BACK * RushOnline.com * Links * War Photos * Visitor Index

About the only funny story to come out of the Gulf War involved an American kid who surrendered along with members of the Iraqi army: As I recall the story, US troops during the "hail mary" flanking manuever encountered some Iraqi army regulars who promptly surrendered in order to save their lives. The US troops, taught a few phrases in farsi, such as "put your hands up", were perplexed as to why this one kid wouldn't put his hands up. When they got within earshot, they heard this one kid - dressed in orange shorts, nikes, and a Chicago Bulls T-shirt - say, in perfect english, "Where the 'F' have you guys been!!!".

He was a kid from chicago, second generation Iraqi - and a born US citizen, who had been visiting his grandmother in Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait. He was snatched off of the street by the Iraqi army and put into the line and still had on the same clothes that he had on when he was "drafted" (had been in the Iraqi army since about August of '91, captured during the Hail Mary pass). As I recall, nothing happened to him but that he got a free ride home.

The analogy is hardly perfect, but wouldn't Johnny Walker have a defense by professing:

1.) I went to Afganistan to study Islam before Sept 11 (which apparently, he did). Not to fight a war I couldn't forsee.
2.) I couldn't express regrets for the attack of 9-11 because of the company I was in.
3.) I couldn't express those regrets in front of the CIA during my interview prior to the prisoner uprising because they could (and did) put me back in the compound with my "comrades". (This according to Newsweek)
4.) The Taliban is hardly an "all volunteer force" and they drafted me.

Unless he's caught on tape firing a rifle at US troops (and Johnny Cochrane can explain that away), it seems like he can cite a precedent. It seems that he can explain that he was dumb, or caught in an impossible situation, and, so, he's not at fault.

Keep in mind that if he's a stupid kid, caught in an impossible situation, drafted in the Taliban, I wanna give him the benefit of the doubt (but not spare him a trial). If he volunteered to fight, and now wants to weasel his way out, I have no sympathy for him. If he shot at our troops, may Allah have mercy on his soul, cause I never will.

* * *

WALKER COULD FACE MILITARY COURT-MARTIAL

http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/01/07/usat-walker.htm

By Toni Locy, USA TODAY

CNN
American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, 20, says he sympathized with al-Qaeda.

War on terrorism
WASHINGTON — American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh could be tried by a military court-martial in a death penalty case even though he is not a member of the U.S. armed forces, according to sources close to the Bush administration's deliberations on Walker's fate.

The sources say Walker, the 20-year-old Californian captured in Afghanistan in November, could be charged under a little-known provision of the U.S. military code of justice that prohibits "aiding the enemy" with "arms, ammunition, supplies, money or other things."

Walker converted to the Muslim faith as a teen and traveled to the Middle East in 1998. He moved to Afghanistan in May, according to his parents.

Most provisions of the military code apply only to members of the armed services. But part of the code — namely a rarely used provision called Article 104 — applies to "any person," meaning that it could be used to help U.S. officials answer the vexing question of how to bring Walker to justice.

Because Article 104 charges carry the death penalty, charging Walker with "aiding the enemy" in a military court-martial would be a way for U.S. authorities to subject him to a potential death sentence while avoiding legal issues that would accompany any plan to try him in a civilian court.

A military court-martial is one of several legally complicated options being considered in the Walker case by the Defense and Justice Departments, sources close to the discussions on the case say.

U.S. officials have said publicly that Walker, as a U.S. citizen, would not be subject to Bush's Nov. 13 order creating military tribunals to try foreigners accused of terrorism. But military law experts say Bush could issue another order to create a tribunal that would deal only with Walker.

If Walker were charged in a civilian court, two of the most viable criminal charges that could be brought — treason and murder of a U.S. government employee — would be difficult to prove. Both carry the death penalty.

Treason charges are rarely used, largely because of the high standard of proof required for conviction: a "confession in open court" or the testimony of two witnesses to the same treasonous act.

Charging Walker with murdering a U.S. government employee also would pose a high hurdle for prosecutors. It would require proof that Walker — who goes by his mother's maiden name — played a role in the death on Nov. 25 of CIA officer Johnny "Mike" Spann during an uprising by Taliban captives at a prison in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan. Spann tried to interview Walker shortly before the rebellion; U.S. officials have not said whether they believe Walker had a role in the uprising.

H. Wayne Elliott, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who has taught war crimes courses to Army lawyers, says the laws of war recognize the right of prisoners of war to try to escape. Walker, he says, likely would raise that as a defense if he were charged in Spann's death.

Other possible charges Walker could face in a civilian court trial include providing support to terrorists, which carries a maximum punishment of 15 years in prison. Several public opinion polls have indicated that most Americans are outraged by Walker's alleged actions, and believe he should be punished more severely. Bush administration officials appear determined to bring serious charges against Walker, or at least to use the threat of such charges to get Walker to tell them everything he knows about Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorism network.

Shortly after his capture, Walker told a CNN television news crew that he sympathized with al-Qaeda, which U.S. officials say carried out the attacks Sept. 11 on New York and Washington.

Legal analysts, citing reports that Walker has told U.S. authorities that he once met bin Laden, say Walker could be valuable to U.S. military intelligence and law enforcement. They say he could be given leniency if he can help identify al-Qaeda members and describe how he infiltrated the terrorist network.

A tribunal — also known as a military commission — would allow prosecutors more leeway in admitting evidence at trial than they would receive in a traditional military or civilian court.

To put Walker before a military commission, authorities would have to charge him with a war crime, such as killing civilians, Elliott says. The most logical way Walker could be charged with a war crime, Elliott says, is if he were linked to al-Qaeda.

The president is expected to make the final decision about Walker's prosecution. If he opts for a military court-martial, Elliott says, Walker could argue that he joined the Taliban before the United States went to war in Afghanistan and that he could not leave.

Trying a U.S. civilian in a military setting — even one accused of taking up arms against the United States — also raises tough political issues for the White House, analysts say.

"I don't think the administration would want to take the political heat of putting a U.S. citizen before a court-martial or a military tribunal," says Michael Nardotti, a retired former Army judge advocate general. "They may just deal with him in the U.S. (civilian) courts. But I don't think they will let him walk."

* * *

Johnny Bin Walker

How soon we for get a man named Pvt. Slovick. Now we have Johnnie "hang'em high" Bin Walker. Where were the Liberals when Pvt. Slovick needed them. Injustice of the justice system is just around the bend. Walker will probably be out in 5 to 10 if he gets a haircut and a shave.

Jim B.. Bradenton Fl. / Retired Navy CPO.

* * *

I feel this Walker, or whatever he calls himself, is no more than a piece of useless trash. However, I don't feel he should be put to death. By doing that the courts would make him a martyr and we damn sure don't need that. He should serve a very long uncomfortable prison term.

Also, I very strongly feel that the trial of ANY terrorist should not be in any way made public until it's over. If televised, witnesses will be known outside the courtroom and for all we know, one who testifies against a suspected terrorist could walk out of the courtroom and be looking down the barrel of a shotgun carried by another terrorist. This is probably an oversimplification but it could very well happen.

Richard

* * *

John Walker

I , and probably most Americans would agree, think that if this man has taken arms against and would have killed American soldiers if given half a chance. During a time of war, he should be stripped of his United States Citizenship, considered part of the Taliban and the Al-Quida network, and should be considered one of their most dangerous types of assets. He should be tried as one of them and not one of us, and should be awaiting his fate, whatever it may be, at Guantanimo Bay with the rest of the more dangerous .

Kent

* * *

Your listeners need to know:

President Bush proactive policy to take out the Islamic Al Quada before they can act is legal and appropriate. Foreign terrorist and American traitors have no legal standing in America. Both are members of a world-wide organization that has, in word and deed, declared war against the United States, and vowed to kill Americans. That classifies every one of them collectively as a "hostile combatant force."

Foreign terrorists have no legal rights in this country because the organization they belong to (the hostile combatant force) has declared war (Jihad) on the United States; and, they are, by definition, combatants out of uniform. Therefore, they can be treated as spies, incarcerated, interrogated, tried by a military tribunal, and hanged. The American traitors. likewise, can also be treated as spies because they are engaging in acts of hostilities (whether armed conflict or terrorists activities) on behalf of the Al Quada organization, and they are not wearing uniforms which identifies which side they are on.

The "touchy-feelie" crowd in this society should stop worrying about or trying to defend the civil and legal rights of these people. They have none. Our "touchy-feelie" neighbors needs to comes to terms with the fact that the bad guys they are feeling sorry for will kill them, their family members, and their friends in a New York minute.
.

Thanks

Bill of Swanzey, NH

 

AutoRentals.com * ChildDevelopment.com * UsedTrucks.com WAR Index