FORUM

Don't label John Walker a traitor yet.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York didn't hesitate to call John Walker a traitor when she was interviewed on Meet the Press. The American was recently found with the Taliban in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan, and was taken into U.S. custody.

The crime of treason requires a prosecutor to prove both an intent to betray the United States and an act of levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Our Constitution mandates that the act be proved by the testimony of two witnesses or a confession in open court.

That Walker, 20, was found in the company of the Taliban, without more evidence, is not sufficient, as circumstantial evidence cannot serve as the basis for proving a treasonous act.

Further, the Supreme Court has defined "enemy" as the subject of a foreign power in a state of open hostilities with the United States. Since it is the Northern Alliance, not the Taliban, which has a seat at the United Nations and is recognized as the lawful government of Afghanistan, Walker's activities might not fit within the legal definition of treason.

When Mr. Walker went to Afghanistan, the United States and the Taliban were still on friendly terms.

In a new book published in Paris, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, former French intelligence officer Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie document an amicable relationship between George W. Bush, and the Taliban. The book quotes John O'Neill, former director of anti-terrorism for the FBI, who thought the State Department, acting on behalf of U.S. and Saudi oil interests, interfered with FBI efforts to track down Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11.

The State Department and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency financed, armed and trained the Taliban in its civil war against the Northern Alliance to make the region safe for U.S.-based corporate oil interests, according to Ahmed Rashid's best-selling book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil & Fundamentalism in Central Asia. California-based UNOCAL was negotiating for an oil pipeline to run through Afghanistan and Pakistan, but it pulled out of the deal because of feminist opposition to the Taliban's treatment of women after President Bill Clinton bombed al-Qaida training camps in retaliation for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said earlier this week that Mr. Walker was lucky he was a U.S. citizen and was captured by the United States. The implication was that if the Northern Alliance had captured him or if he were a non-U.S. citizen prisoner of the United States, he wouldn't have been so humanely treated.

The United States has signed, ratified and implemented the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It prohibits securing information by torture, even in wartime. Mr. Walker is reportedly cooperating with U.S. military authorities; it is hoped he is being treated humanely as required by the torture convention and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Mr. Walker does not come under the jurisdiction of a military court under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as he is not in the U.S. military. He cannot be tried in one of the Bush administration's new secret military tribunals, as they apply only to noncitizens. Mr. Walker has not renounced his U.S. citizenship.

We don't know whether Mr. Walker was simply an idealistic kid who joined the Taliban when it was still friendly to the United States in order to help build a pure Islamic state. We don't know whether he acted voluntarily, or what his mental state was when he was captured.

The U.S. government may decline to file charges against Mr. Walker if he provides sufficient information to help the anti-terrorism effort. But if charges are levied against him, we should wait until the evidence comes out before judging him.

December 14, 2001

———————————————————————
Discussion

JURIST welcomes your reaction to our columns and op-eds...

• Tuesday December 18, 2001 at 2:08 pm
  Mr. Walker was not an "idealistic kid". He was neither a kid nor particularly idealistic. As to the former, many people are young when they commmit war crimes, including several of the murderers at My Lai, who were younger than Mr. Walker when convicted of multiple murders of Vietnamese civilians. Second, there is nothing idealistic about fighting for your right to beat women for going to the market, or mosque, unaccompanied by a male relative. These misogynistic sadists, including Walker, deserve no more respect than a gang of serial rapists. The world will be a better place when when they are gone, much as it was a better place when (some of) the rapists of Nanking were executed after WWII. But I forgot, Ms. Cohn thinks that killing the perpetrators of the Rape of Nanking was also a war crime.
  
  Phillip D. Hatfield
  Oregon, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 12:45 pm
  mr. walker is in the position that americans, however misguided, have found themselves in the second world war. while still officially neutral, americans served in the forces of canada, great britain, free france, and norway. other americans, whether for racial, political, or ethnic reasons, served in the german, italian, japanese, and finnish forces of the axis. many survived. their fate is not quite as well known, but only a handful were executed. many of their files are still sealed. whatever fate befell them, since many did not renounce citizenship, and acted before the united states was activly involved in the hostilities, should be a fair and just fate for mr. walker.
  
  john sugrue
  upstate new york, usa

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 12:53 pm
  YOU PEOPLE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT TOOK PLACE ON 911 HILLARY IS RIGHT BY RIGHTS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT ON THE SPOT HE GOT CAUGHT NOW HE SAYS HE WAS BRAINWASHED RIGHT!
  
  AN AMERICAN
  THE USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 1:27 pm
  Mr. Walker, as free as any American citizen feels they are, chose his destiny and had to be aware of the world he wanted to live in. His conscious decision to stay and defend the Taliban way of life in Afganistan was not unlike other outsiders who came there to rule by intimidation and the gun. He is as much of a militant thug as his cohorts and deserves the same treatment by our government (and our allies) as any other prisoner of war. Our government has put many militant radicals with American citizenship papers in jail for trying to undermine the laws we have chosen to live by. This man, and I call him a man, is no different from them. Calling him a traitor, saying he may have been brainwashed, charging him with treason is just rhetoric for an emotional world. Let the courts decide with a jury of his peers if he violated natural law. Be cautious how you brand him, though, for what he was born into is who we still claim to be. He represents a challenge to the freedom seekers of the world... not a problem. When all the smoke clears will it be a peaceful world from all this. Mr. Walker will need to find his peace in prison... the American measure of punishment for being a thug oppressing people. To let him go on merry way and not exercise a reprimand (as prison time) would be a huge digression to what our freedoms really mean to us. He will be the sign of how oppressing others by intimidation is intolerable and cannot be stood by for. Bless his family because they will need the strength and understanding of a free people. They will have to self-inspect their own definiton of freedom in a world that will sacrifice to stay free. Mr. John Walker is the victim of his own demise.
  
  J.W. Nixon
  Iowa, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 1:28 pm
  Why should Mr. Walker have any rights established in a country (USA) that he fought against (with the Taliban) (thereby renouncing his citizenzhip)? How did this young man become so brainwashed? Perhaps, in our school system where they are taught that the US is wrong in it's actions, your wrong to believe in patriotism, and lessons taught in civics are abandoned in the pursuit of political correctness. If Walker is so wrong and deserves an attorney to maintain his civil rights then, perhaps, so does Mohammed Atta. Walker is the definition of a traitor. He had the opportunity to leave the Taliban and return to America before the bombing started.
  
  Brian Anderson
  Patriot of the US
  Colorado, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 2:07 pm
  The author is exhalting form over substance when she says that the Taliban are not a foreign power just because they have been denied a seat at the United Nations. To follow that reasoning, the People's Republic of China would not have been a foreign power until the 1970s when they took over the seat held by the Republic of China (Taiwan). The rest of her editorial seems to fall into the same trap. I think that Senator Clinton is correct, John Walker Lindh is a traitor. As far as finding witnesses, the surviving CIA agent is one, and it looks like there were a couple of Marines present during Lindh's waging of war against the US. Finally, there are John Walker Lindh's statements to CNN. Those are admissable as an exception to the hearsay rule. FREV 803.
  
  Alan Bradley
  Indiana, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 2:09 pm
  Mr. Taleban Johnny Walker is a traitor and deserves to be executed immediately. He's a disgrace to this country and despite the poor pitiful pleadings of his New Age parents, his execution is the only answer for the dilemma he brought upon himself. Good-bye, Johnny. I'd say it was nice knowing you, but it really wasn't. There is an upside for Johnny in all this, however. As soon as the bullets pass through his body he'll have those 72 virgins waiting for him.
  
  Charles Reilly
  Midcom Corporation
  California, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 2:10 pm
  A person when born does not have the ability to choose where they are born. Having been born in any nation does not necessarily mean that an individual is obligated to be a citizen of that nation and unless that person has sworn citizenship and loyalty can not legally be forced to admit to citizenship. As we become more sophisticated about our choices then and only then can we choose with whom or what we wish to associate ourselves. Unfortunately we live in an immature and violent world upon which we have created national boundaries. Some humans rather then be held to these political boundaries see themselves as Humans of Earth or they choose to ally themselves with that nation which satisfies their needs. John Walker did this, and since no one can make him a citizen against his will then it follows that there can be no charge of treason. Perhaps he chose to ally himself with those whom most of us would consider vile, but then again it is a choice he as a free person has the right to make. Since he was caught in battle with the enemy of the Northern alliance and not in battle with our own people he can not really be considered an American prisoner and should have been given over to the Afghanistani government to deal with just as any prisoner of war would have been. What we have happening in America at this point is judgement by emotion. In such a highly charged emotional environment it is impossible for us to mete out a fair punishment to John Walker and therefore we should abstain just as we would in a normal criminal trial situation. If we do not abstain from doing this can we say that we are a Democratic society?
  
  Fred Mannheim
  n/a
  Oregon/ U.S.A

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 2:17 pm
  I read this pap and shake my head. We are a nation of laws, yes, but this lady's take on Walker borders on the absurd. Must have been this kid's neighbor.
  
  Courtney Harrington
  Honolulu, Hawaii

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 2:34 pm
  I agree with Mr. Mannheim in that Mr. Walker should be dealt with in Afghanistan, as dealing with this issue in the United States is backed up by emotionally charged people. He chose his path in life and saw some sort of struggle amongst the people in Afghanistan, and more, maybe the Muslims in in the Mid-East. Maybe since this guy has been to that part of the world and has seen what we havent seen sitting here in America, he felt the need to do what he has done. All im saying is that, we as Americans (sitting in our comfortable homes) cannot make judgement on anything since we are unaware of what happens around the globe. (since our media evidently is not truthful)
  
  Josh Hilts
  New York, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 2:55 pm
  americans are a forgiving people. americans respect the law. walker presents betrayal of both. while walker has the right to take up any ideology he may choose, picking up an AK47 ends his relationship as an american citizen. President Bush is a compassionate person, surly, but a pardon would go too far. so, as others have said, he chose to live in Afganistan as a muslin, let him have muslim justice as he embraced allah and taliban fanactics. walker was old enough to choose his fate, let him accept northern alliance justice process first, then if anyone still cares he can plea his case here. it'll make a fine movie one day.
  
  kc
  New England, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 3:20 pm
  I'm sorry, but I tend to agree with Ms. Cohn. It seems that when Mr. Walker joined this cause it was not in violation of any US policies. Let's not forget that the US CIA provided Osama bin Laden with funds at one time - does that make them guilty as well? Mr. Walker is lucky that we elected to fight this "war" by proxy, because it appears that he only took up arms against the Northern Alliance, not US troops. Until I see some evidence that he was actively involved in the deadly prison uprising, fought against our armed forces, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks, I will reserve judgement.
  
  A US Veteran
  New Jersey, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 3:20 pm
  josh hilts, fred Manheim, and the author of this ridiculous article all ought to have their heads checked!!! What is it about you liberals that make you hate everything American and want to love everything foreign? If it's so bad here why dont you move? Hey how about defending the columbine killers? -they took up arms for their beliefs. -Oh that's probably because they are Americans, and you liberals hate all Americans!
  
  Eric
  CA, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 3:39 pm
  Mr. Walker is a Muslim. The Taliban creed attached itself to his heart(his words). Let him be a Muslim. Let him embrace the Taliban. Let the Northern Alliance deal with him. Leave him in his home, Pakistan or Afghanistan!!!
  
  E. Fox
  Texas, USA

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 3:40 pm
  I am shocked to hear anyone attempt to defend the stance of Walker. I can partly agree that perhaps he should be held by the Afghanis as a prisoner of war, but as a leading member of the coalition and the fact he is an american citizen, we have as much right to hold him as any other nation. I could also maybe buy the "he was young, misled, and brainwashed" if he would left the Taliban after the Sept.11 attacks or atleast when the American bombing campaign began. Instead, he made a decision to stay. He knew that he was armed and member of a unit of troops paid for by Bin Laden. He also had to know after the bombing began that there was a potential for him to be fighting against the U.S. military. We don't even know what kind of acts he was a part of before his capture, and we can assume, but he decided to defend the Taliban and Bin Laden. He decided that he was willing to take arms against the United States (assuming that he didn't in fact do it). These decisions constitute moral treason, even if not legal. Two witnesses may be hard to come by in Afghanistan, but I have faith in Bush. I feel that Walker will be executed. I feel Bush will support that move. He was the govenor of Texas.
  
  RH
  Texas

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 4:18 pm
  Looks like all the right-wing nuts are out of the woodwork today! I see there's a highly developed herd instinct at work here as well. Making an example out of this individual won't bring back any lives that were lost, and in the end won't make us feel any better for having created yet another scapegoat.
  
  SK
  Washington D.C.

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 4:21 pm
  From a strictly legal standpoint, I'm curious where Prof. Cohn finds (in paragraph 2) that a prosecutor must prove "intent to betray the United States" as one of the elements of treason. ArtIII Section 3 of the Constitution, and Title 18(1)(115)(2381)USC, define treason as [ 1.levying war against US, or 2.adhering to the enemy, (ie, giving aid and comfort.)] If one has the intent to "adhere to the enemy," that would appear sufficient, even in the absence of a fully formed intent to "betray the US." It is conceivable that one could intend to "adhere" to a foreign power, without intending to "betray the US." Since there is no specific element requiring an intent to betray the US, satisfaction of either of the other two would appear sufficient. On the other hand, I agree with Prof. Cohn that merely being captured with Taliban forces is circumstantial evidence of the intent to "adhere to the enemy," at best, and must be buttressed by the requisite 2 witnesses to rise to the level of treason. While that may be easy enough to accomplish, we're not there yet. There IS a difference in American law and that of the Taliban!
  
  Michael B. Ash
  WA US

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 4:31 pm
  Shortly after turning 18, I made the decision to join the U.S. Army. If I had been called upon to go to combat, I would have had to live with the consequances of my choice. At the age of 20, Mr. Walker's choice was to openly take up arms against his country in support of one the most brutal and repressive regimes in the world. Let him now face the responsibility for his choice. Also, if he truly wished to further the cause of Islam, there are peaceful and acceptable ways to do so. But this would have deprived him of his opportunity to beat on helpless women and chained prisoners. Tell me Mr. Walker, what exactly did you do for the Taliban? Did you punish children for playing games? Or was it beating women for being alone in public? Anyone who wants to save Mr. Walker from American justice may want to talk with the victims of Taliban justice before granting any pardons.
  
  Mark Andrews
  Silver Spring, MD

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 4:56 pm
  I really don't know what it is with some of these people that have access to writing in the news media, and pushing their personal opinions upon us. As far as I'm concerned, john taleban walker, took up arms against the united states and its military.As such he is a traitor, and should not be protected by american citizenship. To me he gave up that right! I also think that if he was so hot with the idea of the taleban's way of life, he should be left right there. let those folks take care of the problem of what to do with him. I say good riddence to smelly garbage.
  
  Frank N.Lettera
  An American Citizen
  Florida, United States Of American

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 5:17 pm
  Lindh will have a very difficult time receiving fair treatment in the country due to the blind patriotism that has swept across this country since 9/11. The attacks were terrible, yes, but Americans do not even realize the scope and spectre of their civil rights they have given up since Bush, Ashcroft & Company have come up with the right wing agend outlined in the "Patriot Act." Lindh is small potatoes. I worry about our greater issues - the strangulation of freedoms in our democratic nation.
  
  Shannon B. McCain
  Texas, United States of America

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 5:50 pm
  If Walker is guilty can there being any question of the actions of Jane Fonda? She walked! Put then both on trial. The same charge.
  
  John R. Sargent
  Germany

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 5:57 pm
  Jane Fonda got off free. What she did was there for everybody to see. More than two witnesses. If she wasn't put on trial then it would be hard to put Walker on trial. Is he or is he not an American? Either way do as Mr Fox said, let him stay in his new home. And bar him from ever setting foot in the US again.
  
  John Sargent
  Germany

• Thursday December 20, 2001 at 6:06 pm
  John Walker is not a cute little boy, his pictures not withstanding. He is a man. He made a choice to go to a violent part of the world to learn a different brand of Islam. That was his choice. His parents helped him attain that goal. It was much easier to let him go. They took the path of least resistance. He didn't wreck the car or get bad grades. He didn't miss curfew. He availed himself of training in order to be a terrorist. To have a pure Islam state. A state that denies the other sex any rights at all. Now he and the other terrorists we put on trial will use the laws of the very country they want to destroy, in order to avail themselves of the very rights they deny others. His parents still think denial is a river running in Egypt. Bad joke but true. He needs to take responsibility as an adult for his decisions. Like it or not, it's time to grow up.
  
  Carol Hartford
  Marin County, CA

• Friday December 21, 2001 at 6:15 am
  Question; Did John Walker Lindh Philips connect with the Taliban before September 14 while they were still US alies or after Brisards declaration, "you either accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury under a carpet of bombs"? How distinctive was this transition from friend to foe to him? Better yet how distinctive was this transition to the majority of the Talibans? What kind of peace were minds in before communication was cut off by the shock wave created by the bombing? As the deluge continued, could they have reasoned; are these bombs from India or have we suddenly incurred the wrath of our long time supporter, the US? Could it be that John Walker is a intelligent, informed, caring, man and we are misinformed,brainwashed,racialy bigoted? Could it be that US policies are based the whims of big oil interest, such as Unicol,Delta and Centgas?
  
  Samuel Litvin
  South Dakota, US

• Friday December 21, 2001 at 11:20 am
  My we do have a bunch of self righteous hypocrites here. This is not the first time nor very likely to be the last time that Americans have fought with foreign countries for whatever cause. I don't like anything I read about the Taliban but has anyone given any thought as to how this young man was supposed to leave this group, once we attacked them. There is another factor too. We are not at war. There has been no declared war. It is my understanding that bu$h is legally entitled to a 60 day police action. Yet this continues. Is bu$h a traitor because he is ignoring the law??? Not only is he not abiding by the law but apparently plans to carry it to possibly 50 or 60 other countries. He is ignoring the United Nations, the World Court & more sepcifically, Bill of Rights & the Constitution as well as signing executive orders that over ride a law of the land. Is he a traitor? So who is the bigger traitor? A young man trapped by his situtaion or the pResident of the US who is deliberately committing acts that violate our laws & Constitutional rights?
  
  MLynn Richards
  Florida

• Saturday December 22, 2001 at 1:40 pm
  I find it very interesting that we knew all about the taliban and their oppressive nature well before September 11th, yet chose to let it continue. But as soon as the terrorist attacks happened then they had to go. They were the same oppressive pricks they were on the 10th but now we have to help those poor women. Bullshit! We simply tolerated it because of money. The majority of americans, and rightly so, would not stand by while we took it on the chin just so we could have oil interests preserved. It never ceases to amaze me how people whip up such masterfully produced smear campaigns when it suits their purpose yet when it did not we refused to sign treaties that would have allowed the taliban to be put under sanctions etc. long before this happened.
  
  Wesley Keyser
  KY USA

• Saturday December 22, 2001 at 3:51 pm
  This entire debate about John Walker, the Taliban and terrorism does nothing more than show the hypocrisy of the white world. What I find interesting is the level of ignorance and arrogance displayed by the same self-righteous, hypocritical, white-Americans living their pampered suburban lives. Most of these idiots would take offense to anyone who points out to them that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were both funded military and financially by the CIA. The same United Snakes of America that has the nerve to wage a war on terrorism still funds a school for training Latin American thugs in terror and torture tactics, the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. The same hypocritical white Americans who call Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden terrorists refuse to acknowledge the fact that both were trained by either the State Department or the CIA. Hussein was backed by the U.S. against the Iranians and the U.S. stood by while Saddam ruthlessly murdered thousands of Kurdish refugees. Yet, no outcry just as there was no outcry when the African embassies were bombed. Why? Because Africans and not white Americans were killed. Sadly enough, it will take a thousand more WTC events to let white America know that white skin doesn't make them superior.
  
  L.S. Burns
  Ohio, USA

• Monday December 24, 2001 at 12:35 pm
  There are a lot of people seeking revenge and it reminds me very much of the mob lynchings that prevailed in our earlier history. I even wonder if this blood thirst comes out of our frustrations of not yet having caught Osama Bin Laden himself. Making do with some blood to satiate our need for revenge until that time when we can exact on him. I think Americans should read our own history a little more as well. What should we have done with the thousands of Americans who served in the Lincoln Brigade and fought alongside the Socialists during the Spanish American war, or those who were here in America and supported Hitler even before our entry into the war. Does anyone remember the huge gettogether at Madison Square Gardens in the 1930s when people freely wore brown shirts and nazi armbands to it. What about those who actually went there to Germany to fight alongside the Nazis? That is a little known secret. Or the fact the the Bush family was one of several wealthy families that even helped fund the Nazi party during the 30's. Should they not have been deemed traitors. What about the fact that the Reagan administration sold weaponry to Iran (an enemy)even while they considered us at war with them. Were they not guilty of treason? Did the conservatives cry out for their blood? I love this country. Not the politicians, not a lot of symbols and fancy talk. This country and those ideals that it is supposed to believe in. I neither see myself as a liberal or a conservative, but as a human, who does indeed want justice, not bloody revenge merely to satiate my need for it.
  
  Fred Mannheim
  N/A
  Oregon/ U.S.A.

• Wednesday December 26, 2001 at 8:31 pm
  He was right for his belive or what he was stood it, so let him to enjoy his faith with out confusing him. Also USA was the partner of Osma-beladen and usa also hate Osma after usa riched it's goal!!! please let us be fare or balance for every one's right.
  
  braine
  (R)
  USA,NY

• Thursday December 27, 2001 at 1:22 pm
  Everyone wants to try and convict John Walker before he even goes to trial..Rather than lock Walker up, our Government should put this guy on the CIA's payroll as a consultant to provide agency operatives valuable information on how he was able to gain entrance into the Taliban and move freely within the group while our own operatives had their thumbs up their ying yangs ...We all know from 9/11 that the the lack of human intelligence in the field was and still is a major agency shortfall .. For all we know Walker may already be on the payroll...
  
  Ed Shepard
  Ohio

• Thursday December 27, 2001 at 4:35 pm
  I'm willing to bet that had any of these "caring" people personally lived through the 911 attack or if their wives had lived with OBL's treatment of women, they not be saying the garbage I'm reading.
  
  G. Stratton
  Oregon/USA

• Saturday December 29, 2001 at 10:01 pm
  without regionaltelevison and newspapers, most of these good folks would have no opinion at all .... i do find mr. mannheim's comments interesting. i see nothing treasonous in waitng for a little more information to surface and seeing just how it may dovetail into law and logic..
  
  jonson
  oklahoma

• Saturday January 19, 2002 at 11:27 pm
  Mr. Lettera claims that Walker should be denied u.s. citizenship priviledges. However, the US is in the limelight on how it deals with human rights when it faces problems. Now of all times in history it is imperative to act on our ideals and justice will prevail. However, if we fail to believe in our human rights way and act on it, how can the world follow our example when we ask places like china to abide by our ideals when we do not ourselves. Second, why are we so scared to give not just walker but any suspected terroist open trials, lawyers and human living conditions? They will not escpae justice if they are guilty. Lastly I think US human rights and ideals should be imposed on all human beings globally guilty or not and not just US citizens. We have a responsibility as a global leader. This is not to let people off, but that when due punishment is received it will be done in the American way. This way people can believe in the greatness of US ideals and not snicker at hypocracy sprung from fear.
  
  D. Bray
  MA

• Tuesday January 29, 2002 at 9:52 am
  In the first comment listed here, dated Dec. 18, 2001, Phillip Hatfield wrote: "[M]any people are young when they commit war crimes, including several of the murderers at My Lai, who were younger than Mr. Walker when convicted of multiple murders of Vietnamese civilians." The massacre of over 400 civilians at My Lai on March 16, 1968, resulted in only one conviction, that of Lt. William Calley, 24 at the time of the incident. Calley was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Capt. Ernest Medina, 33, was tried for murder and acquitted. Fourteen other officers were charged with My Lai related crimes, but the charges were dropped. Shortly after Calley's sentencing, then President Nixon commuted the imprisonment to house arrest. Calley was released after serving 3 1/2 years.
  
  Thomas M. Doyle Jr., J.D.
  Connecticut, USA

• Tuesday January 29, 2002 at 9:34 pm
  For those who are concerned about John Walker helping the brutal Taliban, we are currently supporting the Northern Alliance who so brutalised the Afghan population, especially the women, that the people of Afghanistan considered the Taliban to be the lesser of 2 evils.
  
  John Mulligan
  Georgia

• Thursday February 07, 2002 at 11:44 am
  Dear Ms. Cohn: I am not a legal scholar, however, I have worked on death penalty cases with professional psychologists. One of the aspects about the Walker case that caught my interest was the relative ease with which many of your respondents would have imposed the death sentence on Mr. Walker, if they were given the chance to do so. Am I incorrect, or did Mr. Walker even kill anyone? It is my impression that Mr. Walker did not kill anyone, at least any U.S. soldier that I am aware of. Did Mr. Walker even shoot at a U.S. soldier? If anyone has ever been involved with what really goes on during a real execution, it tends to leave a lasting negative impression on most individuals. (with the exception of sociopaths)But there is an age difference. I am 51 years old and many of the respondents are probably younger than I am. Did you know that overall support for the death penalty was actually in the minority in the U.S. for the year of 1966. Over the years there has been a very significant attitude change, the largest gain I believe would be for women, whose support for the death penalty is about the same as for men today. My point is that there has been a growing acceptance in the U.S. for imposing the death penalty in what would appear a greater support for what I would describe as a "culture of death". Perhaps it is a loss of religious values, as I cannot say for sure. What most individuals are saying about Walker borders very closely to a lynching. The most disturbing aspect for the growing support of a "culture of death" is a poll that was released recently which indicated that between 60 and 75% of the people polled in the U.S. would support a war on terrorism even if it meant that many innocent adults and children were killed. If that poll is accurate then we don't have much of a right to condemn what happened on 9/11, at least from a moral standpoint. Genocide can never be justified morally. I sincerely hope that the question was misunderstood by the respondents of the poll.
  
  M. Steele Holt
  Arkansas/USA

• Thursday February 07, 2002 at 7:15 pm
  As I was reading some of the comments above, I became very sick to my stomach. Anyone who believes John Walker should die is, in my eyes, just as bad as the terrorists. I'm only 15, and I know that I'm young and naive and that I don't know all the complicated details of world conflicts, but I think that's why I have so much compassion toward John Walker. He's only 5 years older than I am, and only 2 years older than my brother. He's at an age where he's still figuring out what kind of man he wants to be. I understand that he needs to be punished, but we should never forget that he is a human being.
  
  Anonymous
  Caliifornia/USA

• Saturday February 09, 2002 at 9:58 am
  I noted just in the last day or two the Governments charges against John Walker and can only say that they must have worked overtime to dream up some of them. If they can't find enough ridiculous chargest to bring against him they could always add jaywalking and turning right against a red light. Or maybe breathing illegal air. I don't really see how they can bring most of those charges against him to bear. For one thing if they charge him with some of them then they should also charge themselves as well. How many of the present day ememies we have did we in fact create ourselves and work with to boot. Iraq and Iran are good examples of it. It would be hypocritical in the extreme to think they could try him and not themselves. What they are after is a show trial and they mean to get it.
  
  Fred Mannheim
  Oregon/ U.S.A

• Monday February 18, 2002 at 4:33 pm
  I agree with Ms. Cohn. Thank God we are beginning to hear from someone besides these yahoos
  
  Donald H. Forbes
  Quaker
  Ma. USA

• Tuesday February 26, 2002 at 11:05 pm
  We ether are, or we are not, a nation of law. If we are a nation where law, and not emotion, controls decisions, then there are certain consequences, not the least of which are the requirement that in order to prosecute Mr. Lind (not "Walker" as he has a legitimate last name and has chosen to use it) the government must prove each and every element of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Hyperbole and hysteronics asside, there are rules which contol such prosecutions, and in the absence of proof of the legal and constitutional kind, no convistion should result. Anyone who looses sight of this simple, yet fundamental rule, is engaging in the cyber equivelent of a lynching and should be ashamed of themselves.
  
  R. K. Weaver
  USA

• Tuesday March 12, 2002 at 5:46 pm
  I think it is important to remember that in America someone charged with criminal acts has a RIGHT to a FAIR trial, and to face his accusors. By many comments above it seems most Americans have made a decision without hearing the facts or issues involved. The harsh reactionary language of many makes me wonder if Mr. Walker will get a FAIR trial. It seems the court of public opinion has already rendered a verdict. The very things that many so called patriots claim to love about America are the first to abandon American principles for self serving interest. I suggest an intensive study of the constitution and American history before judgement is assumed. And realize the popular OPINION is not necessarily the correct one.
  
  Michael D. Clausen
  CA/USA

• Friday May 17, 2002 at 7:02 pm
  I like the comments made by the intelligent fifteen year old above. I am 72 years old and am disgusted by many of the unintelligent letters written by the obvious right-wingers calling for the immediate death of John Walker. He is just a kid, after all, maybe spoilt by his parents (I would never let my kids, adult or not, go wandering off to Afghanistan to check out the Taliban and their religious beliefs.) However, he was just caught up in the situation and his war was against the war lords, not the United States, and in my opinion he should be released with twenty hours of community service for being stupid enough to go Afghanistan.
  
  Harold Butterworth
  California/USA

• Monday July 15, 2002 at 8:01 pm
  I am not an American, and by the way justice was done to John Walker Lindh's case I come to the conclusion that it is clearly a biased decision. Had it been an American citizen of any other racial background I am sure he would have been given a much tougher punishment that 17yrs in prison. For heaven's sake sometimes an accident/robbery/etc can get you more prison time than that. This was a crime against the nation. Under no circumstance should that be less than life time. He was an accomplice and if Americans dont think so, then let all the prisoners from Gautanamo bay prison go home. Those were people born and brought up in that atmosphere, being a Taliban was a way of respectful life for them like it is to maybe work for a corporation in USA. Lindh went to join these animals from such an advanced background. Think who is a bigger criminal!!!
  
  Non American
  USA

• Tuesday July 16, 2002 at 2:25 pm
  A young man leaves his home to embark on a personal quest of spiritual and religious nature. Events unravel ,years pass and now he finds himself "fighting" alongside the "enemy". A terrible thing has happened to John Walker Lindh. He has been caught up in a storm of politics,war,revenge,hate. I am sure if he could have forseen these events unravel and rob him of his rightful youth he would never have embarked upon this spiritual quest. Life has a funny way of laying these terrible traps for us all. I'm sure all the poor souls who perished in 911 had no idea that the first step outside the front door of their home on 911 would be their last...if they did they would have stayed at home as well. John Walker Lindh is a victim of bad judgement the sort that comes with inexperience,youth. Who here has not made a bad judgement in his youth...been misguided by those surrounding him or her. I could have also been in the same situation as John Walker. I spent time in the same area ,not fighting just pursuing my own spiritual quest..I just happened to leave before the bombing started. John Walker is a victim of history like so many others. But the difference here being we can save a life ,educate a life..help build a life turn it around and make a diffence. Killing John Walker or putting him away for life ( a protracted sort of killing )solves nothing. John Walker was not and is not a traitor or a terrorist, just a youthful man with youthful judgement. As for War Crimes a friend of mine who has just served in Afgahnistan tells me American soldiers are carrying out war crimes on a daily basis. But thats O.K because your the "Good Guys" your Americans like at Mai Lai or in Chile on 9/11 1972 or El Salvador or any other region of the world America chooses to have "influence". Maybe you should all ask a few questions of why 911 came about the cheque seems to have been in the mail for sometime American global "influence" seems to be coming home to roost and innocent civilians are paying the price on both sides...as always I suppose..god bless
  
  tom
  Australia

• Tuesday August 13, 2002 at 12:43 am
  It is mentioned, in your article, that Georges W. Bush had an amicable relation with the taliban, and also the U.S.armed and trained the Taliban against the Norther Alliance. If John Walker had joined the Northern Allaiance, he should have been considered a traitor.But since he joined the U.s. allies, the taliban, at the time, he probably thought that he was working in the best interest of his country. That the taliban were mistreating women and were barbaric, it was known, but nothing was done about it. The main concern was the installation of a pipe line. May be John Walker was a CIA agent; are we sure he was not?
  
  Gerry
  Retired
  Canada

• Friday August 16, 2002 at 4:10 am
  Held in this article is the ehtical issue that Americans must now deal with. What is the moral code that Americans are actually obligated to if they are supposedly a liberal country. News in other countries regarding American involvement in Afghanistan differs greatly to what most Americans are exposed to in their media. Shoot Mr. Lindh on the spot? Then how about shooting American corporate involvement in the rest of the world? I believe that Americans passed judgement too quickly without any conscious self assessment of their own governments involvement in world politics. A large and extremely wealthy nation manipulating world resources (3rd world populations being largely a resouce) for self interest? John Walker Lindh separates himself from that value and finds Americans of the opinion that he is traitorous and should be shot. Where does that place Osama bin Ladens opinion about how accountable American citizens should be made for their gvernments involvement in the lives of third world people? It seems quite obvious that most Americans support their governments involvement as a super power in the lives of whole populations of people who have never necessarily given consent to the great savior nation.
  
  Goolam Dawood
  South Africa

• Thursday December 26, 2002 at 2:59 pm
  I would like to respectfully refer you to an article I wrote in the December issue of the Coastal Post, "John Walker,Traitor, Heretic or Sacraficial Lamb?" http://www.coastalpost.com
  
  Jim Scanlon
  The Coastal Post
  California