Should John Walker Lindh have been executed for treason?

[LoZoccolo]

[emanymton]

1. No

[Dookus]

2. No

because he didn't commit treason.

[realFedUp]

3. We supported and funded the Taliban

against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Lindh was just a leftover...some
would say a freedom fighter.

He should be let out of jail IMO.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Other: Not treason if you're no longer an American.

[meegbear]

5. When was he executed?

[LoZoccolo]

6. He wasn't. n/t

[meegbear]

9. But you said

Should John Walker Lindh have been executed for treason?

This sentence implies that the action occurred. Unless he's already dead.

[LoZoccolo]

10. No, should he have been...

...as opposed to the sentence that he's been given instead.

[demnan]

7. I would like to choose #2 and #3

[DinahMoeHum]

8. Bushco is green with envy because Lindh got closer to OBL by mistake

than any FBI/CIA/Pentagon ever could on purpose.

:evilfrown:

[frictionlessO]

11. BWAWHAHAHA!! .....thank you...

:spray:

ahh levity, thine arte beautiful in thy unexpectancy...

[ret5hd]

12. why would someone vote "yes"...

and then not explain their logic?

[vpigrad]

13. For those that say yes...

Why? Why in the world do you feel that way?

[punpirate]

14. In order to be executed for treason...

... doesn't one first have to be found guilty of it?

There were gross irregularities by the Department of Justice in his case, some of which have been documented, and the mere fact that he was in Afghanistan on fanatical religious grounds--prior to the events of 9/11--doesn't make a prima facie case for treason.

The Bush administration itself had an association with the Taliban prior to 9/11, even to the point of providing it $42 million in in-kind assistance, as I recall. Does that constitute treason?

I don't think there was any evidence presented in his trial which proved that his intention for going to Afghanistan was to train for the specific purpose of engaging in terrorist attacks against the United States. That doesn't constitute treason.

[patcox2]

15. How about "no" because he was innocent?

There is a specific definition of treason set forth in the constitution. Thats not what he did, thats why he wasn't charged with it and wasn't convicted of it.


Had nothing to do with being a stupid kid.

[Chomp]

16. No always.

But this case is deeply, deeply disturbing.

Brown, towel-headed Talibans? Off to Gitmo with their sorry asses.

Misguided, confused American Taliban: near-humane conditions, legal representation, safe interrogations, a defined legal sentence, widespread sympathy, proximity to family, decent plea bargin etc.

Nauseating. (As, by the way, were the Taliban: no fucking sympathy for those wankers either).

[xxqqqzme]

17. I don't think he should even B

in jail!