was a man who I admired tremendouly. Some saw him as a hero of sorts. Others saw Ed as a villian. I saw him as a youthful, advernturous and typical idealistic young person who did what comes naturally to the young. He followed what was CORRECT/RIGHT for him at the moment when possibly too much testosterone was colliding with his extreme ignorance to shape, and maybe warp, his impulses and choices. I made my own share of those "choices" when there, really, seemed to be NO CHOICE at all. It was clear in his mind what had to be done---and fully half of the people who went to Spain were killed there. Personally, I am still inspired by their dedication and their adventure. BUT I think the Gollum character, in The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit, was clearly the one of those in that tale who were real tragic hero types. (He was no Frodo, but an archetype nonetheless. He, like Walker, is not admirable or to be emulated. But I see some of myself in both of these creatures---and, indeed, in most people I know.-------------These are the people I'd rather be with in a bar swapping songs with when obligation and guilt haul me to less compelling family doings. -------- And yes, I'd love to have a beer or two with Walker ten or a dozen years down the pike. I think it'd be a great conversation. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Dec 01 - 08:26 PM People get into these thigs for all kinds of reasons. My father fought in Spain as a volunteer - but he was on the other side.
To him the Republicans in Spain were the people who were burning churches and killing nuns, sort of Black and Tans, the sort he'd seen in action in Ireland. He found himself on the other side to people he'd fought alongside in the Civil War in Ireland - and on the other side to where I'd place myself for that matter.
And after Spain was over, he came back, and joined the British Army and fought against the Germans for six years all through North Africa and Italy.
When people do what they think is right it can get them into some strange places. And there's some good advice in the New Testament about throwing stones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com Date: 18 Dec 01 - 10:11 PM she should never be allowed to drop from history. Her name should live on forever right along Benedict Arnold. It should be synonymous with traitor. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Lepus Rex Date: 18 Dec 01 - 11:11 PM Wow, this thread's still going, huh? Lots of interesting thoughts. Lots of amusing/disturbing patriotic/nationalistic crap that was already lame 40 years ago. Fun! :) And 'Creepus Lex,' fake GUEST? Please, stop. Nonsensical rhyming insults are my Achilles' heel. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Steve in Idaho Date: 18 Dec 01 - 11:20 PM Guest - both eyes open, I rarely do unless provoked into the recall. It's my job to remember. For all of those who can't. Mary Garvey - (((((HUGS))))) be well Sis. This one's over for me - Need more - PM me. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Art Thieme Date: 18 Dec 01 - 11:45 PM And now the kamikaze pilots are meeting with our U.S. Navy guys and letting Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Amos Date: 19 Dec 01 - 12:12 AM Hear, hear, Art. The argument of the vehement is always based on "these are the facts at this moment" -- meaning, given the facts we have, clearly, John Walker is a treasonous SOB, for example.... But ya know, moments are like rubber -- they stretch and shrink. If an entire lifetime can flash before your eyes in a few seconds, it seems wise to realize that things look a little more balanced in ten-year-long "moments" than they do in ten-day-long moments. On the other hand, we have all experienced times when the entire truth sorted itself out in moment that lasted ten microseconds and that was all the perspective that was needed. A
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Ebbie Date: 19 Dec 01 - 01:07 AM Art, thanks. Good food for thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Sorcha Date: 19 Dec 01 - 01:48 AM OK, guys. I'm not in on this, but at 146 posts, it's time to start # 2. I'll do it, and call it John Walker Part II. If it's that important, please post there, OK? Link will be provided. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: Sorcha Date: 19 Dec 01 - 01:53 AM Please post to part II, click here.. This is message 148 in this thread, which means that some users cannot access it. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: JedMarum Date: 20 Dec 01 - 10:05 AM John Walker's Osama bin Laden link |
|
Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do? From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 02 - 01:35 AM What Has Happened To Him? Has Anyone Written a Song? |