Replies

"trying to convict some screwed up kid on trumped up charges"

What I am missing here?
You don't really believe the above, do you? That's where you and I part company. That "kid" is a traitor! If he was just a "peace loving muslim", he would not have been in the cave dreaming of his share of 72 virgins.

poet said: 'That "kid" is a traitor! If he was just a "peace loving muslim", he would not have been in the cave dreaming of his share of 72 virgins."

Fine. Then charge him with treason and produce the two witnesses required by the Constitution. The "trumped up" charges are nonsense which have been invented to circumvent the clear requirements of the Constitution. Lindh is a prisoner of war who was capured after we declared war on the Al Qaeda and later the Taliban.

There appears to be no mechanism for establishing a legal duty for Lindh to refrain from fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance prior to our declaration of war against the Taliban and there may be a lack of evidence that he fought against the US after that time.

I think the kid is some kind of a nut but I don't think he is necessarily a traitor. He was a soldier in Afghanistan fighting against the enemies of the Taliban. Until after 9-11 the USA was not fighting the Taliban and even after 9-11 our bone of contention with the Taliban was through their sheltering of UBL, not necessarily a direct conflict with the Taliban.

Look at it this way. How many agents are involved in prosecution of JJ? How many gov't lawyers? How much federal court resources? Now, take those same resources and apply them to finding and deporting Arabs who have overstayed their welcome.Which makes more sense?

Think of it another way. Suppose that the prosecution of JJ is successful. How many other Americans do you scare away from joining the Taliban? There ain't no huge number of Americans flying to Pakistan to join up. So all you accomplish by winning is ---nothing. Just some revenge against a goofy-a** twerp from California.

And what if the G'ovt loses? The case against JJ is very weak. The only way they could even charge him was to allege he was involved in a conspiracy to kill the CIA operative over there. Wow, that's an uphill battle. You got about a thousand or so bitter enemies of America in a closed facility with weapons and some of them decide to kill the American. The odds of that happening were about 99.9% whether JJ was there or not. The only lawsuit here would be a negligence action against whatever idiots let the prisoners in without taking their weapons and maybe a suit against the CIA guy's bosses for sending him into a death-trap.

And what about the negative propaganda aspects of JJ walking free? No, it is sheer idiocy to prosecute this guy. The US has a lot to lose and nothing to gain. IMHO. parsy.