Posted on 12/11/2001 6:02:51 AM PST by sweetliberty
The author seems to magnify this mentality by saying that it is unlikely that this young man will pay any real price for turning on his country. I sincerely hope she is wrong and that an example will be made of him. The way many of these liberals want to handle this guy with kid gloves is a pretty clear indicator that most have never been exposed to war and are completely incapable of comprehending the seriousness of matters pertaining to it. I would suggest that the way we handle this one pseudo-idealistic punk could set the tone for the rest of the war and determine if it is indeed a war or just another soapbox for liberal-speak.
One of the reasons teenagers are so damned unpleasant to be around is that they're busy figuring out how much of what they've been taught is true. A surprising number of them stumble out the other end having made pretty good choices, often in spite of appalling parents and schools.
By twenty, you are usually pretty much the person you're going to be (if a bit green and unfinished), and all of those choices are yours.
In fact, I'd put twenty as the age beyond which no-one is permitted to blame their parents for anything.
I feel little pity for him; he is quite literate and knows what the Taliban did is totally against Islam.
Death to the perverters.
But if he has indeed renounced his citizenship, how can he be tried for treason. Isn't that a crime that can only be charged against an American citizen? And even if there had been no active renunciation, or if, as the liberal mouthpieces wold have us believe, he didn't know what he was doing, isn't the very act of taking up arms in the military of another power against the United States grounds for revokation of citizenship?
For people who seem to be so persnickety as regards the rule of law there sure seems to be a lot of ambiguity in this case.
We can't let him walk away from this. He's committed the worst of crimes against his country. He must be tried--preferably in a military tribunal (after they've stripped him of citizenship--which they can do, after he's fought with a foreign army against his own country)--and he must suffer the full consequences of his crime. Our Constitution requires it. Justice demands it.
I know it won't be long before the Johnny Jihad apologists show up on the thread to tell us we're acting like a lynch mob, but in truth, this is no lynch mob. We are citizens demanding justice through the courts. Only Constitutional justice will do, not the treacly platitudes of the Left about feelings and "finding himself." (Newsflash: he's been found--in the company of our enemy, and armed to the teeth.)
Deb Weiss is a pearl among columnists, but in this one, I pray she is wrong.
Justice must be served.
I believe that is about as clear a rejection of US citizenship as can be. Even when filling out the yellow form to buy a firearm, you must answer questions whether you have renounced your US citizenship or plotted to overthrow the US government. This guy is no longer an American. I think a fitting punishment would be to simply declare him persona nongrata, deport him back to the Islamic paradise of his choice and deny him any future entry to the US.
How about we let him decide? If he still wants to be an American citizen then we try him for treason in a civil court. If not then we try him for murder and conspiracy in a military tribunal. Or just give him back to the Northern Alliance and let them deal with him.
I understand you get bombed pretty quick.
1 part Johnnie Walker Black
1 part UbL
1 part Mullah Omar
1000 parts Taliban
Mix in cave, chilled.
Add 15,000 pounds high explosive slurry just before serving.
Serves approximately 5,000 (justice for WTC)
Traitoress; born in California. Of Japanese descent, she went to Japan in 1941 to visit her sick aunt. Caught there by the outbreak of World War II, she became one of the voices on Tokyo Radio known to American soldiers as "Tokyo Rose." She was convicted of treason (1949) and spent six years in prison. She was pardoned in 1977 and worked in a Chicago gift shop.
She was born in 1917 and may be still living.
I agree with the author. I am not adverse to seeing Walker punished, but is death, as so many suggested here, really the appropriate penalty? I think we need to know more about what Walker was doing in Afghanistan before making that decision.
And one more thing. As much as I disapprove of his parents' way of life, I will not criticize them for doing everything possible to save their son.
I have seen many here make this claim. I wonder if anyone has any historicial examples to back this up. IIRC, weren't there many American volunteers in the RAF prior to the point at which the U.S. officially joined WWII?
It should also be remembered that Walker joined the Taliban before any hostilities with the U.S. Members of Bush's administration actually sponsored a meeting with the leaders of the Taliban in Washington, so it cannot be claimed that they were always perceived as an enemy of the U.S.
He was found with an AK-47. He was present when the uprising occured that took the life of Michael Spann. He knew that Americans were engaged in hostilities against the Taliban (where did he think the Daisy Cutters and AC130 gunships were coming from?).
He knew the Taliban had engaged the United States in battle and he continued to remain and fight.
Your arguments don't wash.
Now philosophically you may be opposed to the death penalty. So be it. Personally, I believe traitors should be shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.