American Taliban asks Bush to commute 20-year sentence

[Kadie]

American Taliban asks Bush to commute 20-year sentence

DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer
Tuesday, September 28, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(09-28) 11:47 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

John Walker Lindh asked President Bush on Tuesday to commute his 20-year prison term for his 2002 conviction of aiding the Taliban.

His lawyer, James Brosnahan, said Lindh was a young man in the wrong place at the wrong time. He said Lindh was fighting alongside the Taliban in a civil war against the Northern Alliance, that he's not a terrorist and he never fought against U.S. troops.

Brosnahan said the sentence should be reduced because Yaser Esam Hamdi also was caught aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan and is now being released after serving three years in prison. Hamdi will not be charged with any crime under an agreement with federal officials made public Monday. Hamdi will be required to give up his American citizenship and will be sent to Saudi Arabia where he grew up.

"Comparable conduct should be treated in comparable ways in terms of sentencing," Brosnahan said during a news conference at his office.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/28/state1403EDT0057.DTL

[el_gato]

1. Bush gave them $40 million

So if JWL is in jail should GWB also be in jail?

[RedCloud]

49. How much of the $43,000,000 went to 9/11?

Here is the urgent question. If Bush gave the Taliban $43,000,000 in May of 2001, how much of that went back into 9/11 attacks using the Bush "logic" against Bush.

Grandson of the traitor Prescott Bush and his profiteering off the Auschwitz death camp prison labor!

Traitorous pappy Bush I intervened against Jimmy carter's attempt to release the hostages in Oct. 1980 when he flew to Paris, France on Oct. 18th, 1980 to negotiate a delayed release in exchange for arms!

It is a felony for the President to mislead Congress.

Jail for George WALKER Bush and pardon for WALKER Lyndh!

[TexasChick]

2. Taliban?

Huh....according to Bush, the Taliban no longer exists...


This from the Kerry/Edwards blog:
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/002969.html#002969


Bush Evokes Ford: "Taliban No Longer in Existence"
Evoking Gerald Ford's 1976 comment “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” George Bush said yesterday that the “Taliban is no longer in existence,” underscoring the point that he isn’t being straight with the American people about his wrong choices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

BUSH’S FANTASY WORLD:

“That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence.”




Is there any doubt that the chimp must be smoking something?
:wtf:

[Kadie]

5. Welcome to DU hopeisontheway.

:hi:

[liberalhistorian]

3. FUCK Lindh!

To hell with him, he's a first-degree traitor who ought to be deported for life.

[DrWeird]

4. Did he ever lift a finger against the United States?

I thought he only fought against the so-called "Northern Alliance" who rather suddenly and unexpectedly became our allies.

[Radius]

7. He should commute it,

And then deport him to Afghanistan. Let Sharia law take care of him. I wonder if he would be stoned to death or loose his head under a curved sword.

Richard shoe boy Reid should get similar treatment. These fucks eat better in prison than most homeless people.

If this was ww2 and he was fighting with the Germans or Japanese as an American he would swing from a rope or face a firing squad.

[Forkboy]

15. Hey,rooting for stoning and/or decapitation!!

Doesn't get much more liberal than that!!

[0007]

22. What can expect from a knee jerker that belongs in a circle jerk?

[Magleetis]

35. The WWII

reference is a dead giveaway.

[MacDo]

38. I'm lost

a dead giveaway for what?

[Magleetis]

46. See post #22 n/t

[Swamp Rat]

51. So, have you helped any homeless people find a home?

The WWII reference is very odd.

[struggle4progress]

9. Any evidence to support this?

He appears to have copped a plea under the threat of indefinite detention without trial as an "enemy combatant."

Is there any evidence that he's anything more than a badly confused young man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[RivetJoint]

18. Agree with you. Release him, send him back

to Afghanistan so he can link up with what reamins of the Taliban, and fight to reinstate a regime that oppresses women and infidels.

[struggle4progress]

94. Oh, I think he's a moron. But has he really broken US law? eom

[MissMarple]

13. Confused minor goes to the Middle East, finds self embroiled

in war. Finds chaos, oh dear, he's on the wrong side. What to do, what to do. OOOPS, it seems he is no longer a minor. It is just too bad that he didn't have a better grasp on the political exigencies of the day. Kids, gee, what to do, what to do.

So, he goes to Iraq, the US likes Iraq, baddaboom, now we don't. I'm to suppose that John has no clue regarding this? Probably not.

John Ashcroft and George&Co get their Kodak moment. And who else do they let go free? ...Give me a break.

[pinniped]

6. He's not a loyal * donor so he can kiss it goodbye.

With these assclowns nothing comes for free.

[sweetheart]

8. Lindh is an american hero, unbeknownst to himself

He has fought against what history will deem, the most evil and
indideous threat to american life since 1800.. the bush criminal
junta.

Bottom line, he was in another place, the world away, and was caught
up with some people who became geopolitical pawns. What is the crime?
Simply being there. Well give him a peter sellers sentence then,
and like bush, pardon him until he himself becomes president and sets
things right.

[Leilani]

14. An American hero?

[sweetheart]

16. Yes, like john brown, he fought against an illegal invasion

... and what has turned out to be the mass murder of 1000's of
civilians. He was right to oppose that. He was stupid and got
caught. He should keep his dignity, and look at his sentence as
nelson mandela did his. If i'm not mistaken N.Mandela, was in
prison for raising arms against south africa.

Then Mr. Lindh is a hero in the making.

[Mike Daniels]

20. That's funny, I thought the Taliban oppressed people under the guise of

religion and Walker subscribed to their philosophy.

Real hero you got there.

[RivetJoint]

21. I'm sure women all over the world

consider Lindh a real hero for fighting for the Taliban's right to keep women from even going to school. Yep, a HUGE hero.

[liberalhistorian]

82. Thank you!

I simply cannot believe anyone in their right minds could even begin to consider him a "hero." They must have a totally different definition of hero than most of the rest of us do.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. During the same time that Lindh supposedly aided the Taliban,

the Bush adminsitration was awarding them with $43 million for opium suppression and was trying to cajole them into inking an oil pipeline deal with Unocal.

I say "supposedly" because Lindh's guilt was never litigated. IMHO, he's a classic "political prisoner", a la Mandela or Sakharov.

[RivetJoint]

19. Yeah, Sweetheart

he was only fighting for a regime that kept your sisters in virtual slavery. No sweat, it's all good. He's a freaking "hero" to women everywhere.

[The Stranger]

26. Why all the hatred for this guy?

He is, at most, a pawn on the chessboard. I haven't seen any reported statements from him indicating he sought to keep women in "virtual slavery" (or actual slavery for that matter). Ashcroft has been setting people free in droves after having to come clean in court and admit he has nothing on them.

Why all the hatred for this guy? Wait a minute: ysterday, it was Cat Stevens -- today the "American Taliban." Are we picking up a pattern here?

[RivetJoint]

27. Did he fight with the Taliban?

I suppose they are the good guys, huh?

I do hate men who would risk their LIVES to support a regime that doesn't even let girls go to school and forces women to wear burkas.

[The Stranger]

34. "Good guys" and "Bad Guys" is the language of George W. Bush

So you don't have any reported statements wherein Lindh is seeking to keep women in "virtual slavery." If you did, would those be before or after he was tortured?

[RivetJoint]

48. Statements?

How about his ACTIONS? The ones in whcih he took up arms against his country to support a misognyst regime. Or did you forget?

[The Stranger]

81. Apparently, did not actively fight the U.S. but was there when the U.S.

invaded. Remember the two mercenaries "interviewing" him in the tape that was somehow released to CNN? Probably not.

So you don't have any reported statements to support what you have said about Lindh seeking "virtual slavery" for women. What about this statement?

I'm talking about people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers and those that are linked to/fund/support them. If one is in one of those categories, one SHOULD be on a no-fly list.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x870568

Now you're telling us Cat Stevens was "linked to/fund/support" "people who fly airplanes into skyscrapers"?

Where is your support for that statement?

[Bridget Burke]

28. Glad to hear from a true feminist.

Lindh was young & stupid, but hardly a traitor.

Last I heard the Taliban is doing quite well. How many Americans have died in Afghanistan so far?

[RivetJoint]

31. Never said he was

a traitor, but he was fighting for the wrong cause.

Really? Please tell me how well the Taliban is doing.

[sweetheart]

29. Man, you guys are on a witch hunt

Lindh is charged with fighting against the USA in war. I speak to
that specific charge. He was right to oppose a war that has resulted
in 1000's of deaths and no markable improvement for women in post
taliban afganistan.

He went to hang out and learn about islam, and got mixed up in some
thing much bigger than he understood... america's covert war of
islamic terrorism against the people of the ex-soviet border states.

Lindh is a hero for fighting with his life on the line, against what
history shows, was a mass murder exercise leading to a failed state..
that now exports more heroin to the world than ever before.

Wow, you defender of women... i'm sure junkies and people dying of
heroin related problems the world over are overjoyed that your taxes
came around to protect women... what a faux-feminist argument you
pose.

[RivetJoint]

32. So it's ok

to support subjugation of women...and even risk your life for it, as Lindh did. I did not realize that fighting FOR the taliban was such a noble, worthy cause.

[sweetheart]

43. Why don't you ask him.

The taliban are no worse than other regimes the US has long supported
with dodgey records of women's equality. YOu should be incensed
that "we" defended kuwait, given their anachronistic views on
feminism.

Until our government can be seen to support feminism, what point is
there in faulting a kid for getting mixed up in a regime that until
we attacked, was a regime that they were supporting and doing business
with.

The hipocrate is not me, nor mr. lindh. It is the american support
for the repression of women abroad and at home. Geez, as a feminist,
there must be a gazillion people to bash on earth before you arrive
finally at mr. lindh's door... and even then, the plight of women
in newly "liberated" afganistan has not improved, so whatever you
think we fought for, it was a pyrric victory.

[RivetJoint]

47. I'd be pissed at ANY American

who actually took up arms to defend such a "regime." Lindh deserves my contempt.

[sweetheart]

50. You must see the irony

That the current american regime is offensively anti-feminist. You
must be furious at those who take up arms to defend such a regime.

Lindh deserves your compassion. You don't know anything about his
real story in afganistan, its all secreted behind CIA wars in foreign
places.

Once in a past life, i was trapped in kashmir when they declared
martial law and closed the borders to foreigners. There are some
sacred buddhist pilgrimage places in kashmir which is why i was there,
but i just as easily could have been arrested by security forces for
"being there", and called a spy or some such nonsense... for
living with a muslim family in srinigar while i was very sick with
disintary... and easily could have found my way in to a beheading.

You don't know the story, and your jugement is biased, having no
knowledge of the real situation in which mr lindh found himself.
There were no american troops there to take up arms against, so i
find the whole thing to be a bit political and one sided.

I would hope a feminist would be more cautious about jumping to
conclusions about things. Feminism to me, is accepting that we
don't know, and that life is more than black and white, good and
bad, right and wrong. It is recognizing that we are all
interconnected, and any one of us could have, whilst travelling at
a young age, found themselves in an exotic circumstance. I would
hope then, that somebody out there is wiser than these witch hunters
on this thread... who love to pronounce judgement without any serious
facts of the case.

The enemy of feminism is in washington, not in some desert in asia.

[RivetJoint]

53. You are 100% wrong

There is NO comparison between the two.

[sweetheart]

59. You're kidding right?

The taliban was supported by your government up until they were
attacked. Why don't you go on a witch hunt against those who
supported the taliban.

You jump to easy conclusions, and avoid the real complex problem of
the rise of theocracy and the systematic disempowerment of women
by the US government. I'm sure all the women killed by the bombs
from B52's thank you for your wise support of war-for-nothing.

Women are no better off in afganistan today, now that the spotlight
has moved on... all flash in the pan, that feminism, that.

Women's equality sucks in: Korea, India, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait (and many gulf states), many african states, and all of these
are supported and even gifted your tax dollars to support the
status quo. The patriarchal government in washington, has spent
billions supporting islamic terrorism, that has killed 1000's of
women... but your narrow feminism is focused on a facile illusion
that there is right, wrong, black and white.. and that you are
right.

The new taliban are in washington, and you live in a society where
women do not have equal representation in any branch of government,
where women are systematically poorer economically than men and
where women are disenfranchised by a system of laws designed to
weaken the hard fought gains of real feminists. Hidden in your
presumptuous righteousness is the view that you know better. That
is a bit patriarchal for such a feminist.

Hopefully we agree about electing kerry. Otherwise, i find your
feminism to be shallow and it is no wonder that feminism is being
systematically undermined in america.

[mike_c]

63. so does EVERY AMERICAN SERVICE PERSON...

...who fought for Kuwait during Gulf War I by your logic. They were definding a repressive regime that did not permit women to vote until nearly ten years after the war.

[RivetJoint]

66. They fought to repel a FOREIGN invader

Lindh fought against his own country.

[sweetheart]

70. Did he?

Where were the US troops then? It strikes me that you're mistaken
about who he fought against. Memory serves that he was fighting
with some of the various tribes that were in the north near
mazari-al-sharif (sp)... and that he was found in a prison massacre,
where american 2000 pound bombs were used to kill 100's of people,
but no real american forces besides CIA guys with money bags.

As for your kuwait simplicity... bush daddy, had his diplomat in
kuwait give the OK for an iraqi invasion... so that must mean he
is guilty of treason in your simplistic black and white view.

The military is not "our country". It is a professional organizion
allied to a criminal junta... and anyone who opposes them is probably
a friend, truth be told. It seems you are an imperial apologist,
but certainly no serious feminist.

[mike_c]

95. uh huh-- who's the foreign invader in Afghanistan and Iraq?

eom

[Swamp Rat]

54. How do you know WHAT he was fighting for?

Did you personally interview him and ask him?

[RivetJoint]

55. He DID fight for the Taliban

correct? Or was he there fighting for Mom and apple pie?

[Bush was AWOL]

25. Hero????? He fought along side Al-Qaeda and the Taliban

FUCK Lindh! American hero my ass. Now, I don't think he should be given a death sentence or have to deal with Sharia law, but I do believe, he is somewhat of a traitor that should spend some years behind bars.

[sweetheart]

30. What is fair

For a kid who happened to "already be there" when america up and
attacked another country? He was a hero to stand his ground against
criminal war makers. That he stood it with some less than palatable
chaps is his folly.

Frankly, i see no crime in his actions, but if you must persecute
him, then i recommend sending him to afganistan to work in
nationbuilding. Such a community service might be good for all
parties, as i sure as hell don't wanta pay for his free room and
board in the prison system.

[Bush was AWOL]

33. You don't think we had any right to be in Afghanistan?

I totally disagree with everything about the war in IRaq, but I totally agree with the invasion of Afghanistan.

[sweetheart]

44. The invasion of afganistan was a folly

I have a very different philosophy of military force than you, as my
martial arts training suggests to NEVER EVER draw your sword unless
you absolutely have no choice... as when it comes out, people die.

The afganistan war was avoidable, and served only as an entertainment
outlet for pissed off americans who went irrational post 9/11. I
would have caused the taliban to fall using covert means, by
applying diplomatic and economic pressure through the ISI of pakistan.

I would have osama bin laden handed over, as the taliban were going
to do, to avoid conflict... and then put osama on public trial in
the international criminal court for his crimes. My method would
have been to show the world that nobody is beyond justice, and that
we in the "west" live by the rule of law, not the rule of force.

Instead, you advocated a mass murder of thousands of people, more
than in 9/ll. Methinks the deliberate mass murder of thousands of
people, when avoidable, is a crime, not something to be proud of.
American psychology seems distinctly maligned by self importance.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. Lindh is a political prisoner

It will take another 20-30 years before most Americans can recognize the truth of that, I'm guessing.

[Character Assassin]

52. Wow. Lay off the sauce before posting.

He was a hero to stand his ground against
criminal war makers. That he stood it with some less than palatable
chaps is his folly.

Yeah. Those few remaining German soldiers who died outside Hitler's Bunker were equally heroes, using your tortured 'reasoning'.

[Swamp Rat]

57. Had cocktails for lunch?

"Those few remaining German soldiers who died outside Hitler's Bunker were equally heroes" - Maybe they were. I'd like to know their story. Maybe they were 11-17 yr old boys taught... no, brainwashed to fight for the Fatherland.

Don't vote for Bush Character Assassin! He's an alien lizard!

[Character Assassin]

58. Nah. I don't consume. My former Uncle-in-law was a Nazi Youth

Who escaped, quite heroically, before the Russians ever made it into German territory. From what he described to me, it seems that not all of them were brainwashed, and the stories are varied.

They weren't heroes.

Don't worry about me voting for Bush. I'll never vote for any candidate put forth by either of the 'same coin, different sides' parties.

[Swamp Rat]

64. That's an interesting tale I'd like to hear... about your former uncle-in-

law. Perhaps some of the willing Nazi youth were also just normal kids with type 'A' bully personalities - they were victims and/or psycho-killers, not unlike any military culture, and I'll wager that there were many instances of heroism performed by German kids. We just don't seem to make books and movies about it here in the USA.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I was wondering if you've had long, productive conversations on DU about "the 'same coin, different sides' parties" subject. I'm wondering if it is even possible to discuss this topic without ad hominems and tombstonings.

[Character Assassin]

76. Yes, I've had plenty of those conversations

None, recently, as I've been far too busy since about January, and haven't been around here.

My ex uncle-in-law is a fine man, who I respect deeply and will, much to my regret, never hear from or see again. Such was the nature of my split with my ex. He spoke nothing but Allgauer dialect, but we got by alright.

[sweetheart]

60. 1000's dead, a failed state... when is that not war crime

Being a homicide detective, i'm sure you can imagine picking
through 1000's of bodies killed by bombs. Were you there to
gather the forensic evidence of that war, i'm sure you would come
to the conclusion supported by the evidence... that afganistan
was equally a war crime as 9/11 was. The innocent deaths were not
called for, and your attempt to drag in the hitler analogy really
is a stretch.

The reasoning that is tortured is that which assumes in advance that
mass murder in illegal war is not a crime. Geez, dude, logic...?
... i can't believe i have to remind a police officer what a crime
is.

[Character Assassin]

61. Apple, meet orange.

Being a homicide detective, i'm sure you can imagine picking
through 1000's of bodies killed by bombs.

No, actually, I couldn't. Where I work, we work in onesies, twosies and, rarely, threesies.

Were you there to gather the forensic evidence of that war, i'm sure you would come to the conclusion supported by the evidence... that afganistan was equally a war crime as 9/11 was.

You assume far too much. I'm not sure of that at all. There may well have been individual instances of war crimes, but the entire operation? Sorry, until I see MUCH more evidence of that, I'm not buying what you're selling.

The innocent deaths were not called for, and your attempt to drag in the hitler analogy really is a stretch.

Newp. The Taliban and the Nazis are easily and readily equated. What the one lacked in finances, the other didn't.

The reasoning that is tortured is that which assumes in advance that
mass murder in illegal war is not a crime. Geez, dude, logic...?
... i can't believe i have to remind a police officer what a crime is.

You don't. And, as soon as you point one out, I'll be happy to discuss it.

[sweetheart]

65. Orange juice tastes good

Ok, there are instances of war crimes. That i am sure given my own
viewing of a spectre gunship video posted by DS1 on DU. So lets
leave the jury out on that one.

The nazis were a powerful collective leading an industrailized
nation, much closer to the current US fascist government than a
buncha guys in a broken asian desert. The whole nazi analogy, if
you wish to use it, is reversed. The way they came to power,
and the way they were pushing to control the caspian oil basin has
much more in common with the bush-wars than any lot of leftover
resistance fighters from a soviet occupation. The nazis and the
bushies are readily equated... a tinly agrarian economy with some
warlords is no nazi simile... sorry... evidence does not support
your assertion.

A crime was to invade a sovereign state without cause, and that
pretty much leaves the war criminals open to the full charges of all
crimes perpatrated in subsequent operations.

This is not to mention the long history of CIA/ISI support for the
taliban, that if they were as "nazi" as you say, then surely there
must be some complicity on the american side of things.... do you
overlook evidence like this regularly?

[Character Assassin]

68. False comparisons do not become you.

The whole nazi analogy, ifyou wish to use it, is reversed.

No, it's not.

The way they came to power, and the way they were pushing to control the caspian oil basin has much more in common with the bush-wars than any lot of leftover resistance fighters from a soviet occupation. The nazis and the bushies are readily equated... a tinly agrarian economy with some warlords is no nazi simile... sorry... evidence does not support your assertion.

No, the evidence is ample should be obvious. The ideaology that drove both was despicable, and both would stop at nothing to further their goals, regardless of who was harmed by it. They were the same in kind, just not in degree.

To attempt to brush this aside with comparisons of industrial base and social dynamics appears intellectually less-than-honest.

A crime was to invade a sovereign state without cause, and that
pretty much leaves the war criminals open to the full charges of all
crimes perpatrated in subsequent operations.

This didn't happen in Afghanistan.


This is not to mention the long history of CIA/ISI support for the
taliban, that if they were as "nazi" as you say, then surely there
must be some complicity on the american side of things.... do you
overlook evidence like this regularly?

Sigh. The above doesn't constitute evidence supporting the contention that war crimes took place.

[sweetheart]

72. deceptive argument style you have CA

YOU advanced the argument that the taliban were like the nazis, now
you should advance some evidence. I've already pointed to what
amounts to volumes on bush, from the reichstag fire, patriot act,
and all the known DU stuff on the bush-nazi similarity. Whereas
you disregard all that to call a poor country in asia that has
aggressively made war on nobody like nazis. geez. The pattern of
aggressive war for oil and profit is not an afgani problem and never
was. Where do you get your facts? The taliban promised to turn
over osama bin laden if the US proffered evidence that he was the
culprit. As this was not offered, the invasion was illegal... but
it seems your professional ethics overlook little things like law.

I won't repeat the comment, but "It did happen in afganistan." There
was no legal cause for war. Check your facts before bullshitting.

Here is a bbc report on afganistan war deaths... and mass murder using
weapons of mass destruction is a crime in your profession, but it
seems your nationalism overrides your common sense.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm

[Character Assassin]

75. Even the most cosmetic overview of their outlook and gov't shows that

YOU advanced the argument that the taliban were like the nazis, now you should advance some evidence.

In case you're too lazy, try www.google.com I'm not here to do your research for you.

I've already pointed to what amounts to volumes on bush, from the reichstag fire, patriot act, and all the known DU stuff on the bush-nazi similarity.

I've heard those arguments for years, and consider them hokum bullshit. You will not be convinced of it, but that's not my problem. What you've pointed out amounts to volumes of breathless, empty speculation, not evidence.

Whereas you disregard all that to call a poor country in asia that has aggressively made war on nobody like nazis. geez.

You seem to have difficulty in reading comprehension. I stated that about the Taliban, not about the 'innocent people' or AFG.

The pattern of aggressive war for oil and profit is not an afgani problem and never was.

It also never happened. The Chicken Little suppositions about AFG being about oil add up to nothing.

Where do you get your facts? The taliban promised to turn
over osama bin laden if the US proffered evidence that he was the
culprit.

Based on their record, I don't know why anyone would have taken that seriously.

As this was not offered, the invasion was illegal... but
it seems your professional ethics overlook little things like law.

It looks like you don't know the law in the least. While it is arguable that the war was illegal, and in my opinion it was not, it wouldn't have been illegal simply because the US and it's Allies wouldn't play the Taliban's "if/then" game.

Seems your worldview lacks common sense.

I won't repeat the comment, but "It did happen in afganistan." There
was no legal cause for war. Check your facts before bullshitting.

You seem immune to facts, and I refuse to coddle you with recognition of conspiracy lunacy.

[sweetheart]

79. sweetie, YOU made the assertion, YOU prove it

I don't buy "google" as an answer when someone makes an absurd
assertion, and you don't either... but you're lazy and wrong, so
you want me to prove YOUR wrong-headed assertions... bollocks.

I was hoping you'd be ready to discuss, like you said, but it seems
that you're just a nitpicking voyeur to serious argument.

You don't know the CIA supported the taliban through its proxy,
the pakistan ISI. You are unaware of the serious reality of the
nazi drive for oil and its tendency towards aggressive war to
secure the caspian oil basin...no.

You'll have none of those contradictory details in your assasination
attempt... well, why write on DU then... load up your bullets and
just shoot people who disagree... its about all you do in words
anyways.

It is really sad to see a respected libertarian submerge themselves
to such depths to support totalitarian militarism.

[Character Assassin]

83. I made the comparison, you don't seem to agree with it, Honey

I don't buy "google" as an answer when someone makes an absurd
assertion, and you don't either... but you're lazy and wrong, so
you want me to prove YOUR wrong-headed assertions... bollocks.

Sorry, the philisophical and real world implications of the Taliban and Nazi regimes are obvious and immediate.

I was hoping you'd be ready to discuss, like you said, but it seems
that you're just a nitpicking voyeur to serious argument.

There is no serious argument when someone refuses to deal with what is clearly evident and wishes to engage in speculation.

You don't know the CIA supported the taliban through its proxy,
the pakistan ISI.

I was and am most assuredly aware of that.

You are unaware of the serious reality of the nazi drive for oil and its tendency towards aggressive war to secure the caspian oil basin...no.

I am equally as aware of that bit of history. I am also of the opinion that it is irrelevant in this case, and that you are consciously, purposefully misplacing it where it clearly doesn't belong.

You'll have none of those contradictory details in your assasination
attempt... well, why write on DU then... load up your bullets and
just shoot people who disagree... its about all you do in words
anyways.

Newp. I call foolishness foolishness when I see it.

It is really sad to see a respected libertarian submerge themselves
to such depths to support totalitarian militarism.

I do not support the Bush admin, nor do I agree with it on Iraq. But I also refuse to ascribe to it motives and characteristics that I do not see in it. Looking beneath the surface means more than just repeating conspiracy theories, and the most obvious boogeyman is not always the one that one should concern oneself with.

[sweetheart]

85. aah, some glint of discussion from yourself

Like republicans, and democratic moderates, you refuse to process
the ever-mounting body of evidence linking bush-ism, with nazi-ism.
Given that the link between the taliban and the nazi's is thinner
(without any hint of aggressive war or fascism), then that is a null
argument. You insist that the taliban are the nazi's, contrary to
evidence, and at best i would give them the status of Cuba, which
is being generous. To claim they are like the nazis is really
unsupportable, and you can't produce serious analogies, just emotive
content.

Why is the opinion that the nazi's were seeking to secure the caspian
basin "irrelevant in this case"? There is credible evidence that it
is being pursued by the bush regime. What contrary misplacement
are you referring to? The facts seem decidedly to point towards
a military securing of that very place. I think you're afraid to
deal with truth in this regard, and your glib attempt to dismiss
FACTS, seems a bit weak. Come on, mate, out with it.

Foolishness is to support bush, and by that standards, neither of
us are fools. In this regard, i respect you, however you've got some
argument ground to make up. You've claimed "foolish", "boogeyman"
and all sorts of inflamatory claims given what i've pointed to
in evidence, even from brezinski, the NSA for peets sake... so
its time for you to discuss and lay out something realistic that
is, in socratic terms, a real argument.

You say afgaistan was a just war because the taliban were just like
tha nazis. Then in the next words, you suggest that i'm on about
tin pot boogeymen.... you can't have it both ways. Afganistan was
not a just war. Thousands of innocents have been killed, and you
have provided ZERO substance to refuge this.

Where would you be, if you could not quote me? Please speak
some sense yourself, or stop making unsupportable assertions.

[Character Assassin]

87. At the risk of being impolite, your arguments boggle the rational mind

Like republicans, and democratic moderates, you refuse to process
the ever-mounting body of evidence linking bush-ism, with nazi-ism.

No, I have examined what you deem evidence, and I find it invalid and irrelevant. It is, however, usefull for mindless agit-props who wish to decieve the dim-witted.

Given that the link between the taliban and the nazi's is thinner
(without any hint of aggressive war or fascism), then that is a null
argument.

Once again and for the last time, it is a comparison based on philosophy, not on modern-day historical projections of former military tactics.

You insist that the taliban are the nazi's, contrary to
evidence,

No, fool, I insist that they are similar. You are the one who attributes things to me I haven't said. But then, you lie to support a point, so what should I expect?

and at best i would give them the status of Cuba, which
is being generous. To claim they are like the nazis is really
unsupportable, and you can't produce serious analogies, just emotive
content.

That is all that needs to be said. Cuba and the Taliban are incomparable, on the basis of their treatement of women, alone.

Tell me, does it hurt to be that stupid?

[sweetheart]

91. You call me stupid, because your argument is null

Stupid? I've gone out on a limb to discuss. You hack limbs off
and offer nothing but attack. How small.

The nazi ideology of fascism and the emergence of the totalitarian
state is alive and well in modern america, and your tiresome
refutation does not dispute the overwhelming body of evidence,
that the nazi and bush administrations are very similar, much more
than the taliban.

You purposely misuse my arguments to support your ignorance, and
it is indeed tiresome, as if you think that by repeating yourself,
that it makes your assertions right... how incredibly republican,
and how sadly disrespectful of any concept of logical argument.

You strike me like a good guard dog... bite anyone who comes around.
You don't use argument, you bite. You don't refute argument,
you bite. YOu can't explain yourself, you bite. However, I have
a forebrain, and you can't put up ANY EVIDENCE for your bull...
Dogs might buy it, but you're selling crap, and it stinks.

Circular reasoning, to support foregone conclusions may be how
you do things in police work. In situations where nations pursue
policies of illegal war, such glib conclusions are poorly regarded,
ESPECIALLY without any support.

Finally you resort to the tiresome ad hominem.

Oh dear, i'm feeling so stupid, having tons of evidence, and
a dog on the phone who can only bark. Unimpressive mate. You
could not convict Mr Lindh with a mountain of evidence... you can't
even use evidence as is obvious from several posts without any
capability to support an argument besides emotive hype.

[Character Assassin]

92. No, if I call you stupid, it's because you're stupid.

You attempt to attribute to me things that I have not said, and then continue to use words like 'overwhelming', when you have presented nothing that even resembles it. Rather like a child who has just heard a word, but doesn't understand it's meaning or how to use it in context.

There is no bite here, I assure you, only the refutation of those who seek to apply the fantastic and illusionary to the mundane and pedestrian.

If you act the fool, the by all means expect to be taken as such who don't buy into your histrionics and Chicken Little bullshit.

This is to be my last communication on the subject, as it is clear that you are unable or unwilling to reason.

[sweetheart]

93. humbug from humbug

Thanks for a lotta hot air.

You've introduced nothing at all in this chat except picking
at quotes. No supporting evidence for your assertions and indeed
it is rich for you to put forward, that i've not argued a point.
.. or that the point, whilst supported by substantially more
credible sources than yourself, is glibly disregarded by
such terms as "histronics" and "chicken little bullshit".

Any third party reading this thread can't help but notice that
you're short on evidence and long on ad hominem.... and of course
after calling me stupid, you're off to insult someone else without
evidence.

Grow up. You have offered no reason, only self serving rhretoric
and some personal insults. Yawn.

[camero]

62. People forget quickly

That the Taliban offered up Osama if the US had any evidence that he was behind 9/11. And Bush REFUSED to turn over any evidence. That makes Afghanistan an illegal invasion, IMHO.

Don't sweat it. People have short memories.

[RivetJoint]

69. A dectective

understands "intent" and "premeditation." It's obvious that some others don't.

[sweetheart]

73. Hmmm... well.

Intent... the innocent people of afganistan had no intent to harm
anyone.

premeditation... they offered to turn over OBL if the US proffered
evidence of his crimes, and instead a war was begun. So it seems
that the premeditation and intent were on the behalf of a regime that
was intent on occupying afganistan and creating airbases in
surrounding countries to complete the strategic encirclement of
russia as a long held cold war wet dream.

Both premeditation and intent point towards a criminal regime bent
on empire in central asia.

And obviously "some others don't." (like yourself)

[Character Assassin]

74. False, and obviously so.

Intent... the innocent people of afganistan had no intent to harm
anyone.

Correct. Innocent people, by definition, never do.

premeditation... they offered to turn over OBL if the US proffered
evidence of his crimes, and instead a war was begun.

Absolultely untrue. The Taliban made noises to this effect, and there is no way to verify that they would have done so. Again, it was the Taliban, not the 'innocent people of Afghanistan'.

So it seems that the premeditation and intent were on the behalf of a regime that was intent on occupying afganistan and creating airbases in surrounding countries to complete the strategic encirclement of russia as a long held cold war wet dream.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Airbases in AFG to thwart Russia? Puh-leez.

Both premeditation and intent point towards a criminal regime bent
on empire in central asia.

Newp. But your inflammatory language belies plenty.

[sweetheart]

77. Dude, make an argument

YOu seem to think picking points is a way to advance a theory..
YOu advance nothing, and call what i advance untrue... wow.. its
easy at the keyboard for you detectives. ;-)

Here is a credible source on the premeditative interests in the
encirclement of russia.. the national security advisor should do..
oh yea... you only recognize evidence you admit... how sadly
characteristic of your moniker CA... you've gotta put foward some
beef if you make assertions... and obviously you're lazy.

http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/moore3.htm I'm sorry, but
there are several articles on this site that support my argument,
but it requires reading... and it seems, you're one sided views don't
allow evidence of alternate vision.

The airbases argument is supported by a broad series of sources
from chalmers johnson's "sorrows of empire", to any number of
websites.... and all of it based on an easily conceived premeditated
theory of attacking russia by "our" national security advisor
condolezza (CCCP expert) rice.

[Character Assassin]

78. "Dude", learn to think.

That source is not what I'd call credible, but then, judging from the 'evidence' that you supply, I wouldn't be suprised to see you cite www.whatreallyhappened.com or some other tripe.

The airbases argument is supported by a broad series of sources
from chalmers johnson's "sorrows of empire", to any number of
websites....

And deconstructed by others.

and all of it based on an easily conceived premeditated
theory of attacking russia by "our" national security advisor
condolezza (CCCP expert) rice.

Yawn. Even she understands that there is nothing to gain from doing so.

You don't, but then, there will always be plenty of windmills to joust at.

[sweetheart]

80. Well then why did we do it?

It seems we did create 14 new airbases encircling russia (chalmers
johnson's "sorrows of empire"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859845789/qid=1096492515/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-7643475-9610222 Obviously you have not
read it, or you'd be more honest. You've clearly not the qualifications
to refute that as a source, so i'm waiting for your ad hominem
return. Sadly, your argument style was never really in vogue.
Fluff in return for stubstance went out centuries ago.

WHY are we sitting on a whole new taxpayer funded series of bases
occupying central asia? Facts obviously pass you by.

[Character Assassin]

84. It should be rather clear by now

That is, to those who avoid basing their opinion on on single source.

Suspicion fell on OSB. He was being harbored and supported by the Taliban. As such, they opened themeselves up to attack.

I've all the qualifications I need to refute the blatherings of those who project macroterminology like 'empire' and 'imperialism' where it doesn't belong. I've heard the exact same arguments from others, including the "oil/gas" pipeline, and they don't wash. More exactly, it is sheer obfuscation to label it as such, as it could only feasibly be a gas pipeline, as the single largest expanding gas market is in western India, where economics dictate that any such pipeline, if it were to be profitable, would run.

But I'll tell you what. Short of cutting your own throat on the razor that belongs to Mr. Occam, perhaps you could tell me exactly what would be gained by encircling, threatening and then attacking Russia?

Or didn't the author of that book tell you what to say about it?

[sweetheart]

86. That source is rock solid

You disregard livelong journlists with mega-sources... well,
then i wonder what you do accept as evidence... NBC and CNN
likely it appears.

"deconstructed by others"

Who... come on dude... you argue out of pure assumption, without
any sources... sadly it is a style out of vogue in a truth-based
forum.... or more bushies would be here using it.

The encirclement of russia with bases is a serious problem, that
you can't see, as the airplane noise taking off and landing is
too loud for you to hear any argument.

Oh dear... if you are a detective, then god help anyone who is
injustly accused of a crime.

[Character Assassin]

88. Poor, deluded sweetheart. There are no unimpeachable sources

And none without questionable motives. Even in today's world, with video and audio recordings, "rock solid" is a term of the True Believer, not the dispassionate observer.

Oh dear... if you are a detective, then god help anyone who is
injustly accused of a crime.

It's "unjustly", actually.

To quote Descartes: "What a pity it would be, should wisdom ever come to the popes. What comforts it would deprive them of."

[sweetheart]

90. fine, so you've blagged a good one

Without any shred of evidence, you've blagged your way to
your foredrawn conclusion that i'm deluded.

I accept that. It is uninspiring to argue with someone who
advances no evidence to support their own assertions whilst
putting forward emotive propaganda as refutation.

I'm frankly unimpressed. You must be tired.

To quote Jean-Jaques Rousseau:

War then is a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State, and individuals are enemies only accidentally, not as men, nor even as citizens,3 but as soldiers; not as members of their country, but as its defenders. Finally, each State can have for enemies only other States, and not men; for between things disparate in nature there can be no real relation.

Furthermore, this principle is in conformity with the established rules of all times and the constant practice of all civilised peoples. Declarations of war are intimations less to powers than to their subjects. The foreigner, whether king, individual, or people, who robs, kills or detains the subjects, without declaring war on the prince, is not an enemy, but a brigand. Even in real war, a just prince, while laying hands, in the enemy's country, on all that belongs to the public, respects the lives and goods of individuals: he respects rights on which his own are founded. The object of the war being the destruction of the hostile State, the other side has a right to kill its defenders, while they are bearing arms; but as soon as they lay them down and surrender, they cease to be enemies or instruments of the enemy, and become once more merely men, whose life no one has any right to take. Sometimes it is possible to kill the State without killing a single one of its members; and war gives no right which is not necessary to the gaining of its object. These principles are not those of Grotius: they are not based on the authority of poets, but derived from the nature of reality and based on reason.

The right of conquest has no foundation other than the right of the strongest. If war does not give the conqueror the right to massacre the conquered peoples, the right to enslave them cannot be based upon a right which does not exist. No one has a right to kill an enemy except when he cannot make him a slave, and the right to enslave him cannot therefore be derived from the right to kill him. It is accordingly an unfair exchange to make him buy at the price of his liberty his life, over which the victor holds no right. Is it not clear that there is a vicious circle in founding the right of life and death on the right of slavery, and the right of slavery on the right of life and death?

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm#004

[KeepItReal]

10. Strange how CIA couldn't crack Al Qaeda, but JWL just walked on in??

Even if he was only in the Taliban, that's still better than the CIA claims it was able to do (or not do).

What did Lindh do that was so special that the Agency couldn't duplicate it and get inside pre-9/11?

[hang a left]

12. What do you think the chances are that he was CIA.

And someone wanted some headlines. Or maybe even a mind control CIA product.


Should I take my meds?

[Almost_there]

24. He didn't just "walk in".. he was recruited in Pakistan

I think you need to touch up on his case. He went to Pakistan to study the Koran and Muslim religion, and when he was there, he kept going more and more fundamental and out there, until after about a year, he finally went to Afghanistan to "train" with the Taliban, months later he met Osama (not really one on one, it was more like a visit from the great leader), and that was when he took up arms to defend the Muslim way of life.

Indeed, he DID combat American Forces, there WAS no "Northern Alliance" until the US came into Afghanistan, and quite frankly, he is lucky under military law to be breathing. He could be considered a traitor, and the penalty for that is swift and final. He can't be deported, since he is a US citizen and not an Afghanistan or Pakistani citizen. His chances of getting a commutation of sentance are roughly zero, since he was found guilty by his own plea in a US Court, with defense council etc. He made the plea deal, the other guy is being deported to Saudi Arabia, and will probably face some swift and final justice there.

~Almost

[coalition_unwilling]

41. there WAS no "Northern Alliance" until the US came into Afghanistan???

Are you nuts? Of course there was a Northern Alliance before the US came into Afghanistan. Its leader, Massood, was assassinated on Sept. 9, 2001 (two days before Sept. 11, 2001 and a month or so before we went into Afghanistan).

It's you who needs to study up on your history

[henslee]

11. His lawyer should have waited. Bad timing. What, with GIs dying daily.

[Jacobin]

17. Mis-read the headline

I thought Jerry Falwell had been convicted of something

[0007]

23. Jerry is guilty of dressing up like a human being

and acting like an asshole!

[JohnKleeb]

67. I wish

if he had been though, you know Bush would have.

[maxsolomon]

36. good luck, john.

bush will make political hay of you. you will serve your entire ridiculous sentence. a president kerry couldn't afford the political capital to show you mercy.

note: the northern alliance IS NOT AMERICA. did he fire weapons at US troops? did he, as a footsoldier in a fanatical fundy militia, have a choice of backing out when the US arrived? when he joined the taliban, the US was PAYING THEM 40 million dollars to eradicate the poppy crop. they were hardly our enemies. we NEVER declared war on afganistan, we NEVER declared war on iraq.

20 years for being a dumb ass? we have child rapists that serve a quarter of his sentence. the kid got FUCKED.

cue steve earle's 'john walker blues'...

[maxsolomon]

37. And the American Taliban is Evangelical Christianity,

the Fascists trying to turn our country into a Corporate Theocracy.

NOT one stupid kid form Marin County.

[Chovexani]

42. Chovexani asks Johnny Depp to Marry Her

And I'll have his ring on my finger before this will ever happen.

[BiggJawn]

45. So where does Brosnahan propose to send Johnny?

"Comparable conduct should be treated in comparable ways in terms of sentencing,"
Hamdi is going back home to S-A and has to renounce his US citizenship.

Are they asking to send Lindh back to Talibanistan?

[demokatgurrl]

56. I wish he'd do it- we'd win for sure. n/t

[jeanmarc]

71. That's grounds for an insanity defense (nt)

[Radius]

89. Free Richard Reid!

Amerikkkas political prisoner. He was just expressing his oppression and disgust with the system when trying to detonate high explosives in an aircraft. He deserves to be free...

Come on guys.

Lindh is LUCKY he got 20 years. If it were ww2 he would have been hanged or shot, as a traitor. He knew we were there and fought for the other side. It is a shame he took a shot it the leg instead of the head, would have saved us millions to imprison his sorry ass. Hope he can take a nice case of hep3 away from the whole experience..