Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

[Rono]

Help me understand,...... He chose to be a taliban warior and he did grow up in the free beautiful America. He is not insane ( by my standards ) and he got only 20 years.

...and then we have Arabic ( and other western ) taliban wariors sitting in a concentration camp in cuba. They do not know witch accusations they have to face. Whitout any help of advocates and far away from the international press.

why is there a difference in justice ???????

 

[nbcrusader]

20 yrs - I believe that was part of the deal for his guilty plea.

 

[Dreadsox]

...and then we have Arabic ( and other western ) taliban wariors sitting in a concentration camp in cuba.

Actually, the latest stat I could find is that there are 299 people there who are members of Al-Qaeda.

The implication that this is a concentration camp is very offensive.

...They do not know witch accusations they have to face. Whitout any help of advocates and far away from the international press.

They don't know? These poor Al-qaeda supports do not know? Even under the Geneva convention, combatant POW's are allowed to be held for the "DURATION" of the war.

Please note, the Administration believes that the Geneva Code applies only to Armies of Foreign Governements. Al-Qaeda is not an army of a Foreign governement. However, this is irrelevant right now since we are still at war and the Geneva Convention rules would apply.

...why is there a difference in justice ???????

The best explination that I can provide is that Walker is a United States Citizen and is therefore subject to prosecution under United States Laws.

As for a difference in justice, these poor Al-Qaeda Terrorists should be set free to continue to attack our country????

This is why the US Government is a new seeking standard from the International Community other than the Geneva Convention to handle the prisoners. When dealing with a foreign government, there can be a clear cut end and POW's are released.

How do you end a war with people who are not operating as members of a country?

 

[Popmartijn]

Help me understand,...... He chose to be a taliban warior and he did grow up in the free beautiful America. He is not insane ( by my standards ) and he got only 20 years.

I think that 20 years is still a mighty long time. IIRC, John Walker is 21 now, so he'll be in prison for around the same time as he's on earth at the moment. I also don't know all the ins and outs of his trial, but there isn't that much the USA can prosecute him for. He joined another (and enemy) army, fighting against the USA in that army. I think that's almost everything they can incriminate him for. Then I think that 20 years is a big punishment (although it is probably also a deserved punishment).

C ya!

Marty

 

[Popmartijn]

Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

They don't know? These poor Al-qaeda supports do not know? Even under the Geneva convention, combatant POW's are allowed to be held for the "DURATION" of the war.

Please note, the Administration believes that the Geneva Code applies only to Armies of Foreign Governements. Al-Qaeda is not an army of a Foreign governement. However, this is irrelevant right now since we are still at war and the Geneva Convention rules would apply.

But the problem is that the USA isn't adhering to the Geneva Convention. The US government maybe says that the Convention does not apply to Al-Qaeda, but the Convention is clear about it that they have to. You can find the Convention here (this is the official site).

Here's the start of the treaty:

Article 1

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

I don't know if Afghanistan is a High Contracting Party (couldn't find that on quickly), but the USA is, so they should adhere to it. Whether or not they consider Al-Qaeda as a foreign army or not is not relevant. They are an armed party so the soldiers have rights as set out by the Geneva Convention.

As for a difference in justice, these poor Al-Qaeda Terrorists should be set free to continue to attack our country????

This is why the US Government is a new seeking standard from the International Community other than the Geneva Convention to handle the prisoners. When dealing with a foreign government, there can be a clear cut end and POW's are released.

How do you end a war with people who are not operating as members of a country?

If the war still has not ended then they do not have to be released as they are still POW's. But even captured they have rights (no torturing, no interrogations, medical care, etc.) and the USA cannot take it from them just because they don't like it that they have been attacked now.

Marty

 

[The Wanderer]

you're living in a fantasy world, they can and have taken it from them, I guess it's not "fair," but you know what they say...

 

[Klaus]

Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

The best explination that I can provide is that Walker is a United States Citizen and is therefore subject to prosecution under United States Laws.

sad but true - not every human is worth equal and equal treated.
If you have the wrong color, no money or the wrong passport you're judged verry different.

Klaus

 

[Lilly]

sad but true - not every human is worth equal and equal treated.
If you have the wrong color, no money or the wrong passport you're judged verry different.

Klaus

I think the original comment about John Walker Lindh being an American citizen, therefore could only be tried under American laws was misunderstood. They tried to have him go to a military tribunal first. There, he could have received the death penalty or basically any punishment beneath that. However he could not be tried there (I can't remember why, but I really want to say because he's not a military man, but I'm really not sure).


What he DID get, was the exact same thing that the Al-Quaeda members will get: as many charges against them as possible. They will not have the advantage of high-buck lawyers like Mr. Lindh, but they WILL have lawyers. The original comment likening to how the US military is keeping the Taliban members (concentration camps) actually was rather offensive. They aren't in anything like a concentration camp. They have plenty of food and water, they aren't being whipped and killed.

 

[nbcrusader]

Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

sad but true - not every human is worth equal and equal treated.
If you have the wrong color, no money or the wrong passport you're judged verry different.

Klaus

Just ask those who received their justice in the soccer stadium in Kabul. Those held in Gitmo are getting far better treatment.

 

[Rono]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

Just ask those who received their justice in the soccer stadium in Kabul. Those held in Gitmo are getting far better treatment.

The nice thing is, Crusader, we are bragging around that our western christian moral is better than the moral of the people in rough states. We think that justice should be the same for all people, but all what we do is showing the ( third ) world that we are a bunch of hypocrites who are out for revenge and power.

 

[hiphop]

yeah... look in the mirror first

The nice thing is, Crusader, we are bragging around that our western christian moral is better than the moral of the people in rough states. We think that justice should be the same for all people, but all what we do is showing the ( third ) world that we are a bunch of hypocrites who are out for revenge and power.

Exactly.

 

[Klaus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

What he DID get, was the exact same thing that the Al-Quaeda members will get: as many charges against them as possible. They will not have the advantage of high-buck lawyers like Mr. Lindh, but they WILL have lawyers.

So that's one of my points if you don't have the money (high quality lawyers) you won't be treated equal (see who gets death penalty in the US - as far as i remember the statistic 80% had bad assigned counsels)

When i think about Military tribunals with no publicity - third world dictators come to my mind - imho that "model" of Judgement dosn't suit for our free world.

I didn't repeat "concentration camps" for a good reason - also ai points out that the way they are treated is torture i wouldn't call it KZ (german for concentration camp)

If you take a look at some other changes in law resulting of the 9/11 you see that some of them are only valid for foreigners. That's discrimination for me - also discrimination of foreigners today is widely accepted it will still stay discrimination.

The nice thing is, Crusader, we are bragging around that our western christian moral is better than the moral of the people in rough states. We think that justice should be the same for all people, but all what we do is showing the ( third ) world that we are a bunch of hypocrites who are out for revenge and power.

Right Rono,

I didn't bash the US judges only it was critics on all. For me there is no difference in this kind of racism wether the US, Europe or the Taliban discriminate some People (because of Race, Religion, Sex or the different Passport).
We can't tolerate the Taliban discrimination (for example) - just because it might be part of the culture. Culture imho stops where discrimination or any annulment of the human rights starts - Same for our countries, we can't defend our values by ignoring them.
it's discrimination and that is evil.

Klaus

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

The nice thing is, Crusader, we are bragging around that our western christian moral is better than the moral of the people in rough states. We think that justice should be the same for all people, but all what we do is showing the ( third ) world that we are a bunch of hypocrites who are out for revenge and power.

You miss the point. If they had evidence that he had renounced his citizenship he would not have gotten 20 years. Justice is not the same during a war. Unlike other wars, what nation do we have to sign a treaty with to end this one?

Please, enlighten me, what would you have them do with these poor prisoners????

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

I didn't bash the US judges only it was critics on all. For me there is no difference in this kind of racism wether the US, Europe or the Taliban discriminate some People (because of Race, Religion, Sex or the different Passport).
We can't tolerate the Taliban discrimination (for example) - just because it might be part of the culture. Culture imho stops where discrimination or any annulment of the human rights starts - Same for our countries, we can't defend our values by ignoring them.
it's discrimination and that is evil.

I love it when we are called racist for trying to defend our country.

klaus you use the words racism, discrimination, and prejudice in your statement.

From the Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: rac?ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

(This definition does not fit this situation. Al-qaeda is not being held because they are inferior, they are being held because they are killing our citizens. The Taliban is guilty by protecting them instead of turning them over.)


2 : racial prejudice or discrimination


Here is the definition of racism that I believe you must be using. Let's take a look at the definition of prejudice to see if it fits.

Main Entry: [1]prej?u?dice


1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

(Maybe this is where you think it is unfair to hold them. My point earlier is that during war we are allowed to hold prisoners until the end of the war. That is in the Geneva convention. As for how they are handled after the war, this is the point our administration is concerned with. We have no foreign governement to negotiate with.)

2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Now this is where I would say we are not prejudiced against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, their culture, religious beliefs or........

We have just grounds to take action.

Start with 9/11 and look backwards over 10 years. My country is not at War because we think our culture is superior. My country is at war becasue of Extremist nuts who have been killing us for years. This in and of it self, does not make our handling of the situation unjust or irrational.

We are not prejudiced nor are we racist. We are defending ourselves.



What is wrong with wanting protection?



Peace to all

 

[Klaus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

Now this is where I would say we are not prejudiced against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, their culture, religious beliefs or........

We have just grounds to take action.

Okay here you get my definition (I didn't look in Websters, AHD or Britannica before my posting ,-)

Racism = unequal treatment of humans because of "uninfluenceable" things (i put "uninfluenceable" in quotation marks because i count sex, wealth or citizenship also to it because:
- sex: you can't expect from s.o. to change his gender just to be treated equal
- even if someone from the thrid world wants to become a rich american, in reality his chances are near to 0 even if whe would succeed with the same skills when he was born inside the US)

I'd be happy if you could find a better word for "uninfluenceable"

Maybe i should have called it simply "discrimination" not racism - because
rasism for many is just based on biological issues, racism was just ment to be an example for discrimination and unequal treatment (one example can be prejudice) based on anything non-important (like place of birth color of your skin or money on your bank account or citizenship)

I'm not against trials against those who might be murders of innocent (i wait calling them "murders" until they are proven guilty by a faire trial).

For me it's just important that everyone is treated and punished equal - just mesured by what he has done.

And when i see new laws (all over the world) after 9/11 which differ between foreigners and cizizens i have a problem with that.

Start with 9/11 and look backwards over 10 years. My country is not at War because we think our culture is superior.

I never said something like that! I never even thought something like that - and i don't see any article or statement from myself which could justify anything like that.

My country is at war becasue of
Extremist nuts who have been killing us for years. This in and of it self, does not make our handling of the situation unjust or irrational.

I didn't say that there should be done nothing! My only point is that - even in war - we have to care bout our principles and treat all human beings the same way.
Let us not be forced by any tyrans to change our view of what is right and what is wrong. If we do - they won.

We are not prejudiced nor are we racist. We are defending ourselves.
What is wrong with wanting protection?
Peace to all

Nothing is wrong with wanting protection. Nothing is wrong with defense (btw. the difference between defense and offense is an interesting discussion also)

There's just something wrong when people are treated different because of their place of birth (again you have to judge them - but i see no reason for any difference in laws, court and prison)

I know it's illusoric that everyone gets the same chances in life and is treated equal - but it's a dream i can't stop dreaming

Klaus

 

[garibaldo]

Lindh was given 20 years simply because the government had a shaky case against him AT BEST and they knew there was a good chance he could get off with no penalties. They got a VERY good deal in this case.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

Okay here you get my definition (I didn't look in Websters, AHD or Britannica before my posting ,-)

There is no point in discussing your definition. This is the accepted definition. You can't change a definition of a word to whatever you want it to mean in a debate.

Maybe i should have called it simply "discrimination" not racism - because rasism for many is just based on biological issues, racism was just ment to be an example for discrimination and unequal treatment (one example can be prejudice) based on anything non-important (like place of birth color of your skin or money on your bank account or citizenship)

Sorry to do this to you but the definition of discrimination in this case is :

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

AS I pointed out in my other post what is going on is not Prejudiced. The definition of prejudiced includes the statements "without just cause" and "irrational".

Neither of these criteria is met in this case. Therefore, what is happening is not discrimitation nor is it prejudiced.

I'm not against trials against those who might be murders of innocent (i wait calling them "murders" until they are proven guilty by a faire trial).

For me it's just important that everyone is treated and punished equal - just mesured by what he has done.

And when i see new laws (all over the world) after 9/11 which differ between foreigners and cizizens i have a problem with that

Well, I am for fair trials too. Right now, they are enemy combatants and they are being held as such. The debate once again, is if there needs to be some changes in the Geneva Convention based on the fact that these people are not operating on behalf of a foreign government.

I never said something like that! I never even thought something like that - and i don't see any article or statement from myself which could justify anything like that.

I didn't say that there should be done nothing! My only point is that - even in war - we have to care bout our principles and treat all human beings the same way.
Let us not be forced by any tyrans to change our view of what is right and what is wrong. If we do - they won.

No you didn't say anything like that. It was put into my statement in reference to some of the other posts. Did not mean to make it seem like you said it.

There's just something wrong when people are treated different because of their place of birth (again you have to judge them - but i see no reason for any difference in laws, court and prison)

Well, I am sure if you have seen my other posts you know where I stand on the Patriot Act. I am for it. The nice thing is that it is a four year law that has to be revoted on by Congress. Right now, it is necessary.

I know it's illusoric that everyone gets the same chances in life and is treated equal - but it's a dream i can't stop dreaming
Klaus

Its a noble dream. I do not think I will see it in my life, barring the Second Coming.

 

[nbcrusader]

Lindh was given 20 years simply because the government had a shaky case against him AT BEST and they knew there was a good chance he could get off with no penalties. They got a VERY good deal in this case.

If the government had a shaky case, it was a case for treason resulting in the death penalty. Would you accept twenty years if there was a chance you could get off with no penalties?

 

[garibaldo]

If the government had a shaky case, it was a case for treason resulting in the death penalty. Would you accept twenty years if there was a chance you could get off with no penalties?

Oh HELL YES I WOULD! It's either freedom, 20 years or death. Those are three possible outcomes. I think a lot of people wouldn't want to play the gamble between freedom\death. It may have been a shaky case, but that doesn't mean it was impossible for him to be convicted.

 

[Dreadsox]

If the government had a shaky case, it was a case for treason resulting in the death penalty. Would you accept twenty years if there was a chance you could get off with no penalties?

I agree with your point NB. The issue was over Mike Spam. THey had originally hoped to prove that Walker was involved in killing him. They could not, and this is the reason they did not continue going after the death penalty.


Peace to all.

 

[Klaus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

There is no point in discussing your definition. This is the accepted definition. You can't change a definition of a word to whatever you want it to mean in a debate.

I'm not trying to discuss the defnintion - i wanted to show you the intension.
I also don't change the meaning - if you take several (x) dictionaries you see even more (x+y) definitions of that.
The fact that we live in two different parts of the world raises the chance that we (and the people in our neigbourhood) use words verry diffently.
I also think that "my" definition and the one in websters didn't exclude each other. Believe me that you can find my definition (not word by word but the sense of it) in other dictionaries.

Well, I am for fair trials too. Right now, they are enemy combatants and they are being held as such. The debate once again, is if there needs to be some changes in the Geneva Convention based on the fact that these people are not operating on behalf of a foreign government.

If they are not operating onbehalf of a foreign government they can't be p.o.w.'s afik.

The problem with the "war against terrorism" is that you can only have war with another country not with an idea or ideology.
Unless you take "war against terrorism" just as an epmty phrase like "war against cancer" or "war against drugs" - you wouldn't seriousely take drug dealers and put them into camps like the one in cuba or take them to military tribunals - do you?

No you didn't say anything like that. It was put into my statement in reference to some of the other posts. Did not mean to make it seem like you said it.

Okay good to hear - i just wanted to make sure that this is not my point and never will be - and noone who reads your reply should think that i share this opinion.

Its a noble dream. I do not think I will see it in my life, barring the Second Coming.

I don't think so neither - but i'll do my part to make this vision come true ,-)

Klaus

 

[hotasahandbag]

just my 2 cents,

it's my understanding that walker was never a member of al quaeda. in fact was approached by al quaeda before 9/11 and he refused any association with the organization, as he viewed them to be bad muslims. he was involved with the conflict against the northern allience (before the US was involved) as the northern allience was perpitrating horrible crimes against innocent people. there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of or involvement in the events surrounding 9/11.

he was arrested in a foreign country, brought to the US, and tried for alleged crimes committed in another country and sentenced to 20 years for what? "supporting the taliban" and "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN!

sounds to me like he is the poster child for the war on terror propaganda machine. and at this point, no one with the power to change the ruling is willing to stand up and defend him.

peace, lynn

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

The problem with the "war against terrorism" is that you can only have war with another country not with an idea or ideology.
Unless you take "war against terrorism" just as an epmty phrase like "war against cancer" or "war against drugs" - you wouldn't seriousely take drug dealers and put them into camps like the one in cuba or take them to military tribunals - do you?

Klaus

Ok....to equate this with the War on Cancer is almost silly.


Hmmmmm.....Would I take drug dealers and put them into camps like the one in Cuba? Put them up for tribunals?

I suppose I could see putting them in "Prison Camps" but the military tibunal I would hold off on unless they were dealing on Military Bases.

Peace to all.

 

[garibaldo]

just my 2 cents,

it's my understanding that walker was never a member of al quaeda. in fact was approached by al quaeda before 9/11 and he refused any association with the organization, as he viewed them to be bad muslims. he was involved with the conflict against the northern allience (before the US was involved) as the northern allience was perpitrating horrible crimes against innocent people. there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of or involvement in the events surrounding 9/11.

he was arrested in a foreign country, brought to the US, and tried for alleged crimes committed in another country and sentenced to 20 years for what? "supporting the taliban" and "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN!

sounds to me like he is the poster child for the war on terror propaganda machine. and at this point, no one with the power to change the ruling is willing to stand up and defend him.

peace, lynn

He refused to have any associated with al Quaeda because they're bad muslims and he's fighting the Northern Alliance because they're attacking innocents!? Hahaha...

He told a Newsweek reporter that he entered Afghanistan "to help the Islamic government... because the Taleban are the only government that actually provides Islamic law."

There he was then sent for seven weeks to an al-Qaeda training camp, where he is said to have met Osama Bin Laden who thanked him for taking part in the jihad.

Asked by a reporter about his experience in Afghanistan, he replied: "It's exactly what I thought it would be."

Did he think he had been fighting on the right side?

"Definitely," was the answer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1779455.stm

I guess the Taliban doesn't harm innocents, right? Jeez, will you liberals stop at no arguement to defend your Birkenstock-wearing comrades?

 

[us3]

Yeah!! Why did Johny Walker only get 20 years!!?

Afterall he's given "the label" a bad name!!!

 

[Popmartijn]

Yeah!! Why did Johny Walker only get 20 years!!?

Afterall he's given "the label" a bad name!!!

20 years? Is that a blue label or a green label? I know it's not red (6 years) or black (12 years), but what is 20 years? Who knows?

Questions, questions, questions...



Marty

 

[Popmartijn]

20 years? Is that a blue label or a green label? I know it's not red (6 years) or black (12 years), but what is 20 years? Who knows?

Questions, questions, questions...



Marty

DOH!

I should have 'googled' before I posted. A quick search found out that the gold label is 18 years. As this is the closest there is to 20 years, John Walker may be awarded gold stripes on his prison suit.
Congratulations boy, they'll look lovely the next 20 years!

C ya!

Marty

 

[U2Bama]

it's my understanding that walker was never a member of al quaeda. in fact was approached by al quaeda before 9/11 and he refused any association with the organization, as he viewed them to be bad muslims. he was involved with the conflict against the northern allience (before the US was involved) as the northern allience was perpitrating horrible crimes against innocent people. there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of or involvement in the events surrounding 9/11.

he was arrested in a foreign country, brought to the US, and tried for alleged crimes committed in another country and sentenced to 20 years for what? "supporting the taliban" and "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN!

Okay, so Taliban John viewed Al Qaeda as "bad muslims" and viewed the Taliban as "good muslims" who went around fighting against "horrible crimes against innocent people"? I do not deny that the Northern Alliance DID commit "horrible crimes against innocent people," but it was part of the Taliban's governing law to commit "horrible crimes against innocent people." Just ask any female who saw a doctor without her husband's permission, or anyone who practiced homosexuality, or converted from Islam to another religion under the Taliban's rule. Oh, forget that; don't ask those people; they are all dead.

As far as Taliban John being charged by the U.S. for "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN, it is safe to surmise that he was doing this after September 11, and he would have known the likelihood of these explosives being used against American or coalition forces IN AFGHANISTAN.

Mike Spann was from a small town here in Alabama. He was killed by Taliban and Al Qaeda goobs in an uprising while questioning some of them. Taliban John was sentenced to 20 years. He got off very easy.

~U2Alabama

 

[hotasahandbag]

ok, my original post was not intended as an endorsement of the taliban, al quaeda, walker's choices. it was merely to point out that both sides (the taliban and the northern alliance) are BAD GUYS. so, walker chose to side with the wrong bad guys? who'd have known since the US supported the "wrong bad guys" until several years ago.

it is interesting to me that the legal process in this case is so flakey, but the public accepts it because of the current political climate. i wasn't aware that "it is safe to surmise......" was sufficient evidence to convict a man. lastly, i am still baffled that this guy was never charged with committing a crime in this country or against our citizens, yet he was swiftly extradited and convicted in this country. the whole scenario screams "propaganda" to me. in different times, he would have had people running to his aid to ensure his rights were being protected.

peace, lynn

 

[garibaldo]

ok, my original post was not intended as an endorsement of the taliban, al quaeda, walker's choices. it was merely to point out that both sides (the taliban and the northern alliance) are BAD GUYS. so, walker chose to side with the wrong bad guys? who'd have known since the US supported the "wrong bad guys" until several years ago.

it is interesting to me that the legal process in this case is so flakey, but the public accepts it because of the current political climate. i wasn't aware that "it is safe to surmise......" was sufficient evidence to convict a man. lastly, i am still baffled that this guy was never charged with committing a crime in this country or against our citizens, yet he was swiftly extradited and convicted in this country. the whole scenario screams "propaganda" to me. in different times, he would have had people running to his aid to ensure his rights were being protected.

peace, lynn

Wow, what a weak arguement! It's hilarious how far you libs will go to protect the enemy rather than protect the US. First, he joined the enemy KNOWING that they were out to kill Americans.

Directly from the BBC article (hardly right-wing propaganda):
"There he was then sent for seven weeks to an al-Qaeda training camp, where he is said to have met Osama Bin Laden who thanked him for taking part in the jihad. "

So, you're arguing that he DIDN'T know these guys were trying to kill Americans? Do you think the "death to Americans" talk started on 9-11? Do you think they never mentioned it to him that they weren't exactly fond of Americans? Hahaha...

Walker: "What!? I thought we were pro-America! What's all this sudden talk of killing Americans all about? Wow! That just came out of left field, didn't it?"

Also, if I leave this country to serve the military abroad and someone takes my life, THAT'S STILL A CRIME! You must be a pretty cold-hearted person to ignore the potential that he was involved in the death of this CIA agent or other attempts to kill innocentns here just because it doesn't support your arguement (agenda).

"in different times, he would have had people running to his aid to ensure his rights were being protected."

Ummm...that's exactly what you're doing, right? Again, I find your logic and arguement very, very sad. The fact that you would go as far as pretending that he simply chose the wrong side (some sort of wacked multiculturism) and didn't commit a crime WITHIN our borders as justification to release him smacks of the worst kind of FAR left-wing agenda.
There is right and wrong in this word, believe it or not. It's not just all a matter of perspective and we, as US citizens, have a right to defend ourselves against crimes commited domestically AND internationally. Try taking off the birkenstocks for a second and come down off that high horse with the rest of the commoners.