Lindh won't be tried for Terrorism-- just the lesser charges. Expected to serve about 17 years. Courtesy MSNBC.
If he were of Middle Eastern Descent AMERICAN BORN . . . would he get off so light. This sux. He should have been tried for TREASON! Rocket River priviledge. . .
If he were of Middle Eastern descent, American born, but had done absolutely nothing, he could be arrested and held without charge for months, under John Ashcroft. Does that suck, too?
<b>Batman</b>: You changed a would to a could. That is huge. You and I can both be falsely arrested now and could have even before 9/11. Why do you think that Ashcroft and his allies are so mischevious? Do they have nothing better to do than waste time and manpower on people of whom they have no suspicion?
Guys...he isnt even going to make it thru 1 year, let alone 17...by puting him in prison, its basically a death penalty anyway....the first chance someone gets to kill him, hes dead...so there is some justice served
giddyup: Wrong. We can't be arrested and held without our right to due process. Under Ashcroft, some people can. I don't think he's mischievous, I think he's downright dangerous. And I don't doubt that they suspect the people they arrest. But under the veil of the understandable terror this country is now gripped by, he is usurping those very liberties and justices we hold most dear. And that is another kind of terrorism.
This is great news..score a win for the good guys ! This trial would have dominated the news for over a year and this loser isn't worth it.He also must be giving up some info and now we don't have to compromise our sources in a court of law.
Due process just changed for certain characters and, I think, for some valid reasons. I can't see how you can comfortably call Ashcroft a terrorist. I think a greater victory is achieved by the terrorists when they cause us, as Americans, to become suspicious of our protectors rathen than when their actions indicate to us a willing and intelligent tightening of our security for the short-term.
No they do it because they do have suspicion. But the American way as stated by the constitution is that the authorities have to have more than suspicion. There should be just cause, and then proof. It's when they go around arresting people on suspicion but don't have the evidence to prosecute, so they change the persons status to 'enemy of the state'. Therefore they don't have to the evidence and circumvent the constitution of this country. In this country we have a criminal justice system with guidelines laws and rights. Why is it that all of a sudden our justice system is deemed by Ashcroft to no longer work? I thought an Attorney General would be a believer in the American Justice system not someone who tosses it out the window.
Maybe they will make a cartoon, similar to "Johnny Quest", and call it "Johnny Jihad"? Maybe....maybe no. The extremist Muslims can use it as a recruiting tool to recruit Americans into their jihad. Johnny Jihad can have a little dog named Dubya. Think of it...little Johnny and Dubya on the front lines fighting the Northern Alliance and training in terrorist camps. The little American kids will love it...they will all want to join jihad after watching it. Of course, they will leave out the part about getting caught and going to jail.
I didn't explicitly call Ashcroft a terrorist, but he does employ terror to justify his dismissal of due process. You prove the point. You're understandably scared and so you believe he's justified in tossing out due process. And, by the way, the new guys can call it unpatriotic all day long, but it is not only our right but our duty as Americans to question our leadership. If it's not okay to do so, exactly which freedoms are we fighting for?
<b>Batman</b>: I think your term was that Ashcroft was creating "a new kind of terrorism." Where did you learn that I was scared? I think it is pragmatic to fight a threat effectively. There's a time to question and a time to get with the program. We don't agree what time it is, I guess! <b>RocketRiver</b>: I think we'll get it back. What are you and I missing? It may be awhile before these turds are ferreted out, for sure. They have taken nothing from me. <b>Franchise</b>: Isn't the criticism that we need speedier response than the criminal justice system will allow? And we need to protect our sources and resources to fight this fight. The CJ system would force much of that into the open.
You may be correct, but I don't know if I buy that we have to protect sources. We didn't have to protect sources the first time the first WTC bombing happened. The CJ system worked in that instance. Also in this country people are supposed to be allowed to face their accuser. Also historically when the govt. says it's risky to allow information to become public for security reasons it usually ends up that they just didn't want the public to know what they were doing. Freedom of information act which allows information to become declassified years later, shows that much of the time it wouldn't have jeopardized anything security related. The govt. just didn't want people to know what they were doing. In this case all of it is unkown, so I can't really say for sure either way.
The country's scared, giddyup. There's nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly reasonable. I'm scared of another terrorist attack, too. My point was that Ashcroft is using that fear (or terror) to justify moves that would have never been allowed otherwise. And yes, using terror as a tool to justify his means is a kind of terrorism. Blindly backing our leaders doesn't give you the market on believing we should take extraordinary measures to protect our country. I think we should, too. I just disagree that we have to (even temporarily) forget all the most basic tenets of our criminal justice system to do that. Ashcroft's also using all this as a justification to beef up our border patrol. How many Canadian or Mexican terrorists are you aware of? But when you say "they have taken nothing from me," you really clarify things. By this logic, racial profiling doesn't take anything from white people. Neither did slavery. And the Holocaust didn't take anything from people who matched up with Hitler's idea of a master race. And McCarthyism didn't take anything from flag-waving 'patriots.' But it's not true. Each of these sad chapters in our history took a great deal from all of us. The Patriot Act is a bad deal. And it is cynical because it uses a word like patriot to remove the very rights that make true Americans patriotic. Like, read 1984 or something. Big Brother is alive and well in America. And he has a gigantic approval rating. That's on account of terror and a kinder, gentler terrorism.
I agree 100%. I think we all are against terrorism and want to prevent further attacks if we can. Some people are now portraying it as if those who oppose the Patriot act, aren't serious about fighting terrorism. I'm very serious about fighting terrorism, and about preserving the constitution too. If terrorists are against our way of life, then dismantling the constitution seems like we are playing into their hands.
