View Single Post
  #20  
Old 05-17-2002, 10:04 PM
David Simmons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12,684
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnBckWLD
Having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks while training with Bin Laden and[*]Claiming to be an Irish citizen to both his terror comrades and military investigators and[*]When given the choice of fighting Hindus in Kashmir or with the Taliban in Afghanistan choosing the latter[/list]John Walker Lindh both declared war on this country and renounced his citizenship.

Fact: JWL was captured on FOREIGN SOIL, fighting against American Troops after renouncing his citzenship and becoming a member of an ENEMY ARMY.

I've heard too many excuses, (the lamest being he converted to fundementalist islam because his father is a closeted homosexual)

Fact is, the US hasn't charged Lindh with any of the things you list in the first paragraph. The charges are (as listed in the LA Times article linked in my first post): "charged with conspiring to murder U.S. nationals; providing support and services to foreign terrorist organizations, including the Al Qaeda terrorist network; and using firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence..."

Fact as to paragraph 2 above: At the time Lindh joined the Taliban, that group was the recognized government of Afghanistan and wasn't fighting the US. Has it been shown that lowly buck-ass privates in their army even knew that the US was in the war?

And as to paragraph 3 above, who cares what you have heard? The original question was: Is it legitimate (i.e. constitutional) to prevent a defendant from conducting his defense the way he and his counsel think proper? The specific point concerned the power to compel witnesses in your defense to appear in court and testify.

All we have from you are rants which indicates that you have already convicted him and "Defense witnesses? We don't need no steenking defense witnesses."