BS: John Walker. What to do?

Subject: John Walker. What to do?
From: marty D
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 12:02 AM

I've been trying to get more information on the John Walker situation, but it seems the Government is really embarrassed by this turn of events. I can't blame them. I've seen the clip where the CIA are trying to get him to talk but he appears to be a hard line fundamentalist and I suspect he's willing to die for Islam. Where do they go from here? Once they clean him up, maybe his lawyers will try to get him to renounce his beliefs, or say he was 'brainwashed'. Some of his friends even site his young age as a reason to go easy on him, but considering the average age of the other Taliban fighters I don't think that will wash. His father implies that he's just a misguided kid (naturally) who made a bad decision. I think this is going to be very devisive, and at a bad time too. Any thoughts?

marty

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 12:14 AM

Hi, Marty - I was wondering how much would come up, so I searched for "John Walker" afghanistan at www.google.com (click and see). There's quite a lot on the Internet that's already been indexed.
Confusing story, isn't it?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rolfyboy6
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 12:16 AM

I suspect that this will be a real show with all the worst of human behavior and self-righteous attitudes on display. Watch the scapegoatism develop. If the Bushites have political difficulties they will try to burn the kid. The war is ending too fast for them and they may well be frightened of the scenario that happened to George Bush Senior--win the war too long before the next election, have a recession, and lose the election. Lets hope that some way will be found for the kid not to become a political football. Damn Kids.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 12:06 PM

Being the political junkie I am, I've also been reading all I can about this case. What may even be more fascinating, is that apparently there are two more "Americans" caught fighting with the Taliban. I don't know, but I suspect the other two are probably of Arabic descent. Will they be treated in the same way as Walker?

Already the idealogues from both sides of the issue are stating their case...."string him up",.....or "make him a poster boy for troubled kids of today".

I swear, if he gets a Press Agent..watch out!

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Kim C
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 01:55 PM

Back in the old days they called it treason and punishment was relatively swift. Ask Benedict Arnold if you don't believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Gary T
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 01:59 PM

There are bad decisions, and then there are bad decisions. Even a "kid" should know that taking up arms against your homeland is quite serious.

What bothers me the most about this fellow is his admiration for the Taliban's "pure Islamic" governing. Surely he knew how atrociously his cohorts--and possibly he--treated various people. For someone to accept--nay, endorse--that, I find despicable. I feel no sympathy for him.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,AliUK on the works comp.
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 02:09 PM

Hmmm...waht a dilemma! Or is it? I mean the guy is not some fresh-faced sophomore. He made a conscious decision to take up arms with his brother Talebans(sic), it just so happens that he is of American-European descent.He is a prisoner of war and should be treated as such, just as the allied troops would be if they were captured by the Taleban. How many Allied soldiers are of Arabic descent? The guy is a religious mercenary, instead of fighting for money he is fighting for something that binds much tighter, religious ideology.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 02:11 PM

Actually, as one who has participated in numerous special court martials, some generals and uncountable boards, while in the Corps, the really interesting question for me will be where they bring him ashore, if they do not decide he has effectively renounced his citizenship, and hand him back over to the Northern Alliance. Though I won't go into the doctrine of "Poorly caught, Well tried," (which some of the more vociferous would do well to understand), Federal jurisdiction will attach where Traitor John lands.

Most cases involving spying, etc. are tried at the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria, VA as that is where the DC airports are located. After several complicated cases were tried in front of Washington juries (which even the Washington Post, called "the most ignorant in the world") cases were routinely diverted to Alex.

You might recall that in the case of the last person to stain the White House, the prosecutor, Ken Starr, had one of the Lewinsky conversations taped in Northern VA so as to give him a predicate act to use in indicting Clinton in VA instead of DC where the population is black and Democratic. But here's the rub.

Suppose TJ is brought back to New York? It might be the only time that New Yorker's have to face their vaunted liberalism. And Bush can simply say "I put the question to those who suffered the most". If TJ gets off lightly, New York might suffer a second Ground Zero. If he gets the pointed stick, it will be the first time since their enacted but unused death penalty actually gets used.

If he's brought back to Alexandria, he'll be tried at a Court House that is six miles from the Pentagon, with a jury pool that is 60% military connected. And Virginia has the second highest death penalty rate in the nation.

I think the best bet would be to turn him over to the Northern Alliance. Since I understand that one of the penalties for traitors in "Ghan" is death of the traitors relatives, I can't imagine TJ's lawyer daddy getting in the way of a rather ad hoc tribal judicial system. But then again, it was the justice system that TJ wanted the world to have...

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 02:13 PM

Yes it is Kim C - and as a mercenary he also has no rights.

Misguided kid - give me a break

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: SINSULL
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 02:46 PM

I predict that within two weeks we will all be praying for Elian Gonzales to return to the front pages.

This young man seems to see himself as a warrior and martyr for Islam. My personal hope is that he is returned to the United States for trial and that his youth is taken into consideration.

Claymore, with or without the death penalty for John Walker, New York might still suffer a "second Ground Zero". I thought we all realized that.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 03:52 PM

I think the point I was trying to make is that WHATEVER is decided, he'll become the number one topic on all the late night shows,(like Elian and Monica and Chandra) and all America will debate the points we're discussing. My guess is that he'll have some kind of amazing conversion while in prison, get six months, and hopefully disappear into obscurity.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 04:00 PM

Kim c said: "Back in the old days they called it treason and punishment was relatively swift. Ask Benedict Arnold if you don't believe me." Arnold fled to the British, was commissioned general in their army, and lived until 1801. Hope we have better luck this time.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,sc
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 04:23 PM

Sorry, no use in me applyin' for this position. I can't cause I don't fit the job description...

Oughta be somebody here qualified, though. So many without sin, it seems - available to cast that first stone.

-sc

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 04:39 PM

Actually the more pertinent case might be John Brown, who was captured, tried, convicted, and hung within one month, (although I suspect that, had Arnold been caught, the time would be relatively the same.)

And Rick, while I agree that he'll be a topic on bitch-counter-bitch cable shows, he'll get a lot more than six months. My standing start guess is death, with a Bush commutation to life without parole. He'll also have to be kept in solitary, as any lifer in prison can get his commissary paid for the rest of his life, by sympathetic outsiders, if he can just gut TJ with a sharp spoon.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 06:21 PM

Questions?

Did J W leave the USA on a USA passport ?

If so, does not the USA passport have an endorsement regarding giving up US citizenship upon joining an Armed Forced owing allegiance elsewhere ?

If he is not a US citizen, how can he be tried for treason. No leave him to the Afghan people to deal with.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Sorcha
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 06:45 PM

I don't know that we can do anything. "They" are going to be doing all the doing.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 06:53 PM

I think he will be delt with by the U. S. military. I wouldn't predict how, though.

Using his age as an excuse for his treason doesn't hold water though. How old do you imagine the U. S. Marines he was fighting are? Probably the majority are under the age of 20. Many in the anti-Taliban forces may be much younger.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: AliUK
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 07:07 PM

Well let me cast another stone ( as I have already cast my first one. If he was left to Afghan ( Northern Alliance) justice it wouldn't make much different because the Afghans change sides more often than Giselle Bunchen changes clothes. So all he would do is swear allegience to the Northern Alliance and he would be OK. So if he has given up his US citizenship ( as Gareth surmises) then he should be on his little prayer mat right this moment promising Allah everything to be turned over to the Afghans.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: tremodt
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 07:42 PM

JW could have been conscripted to fight like the Polish in world war 11 that were forced to fight with the Germans they fought us but we did did not do anything to them he is a mixed up kid give him a break

do not let him off scot free but give him some time nehind bars

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 09:18 PM

Hmmm. ro 1sin: Give him a break? From all I've seen and read, he wasn't conscripted as you suggest he might have. He's a kid alright, but so are the Marines he was trying very hard to kill while fighting with the Taliban!

Give him a break. Sure.

Question: Suppose one of our own had gone to the other side during the heat of battle. Should he have been given a break?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 09:33 PM

Does anyone actually know if Walker gave up his US citizenship? Either through defection or through violation of passport regulation, does anyone actually know at this point?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,sc
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 09:37 PM

Folks,

I made my share of mistakes as a young man. I took things that did not belong to me. I struck people in anger. I used drugs. Got drunk a few times. I was arrested in 69 for MJ - good for life in prison at that time where I lived. But I was aquitted due to constitutional issues. I outgrew the rebel inside (maybe) and raised a family and paid taxes and did the WASP thing. Heck, I even considered voting Republican once.

This is not a psychopathic killer we're talking about. It's a deeply religious young man, led astray by religious zealots. (I've been there too - thank you but no, GTA).

I'm not saying this young man should go free but, damn, killing him is extreme. We aren't even certain he was shooting at us. Can't we wait 'til all the facts are in? Then give him time to meditate and mature in a place from which he can harm no one?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 09:49 PM

Please bear in mind also that he left the country long before the clash between the United States and the Taleban was an issue; he did not join an enemy force after the U.S. declared it an enemy as far as I have seen. So the question is WHEN he joined the Taleban. There is also a critical issue about the legal nature of treason when a war has been declared only by executive mandate, and not by legislative act. It is absolutely true that a warlike condition existed; but in terms of law the question of what war is and when it officially occurs has to be answered. It is possible the "cult" he joined was a civilian body entirely when he got drawn into it, rather than a military body.

All these points need legal clarification, especially the question of whether he actually legally renounced his citizenship. If he did, and did so before the "state of warlike relationships against terrorism" was defined (around 15 September I think), then it is even harder to see how treason enters into the equation.

I would like to see him forgiven his foolishness if only for his parents' sake; but I don't have the details of what he has actually done in specific. That makes it hard to see the rights of the matter, doesn't it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 10:09 PM

.........but I don't have the details of what he has actually done in specific. That makes it hard to see the rights of the matter, doesn't it?

Which is exactly the point which Sorcha made also. We don't have the whole story here by any means.

sc......An outstanding post. Thank you.

And why are we all willing to say he made a tragic mistake? Because we don't have the same beliefs as Islam? The Taliban may be completely horrific, but Jim Jones wasn't a cup of tea either now was he? People follow a belief and often are carried away by charismatic personalities to do all kinds of strange things, some extreme and murderous. But if the man had the belief, he had the belief. When was the last time you mad a bad decision beforehand? sc tells of his experiences and I'm sure at the time he didn't say, "Gee, I think I'll fuck up!" 35 or 40 years ago, a lot of people at 18 had to make decisions and we all did the "right" thing at the time. Later, in retrospect, we sit around and discuss our decisions and can see they had good parts, bad parts, or both.

Why not wait a bit before we hang this young man?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 10:11 PM

Oh my gawd. I am about to show how utterly secluded I am living life right now.

I thought this had to do with someone having a drinking problem, or maybe a recipe thread.

Sheesh...I need to buy a paper once in awhile. :/

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Sorcha
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 11:04 PM

'Spaw, I love it. "gee, I think I'll fuck up" as opposed to
"gee, I really did fuck up".
"Charismatic personalities"--doesn't that say it all? Take a new look at JFK and others in this light.

Even in my "idiot, tokin', droppin', Rebel years", I had sense enough to turn down a proopsal from a fundamentalist Muslim Iraqi.......I knew what would be required when I was transported to Iraq. He harassed, he stalked, he lurked--I just kept calling 911. His Visa was finally revoked. The "knowing" is what education is really all about.

Choose your religion, choose your culture, but be damn sure you know what you are choosing.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Janie
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 11:05 PM

JW may be a poor besotted misguided soul led astray by a "cult." Problem is...one can probably make the same argument about 90% of the terrorists in the world and most of the Taliban. Misquided, mixed up or not, we each of us have to be responsible for the choices we make. In this country we are legally accountable by age 18 in most instances. I haven't followed this story very closely, but I am not aware that Mr. Walker has expressed any sense of having been misquided and in fact said that he ultimately supported the 9-11 attacks.

I actually don't have an opinion about what should happen with him (at least for now.) I was unaware there were possibly two more Americans, but I think Rick asks a very good question re: will they receive different consideration (not just from the government but also from the talking heads and in other public discussion) if they are not ethnic WASPS?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From:
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 11:16 PM

handcuff him to Jane Fonda and try them together. Give them the same sentance. mg

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 01 - 11:56 PM

Last I heard the other two claimants had never been American citizens; they were Taleban Arabs who spoke passable English.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 12:05 AM

Yah, Janie. My point exactly. I think public (and media) outcry will overide whatever the Govt. or Military want to do. And please forgive me for being so cynical (I'm always 'positive and up-beat' in my music posts) but I think whatever his next "physical image" is, will go a long way towards determining his fate. My guess is he'll appear soft-spoken, penitent, and 'cute'. That'll cut him a lot of slack on this continent.

Personally, I knew lots of kids years ago who adopted Eastern religions, became fanatically 'anti-materialist', and went off to foreign climes to 'find themselves'. The difference is that they didn't find themselves smack dab in the middle of a war.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 10:14 AM

Celtic Soul, don't feel badly, I thought the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 01:32 PM

Right, Rick, and they didn't choose a side that opposed your own country.

I do not know whether or not he renounced his citizenship, or if he lost his citizenship. Haven't the foggiest at this point.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 02:13 PM

First, we should figure out the facts, so we're not all just talking out of our hats. Then, we should figure out the legalities, which will tell us whether he should be charged with treason or some other offense.

Assuming we conclude that he is not insane, and that he willingly took up arms against the US, we should prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. He's young, but old enough to know better. I don't see any justification in letting him off just because we've got a soft spot for American kids.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: annamill
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 02:20 PM

I have a question about this whole thing. What exactly was the crime? Being an American? I only ask because we let all the other Taliban fighters GO HOME!!! Unless, of course, they were foreigners. I guess John falls into that catagory, but then why isn't he being treated like all the other foreign fighters. Why is he being brought home for trial? We didn't bring any of the others "home".

He made the decision, didn't he? Maybe it just happened too fast. I don't think any of the lowly Taliban knew what was planned and I don't think John knew either. All of a sudden, he's fighting his homeland. Wha happened?? He was there. What was he going to say? Hey! I can't be in this fight, I'M AN AMERICAN.. oops, dead!

I don't know. Just another decision I am unsure about.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: LoopySanchez
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 03:58 PM

Johnny Taliban was interrogated by Mike Spann a few short hours before the prisoners rioted and took up arms against Spann and the other Americans guarding them. He knew that weapons had been smuggled in, and was aware of what was about to happen, yet didn't tell the Americans anything. Mike Spann died as a result of his actions. That is MURDER, pure and simple. Anyone who tries to use psychology to figure out his reasons for doing what he did is too concerned with making sure their heart bleeds a bright enough shade of red everyone else to see, and not concerned enough with justice. Somebody tell me where I'm wrong. Try to use logic and not "feelings" in the explanation. The only "feelings" I have are ones of sympathy for Spann's widow.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: annamill
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 04:08 PM

LS, You don't think he was kept separate from his comrades? Just asking.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,Jenny the T
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 04:28 PM

This young man has landed himself in Big Trouble, for sure, but I'm not inclined to line up with the "shoot him now, talk about it later" crowd just yet.

Joining in with a foreign fight is a tradition of long standing in the U.S.--Yanks fought against the Fascists in Spain, flew with the RAF early in WWII, and flew with the Chinese against Japan. John Paul Jones himself helped establish the Czarist navy. We've provided idealists and mercenaries galore to causes good and bad for two centuries.

Young Mr. Walker started out the same as all the others--he joined the Taliban well before September 11. Keep in mind that we were not at war with the Taliban at the time, nor were the Taliban responsible for knocking down any American buildings--the Taliban's fight was with the Northern forces. In any case, at the time he joined up, our own government was on good terms with the Taliban--at least we were willing to give them a pile of drug-war money.

So, as of September 10, no problem and no treason, as long as he took no oaths that would negate his citizenship. And even at that, the US gov't has found it possible to forgive such oaths when it suited them (speaking of our boys in the RAF again).

His position turned terrible indeed after September 11, though--or more aptly, somewhat later, when the US decided to begin pummeling the Taliban. Seems to me he was well screwed whatever he did at that point--stay and fight, or try to get out of there--either way was most likeliest to buy him a bullet in the head.

If he wanted to be a Loyal American, he should've taken the bullet trying to get out of there, but I can't really blame him for not going that route. After all, when you've been part of a fighting unit, you build up an intense loyalty to your buddies. The result: he made himself an enemy of his home country.

Any of the aforementioned participants in foreign wars could have ended up just the same if the US had fallen in on the opposite side. That they are regarded as heroes now is due mainly to luck that their ideals and US politics agreed in the end.

So what do we do with him? What did we do with the 'brainwashees' from the Korean war? With 'collaborators' like William Garvey after Vietnam? With German- and Japanese-americans who ended up in the wrong uniform?

We mostly didn't shoot 'em. And this kid doesn't need to be shot now. That's just asinine.

JtT

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: AliUK
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 06:38 PM

Well here goes another stone. OK so the guy ( I refuse to cal him a kid as he is above the age of consent and an adult) converts to Islam and goes of to Afghanistan or wherever he went off to first and then Lo and behold he's in the middle of a war fighting against his former countrymen and their allies. The difference between smoking a little pot and taking up arms against others is a little wide to come into the same sphere as this ( even if it did constitute a long prison term at the time). Consciously joining an armed force and lifting up your weapons against YOUR country is treason. I was on the perifery of similar thoughts many years ago ( in the UK and the terrorists at the time were the iRA) though I sympathised with their cause, I did NOT sympathise with their means and always felt that a peaceful, political solution was the only way forward. The question with this man is the fact that he willingly went to war to defend HIS (adopted) country and HIS faith. I haven't seen Muhammed Ali taking up arms, is he not also a moslem? The example drawn with Jim Jones os another thing altogether, this was a cult ( along with those other idiots that topped themselves across the wold, including Waco which is a whole other story). This is an organised religion. What right has John Walker got as an American citizen? None. Because he renounced it just as I have renounced my British citizenship. He chose to become what he is just as I have. He is an Afghan and should be treated as such. But ishe a terrorist? I think that this is the question we are all missing.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Gary T
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 07:33 PM

Is he a terrorist? Not that we know of. He's a combatant.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 10:10 PM

It's not as much a question of what is become of John Walker but of all the Taliban who are taken prisoner. I belive we missed a wonderful opportunity to make history, rather than repeat it, after 9-11. Rather than declare war less than 48 hours after the attacks, we could have called for an international summit on peace and anti-terrorism. With the world's sentiments for the United Sates at it's highest level in history we could have shamed leaders who might otherwise support violence to get their particular greivences on the table to have to participate in a world dialog. Well, we missed that opportunity. Our next opportunity is right around the corner. How we deal with prisoners will say a lot about what we are about in terms of our beliefs of the sanctity of life and our collective hopes for the future. Killing these folks after some kind of tribunal is as barbaric as the events of 9-11 and will do no more than justify those events...

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: catspaw49
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 10:28 PM

Ali, I was trying to make the point as you did, but much better I might add, that doing things as Walker did is a conscious decision and as far as I can tell at this point, hge is more Taliban than "American" and should be treated in the same way. The idea that becasue he's an american, it's now treason......it doesn't wash.

As to the Taliban and the conduct of the "war"....Bobert, you old hick, I could not agree more. We had a great chance to go for peace and also to take down the Taliban by proceeding with deliberation, building true coalitions, squeezing the financial and political elements like a python, and generally making ourselves into benevolent knights on white horses. Then when the need for fighting came, which it probably still would have, we would have had the world really behind us. Time was on our side, but Americans have classically not been patient people. Many felt we waited too long as it was.

There are still too many unanswered questions of fact about the Walker situation. If the scenario Loopy Sanchez portrays is true, the real question is still what are we going to do with the rest, not just Walker. Does anyone really know what his status is? Still too many unanswered questions.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 11:20 PM

Treat him exactly the way that the other Taliban fighters are treated....but no killing. That's the difference. Examine alternatives. Think of how America's kids will read this chapter of history in about 20 years and think of how we would like for these kids to think about our courage to defeat the past and dare to change history, rather than repeat it. Either life counts or it doesn't. There ain't a lot of middle ground on this one...

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 11 Dec 01 - 11:57 PM

Well, I'm with the 'he's not a traitor, he's a combatant' group, I guess. I think some people need to think beyond the "Hey, he sided with those violent, swarthy fellows who are fond of exotic headwear! Terrorist! Traitor!" type headlines. The Taleban have plenty of faults, but they aren't terrorists. The Taleban didn't crash any planes. Mullah Muhammad Omar didn't mastermind anything other than his own downfall. (Oops! He's not really all that bright, you see...) Hillbillies, folks. Not terrorists.

So, this Walker guy went to Afghanistan to fight for the Taleban government, and that's all he did when the U.S. invaded his adopted homeland. How's that make him a traitor? He'd be a traitor if he'd have switched sides and fought for the U.S., but then he'd be a HERO, I s'pose. :P

On a related subject... "The American Taleban." Grr. If I hear a CNN anchor refer to Mr.Walker as "The American Taleban" ONE MORE TIME, I will drive down to CNN headquarters in Klanistan, hunt down Bill Hemmer, bitch-slap him until that stupid fucking toupee falls off, and then CALMLY explain to him that 'Taleban' is PLURAL. If you feel the need to give the guy a cutesy label, call him "The American Taleb," you IGNORANT MULE-BLOWING BASTARD. Aaaaarrrgh.

Same with "Talebans." STOP IT. PLEASE STOP IT.

:)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 12:06 AM

Geeze Rex, you're getting awful picky about clarity of communication here. Isn't the important thing that we kill them?? Let's stay focused here!!!

A.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 12:12 AM

You're absolutely right, Amos. I've lost sight of the true path. I'm taking an overdose of Ari Fleischer and going straight to bed. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: heric
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 12:46 AM

When I skimmed the first few posts, I found it hard to get interested in the whole subject. But then it never crossed my mind that anyone would be thinking about killing him! Never crossed my mind. It just seemed likely that he would have his citizenship revoked. That's a very serious penalty if you have no other citizenship. In my mind I was wondering if they would do something so serious to him. But killing him??? I can't imagine.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Spud Murphy
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 02:17 AM

When I worked in Afghanistan in 1947-48 the partitioning of India was going on and resulted in the War in Kashmir(Which isn't over yet) There was an employee of MKA at that time working at Girishk (100 miles west of Kandahar) who jumped his contract and joined the Pakistan Army as a Colonel. At that time I was working on a survey crew quartered in the town of Torkham, in the Khyber Pass.

This man was an American citizen who had joined the Canadian army in 1939 and was decorated for valour at Dieppe while with a Canadian Commando Bn. After Dieppe he was mustered out of the Canadian Army and enlisted in the U.S. Army Airborne, (101st Bn., I suppose, because he was decorated again at Bastogne)

Eventually, this man became persona non grata to both the Indians and the Pakistanis and several attempts were made on his life. His troubles in that regard stemmed from the fact that at that time the issues of partition were not fully resolved, as I guess they still aren't, butIndia and Pakistan still shared the same Grandfather back in Jolly Olde England and the touchy diplomatic situation that was created by partition and the Kashmir situation wasn't being helped by having an American soldier of fortune at large in the war zone.

I met him in Karachi where we were both staying at the Bristol Hotel; I, my contract completed, waiting out my steamship transportation back to America, and he awaiting the disposition of the matter of his citizenship. The ruling as I understood it at the time was direct and simple: Bear arms for another country and your citizenship in the U.S. is forfeit. Perod. He had reached the point where nobody, including Canada and Great Britain, wanted him and the U.S. was refusing to allow him entry. But, what about his service time in the Canadian Army? Or subsequently, in the U.S. Army?

Unfortunately, my ship hove in to port about then and I left Pakistan before the thing was resolved, so I can't report to you what the outcome was, although a fellow worker of MKA thatI ran into later thought the U.S. took him back out of compassion for the Brits and to avoid international embarrassment. When I left on the steamship he gave me a letter to be mailed from New Orleans when I got there, addressed to his family in Ohio.

I don't think there really are any rules. I think these things are all negotiable, Depending on the politics involved, who your friends are, and in those days, the colour of your skin.

Spud

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 10:27 AM

Should Mr. Walker be treated as the other Taleban are?
Lord Haw-Haw was treated differently from (other) German radio announcers after the war. Each country has always made a difference between combatants fighting for their own country or fighting with the enemy against their own country.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 11:46 AM

I noticed today that the "conversion" I mentioned earlier may already be taking place. This from CNN: Apparently he's "warned" America to be prepared for a biological warfare attack that "will" happen before Sunday. So either he's seeing the "error of his ways",(can Pat Robertson be far behind?) or they beat it out of him with a stick. Either way, for a simple Taliban grunt, he seems to be very well informed about their military strategy. I'm seeing serious "spin" goin' on here folks.

Rick

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

Rick, I was just reading on the CNN site that the info he was giving were only rumors he had heard, and the American Government is taking the knowledge with the grain. (of salt)

L.A.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: heric
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 01:47 PM

Yes, I figured that was just inspirational garbage the low-level Taliban fighters all hear. Which doesn't, however, negate Rick's theory.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: JedMarum
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 01:56 PM

I agree the citizenship issue will be decided one way ro another. It is reasonable to claim that he is NOT a citizen since he took up arms against his country - and this arguement may win IF it was pushed. But the US may decide it is not in its best interest to push that arguement.

Misguided kid??? Please, this ludicrous arguement won't hold water. And as far a real justice is concerned; John has already accepted death as a resonable (and even highly likely) consequence of his actions. When he undertook terrorist training, when he picked a terrorist gun, when he fought along side those with whom he so dearly sympathized - these may be considered honorable things ... but when he made those choices, he knew he was likely to die for his beliefs and he was willing to do so. So a death penalty by US civil courts, Military courts or Afghan military is a reasonable expectation for him - and one he should be comfortable with, assuming he really is a man of conviction.

Family support? Absolutley. If I was his father I'd be as supportive as I could be. I'd make my peace with him and support him through whatever fate he is handed. I would give him every support I could right up to the moment he was executed - if that was the verdict ... and I would agree that execution was a valid verdict.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 02:03 PM

I do hope (though I fear I might be wrong) that all the talk about imminent other attacks is of the same quality as talk among German soldiers in the last months of WWII about Hitler's Wunderwaffe (miraculous/wonder weapon) was:
wishful thinking coming from propaganda meant to boost the low morale of fighters for a lost and bad cause

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 02:04 PM

Yep....Once again, will we ever know the truth? And how would we know it if we actually got it? Between the spin of the government and then the spin of the press, we're so accustomed to the dizziness that straight truth is barely recognizable........and in the end, we'll all believe what we want to believe, a mix of which becomes our reality. Was it Sinsull who said we'd be wishing for Elian back? Maybe Killfrog could modify The Elian Deportation Game to fit Walker?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: JedMarum
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 02:18 PM

.. and to say that the US was not at war with al Qaeda or Taliban when he joined them? That he somehow accidentally found himself taking up arms against his own country when the US responded??? Come on. al Qaeda was certainly certainly at war with America from HIS perspective, before 911. Since long before the attacks against the US on 911, John was studying ways to attack America and its civiliam population. He knowingly took part in a jihad against his own culture. The arguement that the rules changed afterwards when America responded - simply doesn't hold water.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: JedMarum
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 02:27 PM

I don't think John will get big limelight for his day in court - whatever court he ends up in - nor will he get much sympathy. It's true that if he is tried in US Civil courts, every attempt to Johnny Walker this case into a trial of US culture will be made, but because of the import of the subject; the case will be much better controlled then the OJ free-for-all, and appropriate gag orders will be placed (around any issue that can be contrued as a security risk). If it goes to US civil courts, it'll take years, his lawyers will appeal the conviction as long as possible and 12 yers from now he'll be exceuted with a handful of protesters outside the jailhouse and a few reporters trying diligently to muster a sense of rage among the viewing public (which won't be sympathetic or interested).

If he is tried by a military tribunal, and if he cotinues to cooperate, he may get life rather then death. In which case he will be quietly forgotten. His father will write a book condemning the US, Bush and the bad guys of al Qaeda who brain washed him ... but the book will flop.

If he is turned over to Afghan because he is not a US citizen he will be quickly and unceramoniously executed.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 03:27 PM

Jed, what terrorist gun and what terrorist training? From everything I've read, he was a Taleban soldier. Before the U.S. invaded, the only fighting he would have done was against indiginous rebel groups. So where do you get this 'Taleban = al Qaeda'-type bullshit? Fox News? USA Today? Just because "patriotic" pro-U.S. government propagandists repeat it 24 hours a day doesn't make it so. The interests of the Taleban never reached outside southern Central Asia, and I'll give you $5.00 if you can name ONE Afghan terrorist. Maybe it helps you sleep at night, thinking that all those Afghan civilians are probably "terrorists," and so it's not wrong for the U.S. government to vaporize them. They probably even owned a turban or two... :P

I was listening to some CNN reporter the other day, describing his tour of what was "obviously a terrorist training camp." They had stockpiles of weapons, shooting ranges, excercise equipment, and, most damning of all, books written in ARABIC SCRIPT. That's right, the script of terrorism!

Oh, I mean, could have been a place to train SOLDIERS, I guess, but how do you explain the literature? Huh? HUH?! Oh, yeah, Pashto is written in a modified Arabic script, isn't it? Well... Still, they must be terrorists!

Seriously, I'm so fucking sick of the "news" lately. Do you know how many years I wished that CNN would have just ONE interesting story on Central Asia? Many. But if I turn it on right now, I'd either see a O.J./Elian/Lewinski-style John Walker story, or some cocksmoker patting himself on the back because he can now find Turkmenistan, unlabelled, on the map. JESUS.

So, I'm watching less CNN, hehe. The BBC site doesn't bother me at all. I LOVE EurasiaNet. (Check out Ahmed Rashid's profile of Hamid Karzai, or, to make this music-related, their great essay in image and sound' on the music of Kyrgyzstan.) But network/cable news must DIE. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Bennet Zurofsky
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 04:12 PM

Am I the only one to be struck by the fact that John Walker was also the name of the U.S. sponsored terrorist sent to Nicaragua in the nineteenth century to stir up trouble for the benefit of interests back home?

Is the Taleb John Walker related to the premature contra John Walker?

Why don't we just agree that the government should follow the Golden Rule and do unto John Walker as it would wish to have the Taliban deal with an Afghani that they captured who had assisted the U.S. Marines in their invasion of Afghanistan? What would our government declare to be fair treatment of such a "traitor to Afghanistan?" I doubt they would call for summary execution. Probably, they would ask that he (or she) be treated as a comnbatant and a prisoner of war.

Our standards of judgment in matters of this sort should eschew jingoism and strive towards objectivity. The Golden Rule, honestly applied, takes us a long way to an appropriate answer.

By the way, when the Taliban captured by the Northern Alliance were shoved into shipping containers so that many of them suffocated to death, was that a war crime? When the Taliban prisoners later rebelled against their captors, was that not perhaps a legitimate response to a well-founded belief that their captors were likely to kill them in the near future?

There is much we don't know about the uprising at the fort where John Walker was being held. To begin, if all of the Taliban were participants in the uprising, how come many were found dead with their hands tied behind their back when our "allies" re-captured the fort following the American bombing.

Much is being hidden by the Bush administration's secrecy policies, and not all of it is being hidden as a legitimate part of the response to bin Laden. Much is being hidden in an attempt to protect the Bush Administration and its Afghanistan allies from legitimate and informed criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 12 Dec 01 - 04:24 PM

Lepus, I'm not sure I get your point.

If he's tried as a terrorist (which virtually no one has said) he would most likely get a prison sentence ala the folks who had first crack at the WTC.

If he's tried as a traitor (an American citizen taking the training and following the orders of the Taliban to shoot at Americans i.e. "a SOLDIER") he is up for the death penalty.

By your own words you condemm him...

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

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: 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 - 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: 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 - 12:46 PM

Yep, Claymore, you may be right.

DougR

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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:12 PM

Sorry, Spaw, I took it the wrong way.

DougR

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: *#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: 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: 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: 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: 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:
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: 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: 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 - 11:48 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
hostilities against parties outside the country, he may not have committed an offence. If he was with al-Qaeda, he would have.

Meanwhile, reports that a second Australian had been captured by Allied forces in Afghanistan could not be confirmed yesterday.

End of quote.

Stories are starting to be printed about the possibility that Britons have become involved with the losing side of the Afghanistan conflict too.


More videos have been found in abandoned Taliban/al-Qaeda caves,it is not certain what the contents are but reports
suggest they are Arnold Schwarzenegger/Sylvester Stallone/Bruce Willis type of movies that the Taliban
have been using,for training purposes,in an attempt to 'know your enemy' and find out what will be 'on the other side of the hill'.

Tongue out of cheek.
CD.

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:
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 begonias be begonias bygones be bygones. Those that landed at Omaha Beach are walking those shores and chatting with some of those who were charged with trying to kill them almost 60 years ago. Norman Schwartzkopf is meeting Viet Cong soldiers in Viet Nam and trying hard to put those ghosts to rest. I'm just trying to see John Walker with shades of gray instead of Bush's-- "You're either with us, or against us !" -- it's either black or white kind of all-or-nothing reasoning. Here and now, in these latter days, I would hope that we have evolved way past that. But I know that many fail to recognize the possibility that evolution even exists at all. So I guess we must not be much past the Neanderthals after all.

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?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Mar 02 - 12:52 PM

What has happened? Where is he now? Why don't we read anything?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 01:30 AM

Are you sleeping?
Are you sleeping?
Brother John, brother John?

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: InOBU
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 07:40 AM

Could it be they are hiding him in the Walker family compound in Kennybunkport? in hopes that if we loose the war they can make him the leader of the American Taliban, that way the Walker Bush family has a trump either way?
Oh come on, have a chuckle, Larry

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,DM
Date: 30 Mar 02 - 08:43 PM

Name a Whiskey after him and sell it in Afganistan.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 31 Mar 02 - 12:09 AM

In a previous post I was concerned what would happen when he got a PRESS agent. Today's paper is advertising a FUCKING BOOK about him! I guess a LITERARY agent is needed before a press agent. And some may wonder why I'm cynical.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Apr 02 - 06:04 AM

A Taliban detainee held by U.S. forces in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a U.S. citizen.

The man, identified as Yasser Esam Hamdi, is the second American citizen -- the other is John Walker Lindh, now in U.S. civilian custody -- captured in Afghanistan alongside Taliban and al Qaeda fighters last fall.

The detainee's parents were Saudi nationals employed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where Hamdi was born, the official said. The family moved back to Saudi Arabia when the detainee was a toddler.

According to a defense official, the prisoner has claimed that he was born in Baton Rouge since his capture and has a birth certificate.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 04:32 AM

An excerpt from the book:

"Yes, I Supported" the 9/11 Attack on America. - John Walker Lindh

Sweet, shy, sensitive, John Walker Lindh, at age 14, was a confused, unhappy, angry little boy with a fascination for the violent rhythms of hip-hop music. By age 16, his anger was directed at Jews, Gays, Zionists, Christians, and White America. In 1998, after converting to Islam, and while still living in California, John Walker Lindh joined a "Pakistan-based jehadi organization" with suspected links to terrorists and Islamic extremists dedicated to the overthrow of "moderate" Islamic governments and the United States of America. That same year John Walker Lindh left for Yemen to attend language school, but then dropped out and disappeared after just two weeks. For the next eight months he apparently made contact with militants at the Islamic University, only to be apprehended and returned to the U.S.

John Walker Lindh wanted to be a holy warrior. The presence of U.S. forces and U.S. ships off the coast of Yemen and other Muslim nations was "an act of war against Islam" he declared. In the year 2000 he returned to Yemen on a mission which coincided with the bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen--blamed on al-Qaeda and Islamic militants attending Yemen's Islamic University.

Mission accomplished, John Walker left Yemen for Pakistan where he met with Taliban officials, and then journeyed to Afghanistan where he swore allegiance to al-Qeada and Osama bin Laden who personally thanked John Walker for his assistance and his help.

Osama bin Laden had preached: "Death to America!"

But was it the United States which John Walker wished to destroy, or his unknown face?

The story of John Walker, is a story of a young man at war with himself for he hated and repeatedly sought to jettison and destroy his true identity.

John Walker Lindh convinced himself that imitation is reality. "If you imitate a people, you'll be regarded as one of them... even if you commit unimaginable sins."

John Walker Lindh was on a quest for personal purity. He joined a religion that encouraged him to pick up a gun and to kill his fellow Muslims, and American women and men.

Yet imitation is not reality, which is why John Walker Lindh, in picking up the martyr's gun, was aiming not for the "Great Satan" or the United States, but at something far more evil and full of sin... his own unknown face.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Apr 02 - 11:21 PM

Thread Creep?

>The Hobbit, was clearly the one of those in that tale who were real tragic hero types.

Subject: RE: BS: John Walker. What to do?
From: GUEST,fo
Date: 07 Apr 02 - 08:20 PM

Like it or not, Walker did nothing wrong. He simply expressed his religious freedom through his right to free speech and related expression.