Light Sentences Given To Lindh And Reid Undermine U.S. War On Terrorism
Erik Trammel
been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
"studies".
Richard Reid, the "shoebomber" was given life in prison, but we all
know what this means. He should have been sentenced to death also.
The American government has been too soft.
These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and terrorists
when they see them.
Both Walker-Lindh and Reid were enemies of the U.S. and should
have been given military, not civilian trials.
Actually Lindh should have been left in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance.
He had emigrated from America and renounced the nation which he hated, so why should he have
been allowed back into the country? It is time the U.S. government
got serious about the grave threat faced by the nation.
These lenient sentences are not fair to the 3000 people who were incinerated
on 9/11 or their families and friends. The sentences also are not fair to U.S.
servicemen and service women risking their lives fighting this war on terrorism.
Neither is it fair to American taxpayers who will have to pay for the shelter,
food and other services, including access to lawyers, of this
Jihadist scum as they live out their sentences
in prison at a cost of about $50,000 a year.
Honest John
<noth...@spammer.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 21:45:18 GMT, Erik Trammel <cice...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>American Taliban and al Qaeda fighter John Walker Lindh should have
>>been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
>>16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
>>"studies".
>>
>
>Their punishments seem already overly harsh as compared to what
>happens when private citizens are attacked.
>
>Why do people get life for attempted murder - when some kid can murder
>a private citizen and get a few years. You can bet they will not get
>early parole either.
I believe the shoe bomber intended to murder nearly 200 people; men,
women and children. He still shows no remorse, he deserved life and
then some. He should NEVER be released from prison.
Just because the courts are lenient on others doesn't change this.
Arved Sandstrom
news:3DA0AEF5...@rogers.com...
> American Taliban and al Qaeda fighter John Walker Lindh should have
> been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
> 16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
> "studies".
>
> Richard Reid, the "shoebomber" was given life in prison, but we all
> know what this means. He should have been sentenced to death also.
> The American government has been too soft.
>
> These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
> culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
> to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and
terrorists
> when they see them.
I think you could make the argument that Lindh effectively renounced US
citizenship at some point, through his actions. He wasn't hiding what he was
doing and he stated numerous times what his thoughts were. Also, I don't
think he was in the room with bin Laden and his chief lieutenants when they
were planning actions.
Lindh is a young guy with strong beliefs that clash badly with mainstream
USA. He exercised bad judgment. But deserving of death? That's pretty
strong.
I'll tell you who should hit the gallows before Lindh does - all the scumbag
CEOs and top executives that are raping their companies and screwing their
employees and their shareholders. Put them down first, and then I'll
entertain a notion to be harsh on lesser criminals.
Regards,
AHS
Honest John
They should get life.
Ashland Henderson
> been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
> 16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
> "studies".
Treason is a specific crime. It appears that it couldn't be proven
against Lindh.
> Richard Reid, the "shoebomber" was given life in prison, but we all
> know what this means. He should have been sentenced to death also.
> The American government has been too soft.
>
> These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
> culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
> to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and
> terrorists when they see them.
There is no penalty for being traitors to the West and it's culture and
political system. As to traitors to their countries, I assume the
prosecutors decided that they couldn't prove treason. Probably because
it requires giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war and we
don't happen to be legally at war. We're fighting but we're not at war,
something conservatives don't seem to understand to well.
> Both Walker-Lindh and Reid were enemies of the U.S. and should
> have been given military, not civilian trials.
You don't like the constitution much, do you.
> Actually Lindh should have been left in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance.
> He had emigrated from America and renounced the nation which he hated, so why should he have
> been allowed back into the country? It is time the U.S. government
> got serious about the grave threat faced by the nation.
I don't think you are a grave threat, although you are certainly
something of a danger without a clue as to what America is all about
or it's legal system.
> These lenient sentences are not fair to the 3000 people who were incinerated
> on 9/11 or their families and friends. The sentences also are not fair to U.S.
> servicemen and service women risking their lives fighting this war on
> terrorism.
There is no evidence that Lindh or Reid were involved in the 9/11 disaster.
> Neither is it fair to American taxpayers who will have to pay for the shelter,
> food and other services, including access to lawyers, of this
> Jihadist scum as they live out their sentences
> in prison at a cost of about $50,000 a year.
The legal system isn't designed to be fair, it's designed to be just and
protect the innocent. If you want suspected traitors to be shot there are
a few other countries you can move to. I don't think you'd like them, but
that's the way it goes.
Shane Penney
Lindh's real senetence will come when he is reintergrated into American
society in 20 years time.
The Blue Puttee
David L. Moffitt
"Shane Penney" <sha...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.95.102100...@plato.ucs.mun.ca...
>
> Lindh's real senetence will come when he is reintergrated into American
> society in 20 years time.
>
> The Blue Puttee
%%%% "If" he lives that long!!!! :-)
>
David L. Moffitt
"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@astound.net> wrote in message
news:441d41d1.0210...@posting.google.com...
> Erik Trammel <cice...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:<3DA0AEF5...@rogers.com>...
> > American Taliban and al Qaeda fighter John Walker Lindh should have
> > been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
> > 16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
> > "studies".
>
> Treason is a specific crime. It appears that it couldn't be proven
> against Lindh.
>
> > Richard Reid, the "shoebomber" was given life in prison, but we all
> > know what this means. He should have been sentenced to death also.
> > The American government has been too soft.
> >
> > These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
> > culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
> > to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and
> > terrorists when they see them.
>
> There is no penalty for being traitors to the West and it's culture and
> political system. As to traitors to their countries, I assume the
> prosecutors decided that they couldn't prove treason. Probably because
> it requires giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war and we
> don't happen to be legally at war. We're fighting but we're not at war,
> something conservatives don't seem to understand to well.
%%%% It doesn't matter. It will be a death sentence when the other prisoners
get their hands on him. :-)
dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
David Deilley
> "Blowhard of the Year" John Lambourn
> using the fake names
> Erik Trammel
> and
> <cice...@rogers.com>
> wrote in message
> > American Taliban and al Qaeda fighter John Walker Lindh should have
> > been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
> > 16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
> > "studies".
>
> Treason is a specific crime. It appears that it couldn't be proven
> against Lindh.
Lambourn uses Stalin's test of "proof:" I fStalin didn't like it, you
were dead meat. No trial necessary, no rules of evidence, no precise
laws.
> > These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
> > culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
> > to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and
> > terrorists when they see them.
>
> There is no penalty for being traitors to the West and it's culture and
> political system.
This is quite funny: Mr. Lambour prattles on and on about how the rule
of law is a defining characteristic of the liberal democracy he
pretends to defend, but when push comes to shove he shows his true
colours as a closet Stalinist, with no patience for applying the rule
of law to those he holds in contempt. Lambourn is a hypocrite and a
buffoon, and is the last person in the world who can claim to defend
liberal democracy.
> > Both Walker-Lindh and Reid were enemies of the U.S. and should
> > have been given military, not civilian trials.
>
> You don't like the constitution much, do you.
Lambourn isn't even an American: he is a fat, middle-aged Canadian
living in his parents' basement in Ontario, Canada.
> >It is time the U.S. government
> > got serious about the grave threat faced by the nation.
> I don't think you are a grave threat, although you are certainly
> something of a danger without a clue as to what America is all about
How would he -- he doesn't li9ve there, has never lived there, and
probably couldn't qualify to immigrate even if he had the courage to
do so.
> > These lenient sentences are not fair to the 3000 people who were
> > incinerated on 9/11 or their families and friends. The sentences also are
> > not fair to U.S. servicemen and service women risking their lives fighting
> > this war on terrorism.
>
> There is no evidence that Lindh or Reid were involved in the 9/11 disaster.
Lambourn has repeatedly blamed 9/11 on every Muslim in the world.
>
> > Neither is it fair to American taxpayers who will have to pay for the
> > shelter,
> > food and other services, including access to lawyers, of this
> > Jihadist scum as they live out their sentences
> > in prison at a cost of about $50,000 a year.
>
> The legal system isn't designed to be fair, it's designed to be just and
> protect the innocent. If you want suspected traitors to be shot there are
> a few other countries you can move to. I don't think you'd like them,
He would love it. He is a Stalinist at heard, and is constantly
praising the government of mainland China for being pro-business.
Lambourn is not a guy to be taken seriously, except as serious
amusement. He makes so little sense that one theory is that he is a
stoned frat boy playing a long-running joke on the readers of his
newsgroup.
Harrison X. Numbugger
David Deilley wrote:
>
> macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
>
> > "Blowhard of the Year" John Lambourn
> > using the fake names
> > Erik Trammel
> > and
> > <cice...@rogers.com>
> > wrote in message
>
> > > American Taliban and al Qaeda fighter John Walker Lindh should have
> > > been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
> > > 16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
> > > "studies".
> >
> > Treason is a specific crime. It appears that it couldn't be proven
> > against Lindh.
>
> Lambourn uses Stalin's test of "proof:" I fStalin didn't like it, you
> were dead meat. No trial necessary, no rules of evidence, no precise
> laws.
>
Hey! this is the same test of 'proof' that bush uses!
--
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Herman
Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler) at the Nuremberg Trials
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of Germany ... I pledge that I
never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity ..
We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want
to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the
theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison
of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as
a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years." - Hitler
*The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford
University
Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
Ray
Shoe bomber is a laughing moron with a 5th grade education but he
planned to kill 200 people - death sentence for him.
Johnny Taliban got a fair sentence. I don't like him but he was
brainwashed by his super liberal parents. He was only 21 and
essentially ran away from his goofy parents at 16 to go to Yemen! He
was fighting the Northern Alliance with the Taliban and probably had
skecthy information about 9-11 and may not have known the U.S. was
coming to Afghanistan.
On the negative side - he should have spoken up and told the CIA guys
he was an American and said he screwed up when interrogated. He
probably worried he would be killed by the Taliban and decided too
keep his mouth shut. What he did was wrong and he will have 20 long
years to think about it.
The shoe bomber wanted to kill innocents. Johnny Taliban was not out
to kill innocents. I don't like him but he is being punished.
Ashland Henderson
It would be if they did. Prisons generally have areas such prisoners are
put into in order to protect them. It's typical, though, for you to gloat
over the death of a human being.
> dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Got rights? Thank a liberal.
Ashland Henderson
> macea...@astound.net (Ashland Henderson) wrote:
>
> > "Blowhard of the Year" John Lambourn
> > using the fake names
> > Erik Trammel
> > and
> > <cice...@rogers.com>
> > wrote in message
>
> > > American Taliban and al Qaeda fighter John Walker Lindh should have
> > > been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
> > > 16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
> > > "studies".
> >
> > Treason is a specific crime. It appears that it couldn't be proven
> > against Lindh.
>
> Lambourn uses Stalin's test of "proof:" I fStalin didn't like it, you
> were dead meat. No trial necessary, no rules of evidence, no precise
> laws.
It's not unknown among liberals as well but these days the conservatives
seem to be more prone to using it.
> > > These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
> > > culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
> > > to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and
> > > terrorists when they see them.
> >
> > There is no penalty for being traitors to the West and it's culture and
> > political system.
>
> This is quite funny: Mr. Lambour prattles on and on about how the rule
> of law is a defining characteristic of the liberal democracy he
> pretends to defend, but when push comes to shove he shows his true
> colours as a closet Stalinist, with no patience for applying the rule
> of law to those he holds in contempt. Lambourn is a hypocrite and a
> buffoon, and is the last person in the world who can claim to defend
> liberal democracy.
Sad but true.
Stalinists don't generally want to live in autocratic nations unless they
can be the autocrats. I don't think he would qualify.
Sentry21
wrote:
>American Taliban and al Qaeda fighter John Walker Lindh should have
>been sentenced to death for treason instead of being given a light
I'm not sure that this would have been fair. Remember that Lindh went
on his misguided journey before the attack. It was still incumbent on
the prosecutors to prove that Lindh was actively fighting American
forces. The death penalty would not be appropriate if he was just a
member of the wrong group. Guilt by association is a bad idea. The
left has used it as a weapon in the past.
Remember, for example how Bill Clinton tried to pin the blame for the
OKC bombing on talk radio and some militia groups. As much as I
disliked the Clinton Administration's policies, they did teach me some
useful lessons. One such lesson was to look at any law, precedent or
amendment and ask myself, 'Would I give this weapon to the Clinton
Administration?' If the answer is 'no', then it is probably a bad
idea.
>16-year sentence during which he will apparently continue with his
>"studies".
We should isolate the radical muslims in the prison population. It is
already spreading too fast there. It is bad enough that hardened
criminals are allowed to learn new crimes while behind bars. Now they
might become terrorists as well.
In general, we should isolate criminals according to their most severe
crimes. Murderers who are awaiting execution or death should be
lumped together. Rapists should have their own cell blocks.
Non-violent and white collar criminals should have their own cell
blocks or prisons. Criminals should not be able to broaden their
criminal horizons while serving their sentences.
>Richard Reid, the "shoebomber" was given life in prison, but we all
>know what this means. He should have been sentenced to death also.
>The American government has been too soft.
Yep. We need stronger laws against attempted murder, including
attempted acts of terrorism. Then we need to enforce those laws
stringently.
>These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
>culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
>to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and terrorists
>when they see them.
>Both Walker-Lindh and Reid were enemies of the U.S. and should
>have been given military, not civilian trials.
Bad idea. You are presuming their guilt before the trial. This is
not mere legal chicanery. Let us suppose that you were a member of
some group that is despised by the left, such as the NRA. It would be
quite unfair for the government to strip you of your citizenship or
give you a military trial because of the alleged misdeeds of someone
else in the NRA. Again, one must ask oneself, 'Would I give this
weapon to the Clinton Administration?'
>Actually Lindh should have been left in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance.
Possibly.
>He had emigrated from America and renounced the nation which he hated, so why should he have
>been allowed back into the country? It is time the U.S. government
>got serious about the grave threat faced by the nation.
>These lenient sentences are not fair to the 3000 people who were incinerated
>on 9/11 or their families and friends. The sentences also are not fair to U.S.
>servicemen and service women risking their lives fighting this war on terrorism.
You are probably right. However, just as we should not change the
laws during an election, we should not change laws retroactively or
during a trial.
Let Congress and the President pass bills that address this sort of
thing in the future.
>Neither is it fair to American taxpayers who will have to pay for the shelter,
>food and other services, including access to lawyers, of this
>Jihadist scum as they live out their sentences
>in prison at a cost of about $50,000 a year.
Again, you are assuming the guilt of everyone accused of being
involved in terrorism. Without the presumption of innocence, America
might as well be Afghanistan. Furthermore, it is not the fault of the
accused that our criminal justice system is so expensive.
The drafters of the US Constitution wisely prohibited bills of
attainder (bills prescribing the punishment of individuals without
trial for certain offenses) and ex-post-facto laws (laws which seek to
punish offenses committed before the law was passed).
Don't let your zeal to punish terrorists wreck America. This is one
of the things the terrorists are hoping for. Too many have fought and
died to keep it free.
Y.D.Dandy
[...]
>We should isolate the radical muslims in the prison population. It is
>already spreading too fast there. It is bad enough that hardened
>criminals are allowed to learn new crimes while behind bars. Now they
>might become terrorists as well.
>
>In general, we should isolate criminals according to their most severe
>crimes. Murderers who are awaiting execution or death should be
>lumped together. Rapists should have their own cell blocks.
>Non-violent and white collar criminals should have their own cell
>blocks or prisons. Criminals should not be able to broaden their
>criminal horizons while serving their sentences.
One man one dungeon, no keys, no problem.
>>Richard Reid, the "shoebomber" was given life in prison, but we all
>>know what this means. He should have been sentenced to death also.
>>The American government has been too soft.
>
>Yep. We need stronger laws against attempted murder, including
>attempted acts of terrorism. Then we need to enforce those laws
>stringently.
>
>>These men were traitors to their countries, to the West and its
>>culture and political system. Lawyers' quibbles and technicalities
>>to the contrary, most people with common sense recognize treason and terrorists
>>when they see them.
>
>>Both Walker-Lindh and Reid were enemies of the U.S. and should
>>have been given military, not civilian trials.
>
>Bad idea. You are presuming their guilt before the trial.
um Lindh was captured on the battlefield. What DOUBTS as to his guilt
do you have? Reid was captured in the attempt to murder airline
passengers aloft. What DOUBTS are you harboring as to his guilt? The
presumption of guilt in these cases makes a hell of a lot more sense
than a presumption of innocence. Raise your hand to do harm to us you
should die.
[...]