Posted on 06/17/2002 4:54:42 PM PDT by Asmodeus
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:40 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Some people in this country need to get their heads out of their rectums use a little common sense.
The venue shopping which allowed the government to avoid the Ninth Circuit is particularly interesting, because the Ninth deserves to be saddled with a case which would cast them in a bad light since they do not seem to understand the Second Amendment.
This case will be a loser for everyone who touches it and the Ninth Circuit deserves a share of that.
Be careful what you wish for. Many people believe that anyone who calls himself a "Militiaman" is a traitor who has taken up arms to oppose our government. Wasn't McVeigh a "Militiaman"? I am sure that many think so.
The number of people who have been killed or imprisoned for keeping and bearing arms is still growing. I think it is a poor time for dumping human rights.
Our Founders went to extra trouble to define and set higher standards for charges of "treason". The reason is because every one of them would have been hanged by King George as a traitor to the crown.
Perhaps you could explain who the two witnesses are against Lindh and what was "the same overt act" witnessed by both of them?
I hope Bush now realizes the folly of allowing Clinton administration staff to remain in place after his election.
This "other than" in and of itself should have earned Johnnie Jihad a bullet behind the ear. Under American law, which this anonymous legal puke (and probable klinton holdover) shows no evidence of knowing, Johnnie rejected his American citizenship, and joined a group of brigands who have ZERO rights under the Geneva Convention.
As usual, liberals expect to enjoy the best of all possible worlds. They go through life knowing that nothing bad can be allowed to happen to them, even when they make very bad decisions.
So he wants to be treated as a soldier?
(1)To whom had he sworn allegiance.
(2)Where were his uniform and insignia as called for under the Geneva Convention.
Action # 1 means that he has relinquished his citizenship. Ergo, assign him to a military tribunal.
Action # 2 means he can be prosecuted as a spy. Hang his sorry Taliban ^SS!
7 posted on 6/17/02 4:17 PM Pacific by Young Werther
I'm sure there are two witnesses who saw Jonny (Taliban) Lindh drug out of the hole he was hiding in. I reasonably believe the people in that hole were firing/had been firing at US troop and not having an afternoon tea party.
Secondly I believe Lindh had knowledge of the uprising that caused the death of the CIA Agent and just kept quiet hoping he could use the confusion to get away.
Go back to your crossbow you need to work on your aim!
Perhaps I haven't remembered correctly. I thought Lindh was among a group of Taliban who surrendered to Northern Alliance troops. I can't imagine dragging an armed enemy soldier out of a hole. If he wasn't armed, then just exactly what could have been witnessed? I don't know if a jury could be convinced that hiding in a hole is an overt act of treason. You are suggesting that two of the captors saw Lindh armed on the battlefield and could testify to that. If being an armed Taliban in the place were Lindh was seen and at the time he was seen constitutes treason (that is, it can be established that the Taliban were an enemy of the US) then there is a chance that a charge of treason could be successfully pursued. It might also be necessary to show that Lindh knew that the Taliban were an enemy of the US at that time.
The fact that the government has not included that charge, indicates that they probably can't prove the charge. The Supreme Court will probably find that the charges being made are a transparent attempt to find Lindh guilty of treason without charging him with treason and without meeting the Constitutional requirements.
Will, there is a huge difference between gun holders in this country who are citizens and a wacked kid who was in the country of a combatant against us. Don't confuse the two. What is happening with gun rights here bears little semblance with Lindh and what he did.
I don't treat the Constitution like a menu where we can just pick and choose which protections we will recognize on a given day and which we shall ignore. If people have a right not to incriminate themselves, then we all have that right, including Lindh. If the Constitution requires two witnesses to bring a charge of treason, then it applies no matter who is charged and no matter how we disguise the charges.
One of the charges against Lindh is equivalent to keeping and bearing arms while doing something bad. Does that mean we can charge someone with voting while double-parked? Or checking a book out of a library while under a restraining order? My rights are more valuable than punishing this idiot.
I can hardly believe that the Supreme Court of the US just ruled that armed police may board a bus and request to search people without probable cause that a crime has been committed. No good will come of this.
I did not hear of that. Do you have a link?
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.