NationStates Jolt Archive

This is from Robert Pelton, a CNN journalist who saw first hand what went on with little Johnny. And it's quite detailed.

For someone who saw what Johnny did, it has the ring of truth. Quite unlike the BS that Johnny's father is pushing.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2006/articles/013006ryp.html

As far as I'm concerned, they should have taken Johnny out and hung him. Not transported him back to the US.

This is from Robert Pelton, a CNN journalist who saw first hand what went on with little Johnny. And it's quite detailed.

For someone who saw what Johnny did, it has the ring of truth. Quite unlike the BS that Johnny's father is pushing.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2006/articles/013006ryp.html

As far as I'm concerned, they should have taken Johnny out and hung him. Not transported him back to the US.

Great, they had to throw in this Irish-American didn't they. Bah!:mad:

As far as I'm concerned, they should have taken Johnny out and hung him. Not transported him back to the US.


Yes. Your record on war crimes and human rights is quite impressive.

Does it make your dick feel bigger?

Yes. Your record on war crimes and human rights is quite impressive.

Does it make your dick feel bigger?

I believe you're under the false impression that the vast majority of the world is civilized, and that government is a vast civilizing force.

Hate to break it to you, but nations act solely according to Realpolitik (unless they are acting stupidly), and most of the world is completely uncivilized. If we had merely left Johnny with the locals, he would have been dead soon enough. It's a rough world, and he chose to live in the most uncivilized place he could possibly find.

According to the law, treason is a crime, whose punishment is death.

I disagree with the death penalty, but I still think treason is a serious crime that should result in being locked up for the rest of your life.

They should try him and convict him.

I refuse to take seriously a site that looks like it was created in microsoft notepad, and was published in the same format.

I refuse to take seriously a site that looks like it was created in microsoft notepad, and was published in the same format.
Sorry if you can't take the personal notes of a CNN reporter seriously.

According to the law, treason is a crime, whose punishment is death.

I disagree with the death penalty, but I still think treason is a serious crime that should result in being locked up for the rest of your life.

They should try him and convict him.

I believe he has already plea bargained and is being punished as we speak.

Sorry if you can't take the personal notes of a CNN reporter seriously.

Why are these "personal notes" on Blackwater USA's site?

I believe he has already plea bargained and is being punished as we speak.
Hard to complain about his treatment under the court. I believe he got off quite lightly.

I believe the CNN reporters statement, that if the matter had been brought to trial, and the lawyers for the defense had involved him in testimony, that Walker would have had multiple life sentences without parole at the very least. Maybe even sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit capital murder of a Federal agent in the line of duty.

Hard to complain about his treatment under the court. I believe he got off quite lightly.

I believe the CNN reporters statement, that if the matter had been brought to trial, and the lawyers for the defense had involved him in testimony, that Walker would have had multiple life sentences without parole at the very least. Maybe even sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit capital murder of a Federal agent in the line of duty.

I don't disagree with anything you've said except the original "hang him there" comment.

I don't disagree with anything you've said except the original "hang him there" comment.
If I had been standing there in Afghanistan, right after the prison uprising was quelled, and I asked a few Afghans to take him over the hill and pop him in the head, a lot of this would have been a non-issue.

His parents would never have heard from poor Johnny again, and so many people wouldn't have to think about what made some inane US teenager learn to love the mass-murder version of jihad.

Sometimes, Cat, quiet is better. It would have been better for Johnny, too.

Does it make your dick feel bigger?
Very much so :D
(JK) (JK)

I believe you're under the false impression that the vast majority of the world is civilized, and that government is a vast civilizing force.

Hate to break it to you, but nations act solely according to Realpolitik (unless they are acting stupidly), and most of the world is completely uncivilized. If we had merely left Johnny with the locals, he would have been dead soon enough. It's a rough world, and he chose to live in the most uncivilized place he could possibly find.
Another poster who doesn't know what "realpolitik" means.

Realpolitik: politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. http://www.wordreference.com/definition/realpolitik

There is nothing in realpolitik that forces one to be violent, murderous, dishonest or in any other way an asshole. It does not require one to ape the tactics of one's enemies. And it certainly does not encourage one to undermine one's own interests by carrying on unnecessary conflicts. There's a very good argument to be made that, if the US had decided to take the very idealistic-sounding non-violent path of Ghandi in response to 9/11 (as advocated by people like Dennis Kucinich; or in other words had opted to allow 3000 murders to go unanswered militarily), that would have been the most cold-blooded realpolitik choice of all.

But you don't see that, just like you don't see how impractical and ideological current US policy is. And that's because you, sir, are an apparatchik.

Apparatchik: 1. <snip> 2. An unquestioningly loyal subordinate, especially of a political leader or organization. http://www.bartleby.com/61/48/A0374800.html

If I had been standing there in Afghanistan, right after the prison uprising was quelled, and I asked a few Afghans to take him over the hill and pop him in the head, a lot of this would have been a non-issue.

So...if everything is fair game in war...whay are we fighting again?

It seems to me, by your definition, that there is no good and evil, just expediency.

Burn in hell!

I don't disagree with anything you've said except the original "hang him there" comment.

i feel pretty much the same.

i am of mixed emotions regarding the death penalty,so i will refrain from opining about it.

So...if everything is fair game in war...whay are we fighting again?

It seems to me, by your definition, that there is no good and evil, just expediency.

Burn in hell!
Ever read "Of Mice and Men"?

Would you rather send Johnny home, to the perpetual ignominy he'll face, and the utter shame placed forever on his parents, or would you rather just put the poor misguided soul out of his misery - in either case, you have to make sure the stupid bastard doesn't run off and do some other damned fool lethal act.

I would have shot him.

John Walker Lindh should have been tried in an Afghani court. He was, after all, an Afghani by choice. The only reason he committed treason was because it would have been rather difficult for him to tell the State Department that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship: something which he made painfully clear by joining the Taliban, the once-recognized lawful government of Afghanistan.

Ahem. He was neither Taliban nor Afghani.

The organization he joined was "Al Ansar", which is not Taliban. It was al-Qaeda.

He spoke Arabic and English, not Pashtun. He was, in the Afghan parlance, a foreign fighter.

Ever read "Of Mice and Men"?

Would you rather send Johnny home, to the perpetual ignominy he'll face, and the utter shame placed forever on his parents, or would you rather just put the poor misguided soul out of his misery - in either case, you have to make sure the stupid bastard doesn't run off and do some other damned fool lethal act.

I would have shot him.

I'd follow the law and make sure that due process applies to everyone.

Yes. Your record on war crimes and human rights is quite impressive.

Does it make your dick feel bigger?
Possibly, but it sure does seem to make you think yours is smaller. :D

I'd follow the law and make sure that due process applies to everyone.
Due process applies only to those subject to the US Constitution and laws. It does not apply to foreign nationals, indeed, cannot.

Due process applies only to those subject to the US Constitution and laws. It does not apply to foreign nationals, indeed, cannot.
That is arguable. The opposing argument is that, usually, due process of whatever law a country has will be applied to foreign nationals being tried for crimes under that country's laws, within that country's jurisdiction. Whether he is an American or not, if Lindh is in American custody and being charged and tried by America, then he is subject to American law, and that should give him Constitutional protections at trial.

Ahem. He was neither Taliban nor Afghani.

The organization he joined was "Al Ansar", which is not Taliban. It was al-Qaeda.

He spoke Arabic and English, not Pashtun. He was, in the Afghan parlance, a foreign fighter.

You're assuming there's a difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda. As I said, he should have been tried in Afghanistan. I'm sure the trial would have been thirty minues and the execution thirty seconds.

That is arguable. The opposing argument is that, usually, due process of whatever law a country has will be applied to foreign nationals being tried for crimes under that country's laws, within that country's jurisdiction. Whether he is an American or not, if Lindh is in American custody and being charged and tried by America, then he is subject to American law, and that should give him Constitutional protections at trial.
True, Ms. Walker-Lind's little boy is subject to American law. So when is he going to jail? :)

Ahem. He was neither Taliban nor Afghani.

The organization he joined was "Al Ansar", which is not Taliban. It was al-Qaeda.

He spoke Arabic and English, not Pashtun. He was, in the Afghan parlance, a foreign fighter.

Al Ansar is a Sunni organization from North East Iraq, I do not know where this journalist gets his info from but I fear he is sucking it out of his thumb.
Lindh was indeed, in the eyes of the Afghans, a foreigner

What you say? I thought poor Abul Hamid (Lindh Jr’s “jihad” name) was fleeing his evil master and seeking help. No. The group of around 460 jihadis that left Kunduz towards Mazar i Sharif were on their way to link up with Mullah Dadullah (now the leader of the Taliban military) in Balkh (just west of Mazar) and then attack the city while the US and Afghan forces were tied up in Kunduz monitoring the surrender. Yes, thousands of fighters did surrender peacefully but Lindh again chose to associate with a rag tag group of die-hards led by one of bin Laden’s lieutenants; Abdul Aziz, as well as the hardest core terrorists that comprised Saudi, Uzbek, Iraqi, Russian, Sudanese, Yemeni and Pakistani jihadis.







This group was stopped heading west early in the morning and had an armed standoff with afghan and US forces. (Yes Lindh’s group was fully armed during their purported “surrender” and they had no good reason to explain why they not going east towards Pakistan). The stand off was tense until bombers appeared overhead. Dostum drove by on his way to Kunduz and told them to be disarmed and taken to his garrison called Qali Jangi. Lindh during that entire time was within feet of western journalists and US forces and could have simply identified himself as an American. But he chose to stay in the company of killers. Lindh also knew that his cohorts were still secretly armed with pistols, rifles and even grenades tied by shoelaces and dangling around their groin area. A place where they knew Afghans dare not pat down.
If this journalist was there, then he must have known about what happened in Mazar I Sharif when this city was surrendered. All Afghan Taliban were allowed to return home or join the Northern Alliance, while all foreign Taliban were killed. If I were a foreign Taliban, I would have kept my weapon too, as long as I could until I knew I would survive.

This whole article seems to be no more than a personal vendetta between the journalist and Lindh Sr

You're assuming there's a difference between the Taliban and al Qaeda.

:confused:

Care to elaborate?

:confused:

Care to elaborate?

The difference in between al Qaeda and the Taliban is probably the same as the difference between the Nazi Party and the SS.

True, Ms. Walker-Lind's little boy is subject to American law. So when is he going to jail? :)
I have no problem sending the worthless little twerp to prison forever. I just suspect there are certain shoot-first-ask-questions-never types who will end up in the cell next to him if they don't learn to chill.

If this journalist was there, then he must have known about what happened in Mazar I Sharif when this city was surrendered. All Afghan Taliban were allowed to return home or join the Northern Alliance, while all foreign Taliban were killed.

Err..did not Abdul Rashid Dostum roast the taliban prisoners in containers in Mazar-e-Sharif ?

It's a rough world, and he chose to live in the most uncivilized place he could possibly find.
"The Native Americans/Africans/whoever were uncivilized, pagan barbarians" says the man who forcefully trys to take over their civilization and force upon them his own beliefs, culture, and way of life.

Err..did not Abdul Rashid Dostum roast the taliban prisoners in containers in Mazar-e-Sharif ?

yes that happened too, mostly on the way to Shibarghan.

Why, if this fellow is a journalist, wasn't his essay edited or reread before it was posted on the Blackwater Mercenary Company's site?


Curious is all.

The difference in between al Qaeda and the Taliban is probably the same as the difference between the Nazi Party and the SS.

The Taliban are an Afghan tribe(based just north of Kandahar), Al Qaeda is a foreign organization that was based in Afghanistan, the two were very much different and until they were both attacked, they did not cooperate with eachother in any way.

The difference in between al Qaeda and the Taliban is probably the same as the difference between the Nazi Party and the SS.

No.

Taliban follows deobandi school of thought. AQ is more wahabbi and salafi.

Taliban was not the party which spawned off the AQ (according to your analogy).

A detailed study of the origins and leaders of both the orgs would show that they are not the same and they don't share the same mandate and your analogy is flawed.

Taliban is and remains a Pakistani construct and proxy..so much so that the "father of taliban" is a Pakistani mullah. I suggest you read on the "strategic depth" policy of Pakistan (..securing AFG-Pak border to free resources to concentrate on Indo-Pak border, refuting pashtun nationalism to avoid calls for Pushtunistan and the lapse of Durrant treaty, control over drug trade, training ground for terrorists to push into Kashmir etc)..

This is from Robert Pelton, a CNN journalist who saw first hand what went on with little Johnny. And it's quite detailed.

For someone who saw what Johnny did, it has the ring of truth. Quite unlike the BS that Johnny's father is pushing.

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2006/articles/013006ryp.html

As far as I'm concerned, they should have taken Johnny out and hung him. Not transported him back to the US.

It doesn't look very proffesional for a CNN journalist, it has no website, no graphics, looks like it was typed on notepad and uses terms like "high tech ass whupping". Even though what it says is probably true, it looks like this testimonial was typed by a university student (even if it is legit).

"The Native Americans/Africans/whoever were uncivilized, pagan barbarians" says the man who forcefully trys to take over their civilization and force upon them his own beliefs, culture, and way of life.


It is fair to say that the Taliban was uncivilized, they were religious fundamentalists.

I dont consider the American Taliban to be any more civilized.

It doesn't look very proffesional for a CNN journalist, it has no website, no graphics, looks like it was typed on notepad and uses terms like "high tech ass whupping". Even though what it says is probably true, it looks like this testimonial was typed by a university student (even if it is legit).


Apparently this piece wasn't edited, even for consistency, much less for professional expression.

The Taliban are an Afghan tribe(based just north of Kandahar), Al Qaeda is a foreign organization that was based in Afghanistan, the two were very much different and until they were both attacked, they did not cooperate with eachother in any way.

The Taliban ran Afghanistan and granted Osama (and his muhajideen) amnesty within their borders.

No.

Taliban follows deobandi school of thought. AQ is more wahabbi and salafi.

Taliban was not the party which spawned off the AQ (according to your analogy).

A detailed study of the origins and leaders of both the orgs would show that they are not the same and they don't share the same mandate and your analogy is flawed.

Taliban is and remains a Pakistani construct and proxy..so much so that the "father of taliban" is a Pakistani mullah. I suggest you read on the "strategic depth" policy of Pakistan (..securing AFG-Pak border to free resources to concentrate on Indo-Pak border, refuting pashtun nationalism to avoid calls for Pushtunistan and the lapse of Durrant treaty, control over drug trade, training ground for terrorists to push into Kashmir etc)..

My analogy was reversed. I meant NP=Taliban, SS=al Qaeda. Both the SS and the Nazi Party had different origins and different aims.

And flawed anaolgies make the world go 'round. At least I'm not saying Iraq was in bed with al Qaeda!

The Taliban ran Afghanistan and granted Osama (and his muhajideen) amnesty within their borders.

It is time I teach you something about Afghan traditions, Both the Soviet Union and the US have so far failed to understand the Afghan way of life. Osama was a guest, the Taliban could not refuse him.

Most Afghans try to live up to their code of honour - Pushtunwali. Aside from courage, there are two other aspects of this code - vengeance and hospitality.
Badal is the Pushtu word for vengeance. The need to secure revenge for any slight, any insult has been part of the Afghan s life throughout his history. Blood feuds between individuals, between families, and between clans or tribes are endemic. The Afghan will never turn the other cheek, a killing must be avenged by a killing and so it goes on from generation to generation. A family will never forget a bedt of honour. Revenge may not be swift, the injured party may bide its time for years if need be, until the right moment he strikes. A son must kill a father's murderer. in many instances, his mother will insist he does so, otherwise she will disown him and he will be disgraced. If the murderer himself is dead, then his son, or his brother, or his uncle must die. Thus the fued is perpetuated. Even a Jihad cannot stop 'Badal'.

Sometimes hospiatlity clashes with vengeance. To refuse a person shelter or sanctuary is unthinkable to an Afghan. Even if the person seeking hospitality is a bitter enemy he cannot be refused. While in that mans house, he is absolutely safe. His host would fight to protect him, give him the choicest food and threat him as a member of his close family. In an Afghans home, even the poorest one, a guest will receive the best. If this entails killing an only sheep, so be it; no sacrifice is spared. A stranger particularly a foreigner, sitting down to eat with a group of Afghans from a large communal pot will get the meatiest portions handed to him without hesitation.

<snip>

Interesting.

I thank you for educating me.

My analogy was reversed. I meant NP=Taliban, SS=al Qaeda. Both the SS and the Nazi Party had different origins and different aims.

And flawed anaolgies make the world go 'round. At least I'm not saying Iraq was in bed with al Qaeda!

I meant the same way as you said (the nazi-SS analogy).

Ah, you won't get it that easily. The realities are much more complex and there has been lots of simplistic information already fed to the masses about the situation.

But you do get a big plus for the emphasised part. :D

Added Later:

Suggested reading if you are really interested

An Afghan Diary : Zahir Shah to Taliban # Author: JN Dixit
# ISBN: 81 220 0589 6

THE TALIBAN PHENOMENON : Afghanistan 1994-1997

* Author: Lt Gen Kamal Matinuddin
* ISBN: 81-7062-107-0

The Taliban ran Afghanistan and granted Osama (and his muhajideen) amnesty within their borders.So?

Due process applies only to those subject to the US Constitution and laws. It does not apply to foreign nationals, indeed, cannot.

So you mean that were I, as a foreigner, to be accused of and tried for a crime in and by the US, I would have no right to due process? Same if you were a foreigner in Sweden*?

If that were true, that'd be murder on your tourism industry.

*Something which is of course ludicrous, as our Constitution clearly defines that non-citizens have a right to the same due process as citizens, naturally, but still.

So you mean that were I, as a foreigner, to be accused of and tried for a crime in and by the US, I would have no right to due process? Same if you were a foreigner in Sweden*?

If that were true, that'd be murder on your tourism industry.

*Something which is of course ludicrous, as our Constitution clearly defines that non-citizens have a right to the same due process as citizens, naturally, but still.

If you were caught in the US doing something, obviously, due process would apply.

If you were caught attacking US forces overseas as part of the Swedish military, the Geneva Convention would apply according to Convention I, Article 2, as Sweden is one of the High Contracting Parties.

If you were caught attacking US forces overseas as part of Al Ansar, and were bearing arms against the US, the Convention would not apply per Convention I, Article 2, and due process would be a bullet.

John Walker Lindh should have been tried in an Afghani court. He was, after all, an Afghani by choice. The only reason he committed treason was because it would have been rather difficult for him to tell the State Department that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship: something which he made painfully clear by joining the Taliban, the once-recognized lawful government of Afghanistan.

Actually, to renounce US citezenship all one has to do is call an embassy (or consulate, can't remember) and request a revocation of your citezenship, you will then be considered a "stateless person", which is not advisable.

Actually, to renounce US citezenship all one has to do is call an embassy (or consulate, can't remember) and request a revocation of your citezenship, you will then be considered a "stateless person", which is not advisable.

I'm of the opinion that if you take up arms against US forces anywhere around the world, that your citizenship should be revoked.

Any US Ambassador can do so simply by negating your passport if you're overseas. It's been done before, and was never challenged in court. It's a purely administrative procedure.

Perhaps we should have revoked his passport and left him there in the wilds of Afghanistan forever.

I'm of the opinion that if you take up arms against US forces anywhere around the world, that your citizenship should be revoked.

Any US Ambassador can do so simply by negating your passport if you're overseas. It's been done before, and was never challenged in court. It's a purely administrative procedure.

Perhaps we should have revoked his passport and left him there in the wilds of Afghanistan forever.

Yeah, for practical purposes, but I meant for legal purposes. I wonder if you could avoid the draft that way :) LOL . Before anyone bitches at me for suggesting that, I have already served.

I really wish this thing had a spellchecker.

Yeah, for practical purposes, but I meant for legal purposes. I wonder if you could avoid the draft that way :) LOL . Before anyone bitches at me for suggesting that, I have already served.

I really wish this thing had a spellchecker.

Having served myself, I encourage people who wish to avoid the draft to become citizens of another country. I'd rather not have the unwilling serving in the military. They tend not only to get themselves killed, but those around them as well. It's a waste of money to train them, equip them, and transport them.

Having served myself, I encourage people who wish to avoid the draft to become citizens of another country. I'd rather not have the unwilling serving in the military. They tend not only to get themselves killed, but those around them as well. It's a waste of money to train them, equip them, and transport them.

True. Bad enough that we will have an abunduncy of stupids due to the lowering of standards, we dont also need the unwilling (and possibly stupid).

Hey Deep Kimchi, while I was in I actually met someone with a 14 ASVAB score. Can you believe that, and we gave him an M-16.

Old.

Frickin'.

Story.

True. Bad enough that we will have an abunduncy of stupids due to the lowering of standards, we dont also need the unwilling (and possibly stupid).

Hey Deep Kimchi, while I was in I actually met someone with a 14 ASVAB score. Can you believe that, and we gave him an M-16.
I can do better than that.

When I was in infantry basic in 1987, I and another guy were college graduates going through as enlisted.

For some reason, he never understood the concept of the pin and the safety clip on the hand grenade. He messed up multiple times with the simulated grenade (the kind with a loud cap in it). He then proceeded to mess up with a live grenade.

It didn't kill him, but it sure did a job on his leg (the drill sergeant kicked the grenade into the sump after knocking it out of his hands).

Somehow, the concept of knowing that the moment you let up on the spoon (the safety clip and pin removed) you have exactly five (5) seconds to get rid of it.

Shooting unarmed prisoners should be prosecuted as capital murder unless it is a sentance passed down, following established due process, from the justice system.

This doesn't ring true. Yeah, John was and is an idiot, but this style in this essay doesn't compare to the writings that the author (Who, BTW, is NOT a CNN reporter, he is a book author and adventurer). I also find no mention of this on his web page under Afganistan.

Something's not right here on the decription.

http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces/afghanis/index.htm (Author's web site)

I'm of the opinion that if you take up arms against US forces anywhere around the world, that your citizenship should be revoked.

Any US Ambassador can do so simply by negating your passport if you're overseas. It's been done before, and was never challenged in court. It's a purely administrative procedure.

Perhaps we should have revoked his passport and left him there in the wilds of Afghanistan forever.

That was what I was (basically) getting at.