Classic case of changing the subject. The little a--wipe should do every second of his 20 years and consider himself lucky.
Just to get these lame distractions out of the way, I don't care if he was tortured. I wish he had been not only tortured, but then executed... in other words, just as dead as the American soldiers who died in that firefight.
I'm not trying to change the subject.
What I'm saying is, we ought not to concede Lindh's dad's assertion that his son was tortured- a charge which he has failed to substantiate.
The little traitor was not tortured. When his lawyer dad (who knows exactly what he is doing, btw) asserts that his brat was tortured, his father is in fact trying to change the subject, and many here at FR are falling for it. If it becomes widely accepted that Lindh was tortured, and again, he wasn't, it will lay the political groundwork for the little scumbag to become a cause celebre, a la Mumia Abu Jamal, Leonard Peltier, etc., and to walk out of prison the next time a pardon-happy Dimocrat occupies the White House. If Lindh's dad could prove torture, he'd be doing it in court. He can't prove it, because it didn't happen, so he's trying to establish it in the court of public opinion.
Whether Lindh deserves torture is another issue. He wasn't tortured. If anything, the little bastard was coddled.
And I agree that traitors should be executed.