Discussion:
John Walker Lindh must be allowed to pray with other Muslim inmates-judge says
(too old to reply)
GLOBALIST
2013-01-12 17:14:10 UTC
Permalink
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday that an American convicted of fighting alongside the Taliban must be allowed to pray daily in a group with other Muslim inmates at his high-security prison in Indiana.

Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government from curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest, U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.

The judge blocked the prison from enforcing its ban on daily group prayer, but she noted that her ruling does not prohibit the prison from taking less restrictive security measures.

Group prayers had been allowed once a week and on high holy days such as Ramadan or Christmas in the prison's Communications Management Unit in Terre Haute, Ind. But at other times, inmates had to pray alone in their cells.

Lindh said that didn't meet the Quran's requirements, and that the Hanbali school of Islam to which he adheres requires him to pray daily with other Muslims. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which represented Lindh, argued that prayer was restricted even though games and some other group activities were not.

Prison officials argued that the same restrictions applied to inmates of all religions. They also argued that it would be dangerous, unaffordable and unfair to other inmates to meet Lindh's demands. Government witnesses testified that Muslims, who make up the majority of inmates in the unit, have operated like a gang under the guise of religious activity.

U.S. Attorney Joe Hogsett, whose office represented the prison, said Friday that prosecutors were considering their next step, including a possible appeal.

"This case deals with critically important issues that have significance both inside and outside the walls of our federal prison facilities," Hogsett said. "Our concern continues to be the safety and security of both our federal prison system and the United States of America."

Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, noted Friday that witnesses testified prisoners were allowed for many years to pray daily while they were out of their cells, both in the multi-purpose room and throughout the prison "and it never caused any problem."

"To now argue that this somehow going to be a major security problem was incorrect," Falk said.

Lindh is serving a 20-year sentence for aiding the Taliban during the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.
================================
His only crime was being found guilty by the Attorney General John Ashcroft
who did not know what the shit a Taliban even was. Taliban or NOT al-Quida.
Gary
2013-01-12 17:18:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:14:10 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in
daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government from
curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest,
U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.
I wonder how damn stupid you have to be to qualify to be a federal
judge ? This idiot thinks it a violation of the crimals
constitutional rights.
GLOBALIST
2013-01-12 17:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:14:10 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in
daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government from
curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest,
U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.
I wonder how damn stupid you have to be to qualify to be a federal
judge ? This idiot thinks it a violation of the crimals
constitutional rights.
Believe it or not criminals have some federal rights. In my mind
it was never established "why" he was considered a criminal
in the first place. He happened to be in the wrong place after
911, then we realized that the Taliban did not have a damned
thing to do with 911. Being a Taliban is not a crime.
Gary
2013-01-12 18:37:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:59:17 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by Gary
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:14:10 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in
daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government from
curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest,
U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.
I wonder how damn stupid you have to be to qualify to be a federal
judge ? This idiot thinks it a violation of the crimals
constitutional rights.
Believe it or not criminals have some federal rights. In my mind
it was never established "why" he was considered a criminal
in the first place. He happened to be in the wrong place after
911, then we realized that the Taliban did not have a damned
thing to do with 911. Being a Taliban is not a crime.
When a person is convicted and imprisoned for a crime, he loses his
Constitutional rights. And this specimen was guilty of something.
Josh
2013-01-12 18:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
When a person is convicted and imprisoned for a crime, he loses his
Constitutional rights. And this specimen was guilty of something.
That is not true.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prisoners_rights
Planet Visitor II
2013-01-13 00:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by Gary
When a person is convicted and imprisoned for a crime, he loses his
Constitutional rights. And this specimen was guilty of something.
That is not true.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prisoners_rights
To be more precise, the poster perhaps meant "loses some of his Constitutional rights."
Such as, of course, the "right... to keep and bear arms," if he's in prison.



Planet Visitor II
Gary
2013-01-13 01:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:48:30 -0500, Planet Visitor II
Post by Planet Visitor II
Post by Josh
Post by Gary
When a person is convicted and imprisoned for a crime, he loses his
Constitutional rights. And this specimen was guilty of something.
That is not true.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prisoners_rights
To be more precise, the poster perhaps meant "loses some of his Constitutional rights."
Such as, of course, the "right... to keep and bear arms," if he's in prison.
That is exactly what I had in mind. A criminal either loses all his
rights -- or he loses none. And if he does not lose them all --
he does indeed have the right to "keep and bear arms" in his jail
cell.

So my contention is --- he loses them all ! And I wish the dull
ones on the Court would understand that.
Josh
2013-01-13 02:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:48:30 -0500, Planet Visitor II
Post by Planet Visitor II
Post by Josh
Post by Gary
When a person is convicted and imprisoned for a crime, he loses his
Constitutional rights. And this specimen was guilty of something.
That is not true.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prisoners_rights
To be more precise, the poster perhaps meant "loses some of his Constitutional rights."
Such as, of course, the "right... to keep and bear arms," if he's in prison.
That is exactly what I had in mind. A criminal either loses all his
rights -- or he loses none.
No, he loses some.
Gary
2013-01-13 11:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by Gary
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:48:30 -0500, Planet Visitor II
Post by Planet Visitor II
Post by Josh
Post by Gary
When a person is convicted and imprisoned for a crime, he loses his
Constitutional rights. And this specimen was guilty of something.
That is not true.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prisoners_rights
To be more precise, the poster perhaps meant "loses some of his Constitutional rights."
Such as, of course, the "right... to keep and bear arms," if he's in prison.
That is exactly what I had in mind. A criminal either loses all his
rights -- or he loses none.
No, he loses some.
In that case, I suppose the party-girls on the court leave it to
their pals at ACLU to pick and choose which ones he keeps.

My understanding was that a convicted felon loses all his "rights".
But when he is locked p -- the state graciously gives him a few
"privileges". Which is only proper among civilized people.
(which a criminal is not one)
c***@jprude.net
2013-01-13 15:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
My understanding was that a convicted felon loses all his "rights".
But when he is locked p -- the state graciously gives him a few
"privileges". Which is only proper among civilized people.
(which a criminal is not one)
The poster uses the phrase "my understanding" as if it means
to him, "I don't know much less actually understand but I'll guess and
pretend anyway" and, worse, the "understanding" he asserts is belied
by reality.

That (lack of any actual) "understanding" is illustrated by
U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539 (1974), written by Justice White, as just one of many examples
that easily court be cited:

- - - - - -
"[The prison officials being sued in this case] assert that
the procedure for disciplining prison inmates for serious misconduct
is a matter of policy raising no constitutional issue. If the position
implies that prisoners in state institutions are wholly without the
protections of the Constitution and the Due Process Clause, it is
plainly untenable. Lawful imprisonment necessarily makes unavailable
many rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen, a 'retraction
justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.' Price v.
Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948). But though his rights may be
diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institutional
environment, a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional
protections when he is imprisoned for crime.
"There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and
the prisons of this country. Prisoners have been held to enjoy
substantial religious freedom under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Cooper v. Pate, 378
U.S. 546 (1964). They retain right of access to the courts. Younger v.
Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971), aff'g Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F.Supp. 105
(ND Cal. 1970); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483 (1969); Ex parte Hull,
312 U.S. 546 (1941). Prisoners are protected under the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invidious
discrimination based on race. Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968).
Prisoners may also claim the protections of the Due Process Clause.
They may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Wilwording v.
Swenson, 404 U.S. 249 (1971); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91
(1945)."
- - - - - -
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
2013-01-12 20:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:14:10 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in
daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government from
curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest,
U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.
I wonder how damn stupid you have to be to qualify to be a federal
judge ? This idiot thinks it a violation of the crimals
constitutional rights.
Believe it or not criminals have some federal rights. In my mind
it was never established "why" he was considered a criminal
in the first place. He happened to be in the wrong place after
911, then we realized that the Taliban did not have a damned
thing to do with 911. Being a Taliban is not a crime.

***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]

So how is it that being an accessory to 911 absolve the Taliban?
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

"Taliban-controlled Afghanistan—with previously established connections
between the groups, administered with a shared militancy,[110] and largely
isolated from American political influence and military power—provided a
perfect location for al-Qaeda to relocate its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed
the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their
Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of
Afghanistan.
While in Afghanistan, the Taliban government tasked al-Qaeda with the
training of Brigade 055, an elite part of the Taliban's army from
1997–2001."

Or do we have to fall back on our mindreading powers to understand how it is
that you deem "that the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"?
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/accessory.html

And exactly, how pray tell, was John Walker Lindh (one does presume - you
not explicitly identifying him - that Lindh is the "he" you reference)
"happened to be in the wrong place"? After all, Lindh had ample
opportunity not to take arms against the US forces. Specifically, he was in
position to help the US authorities at Qala-i-Jangi and did not. In fact,
rather than admit that he is a US citizen, he claimed to be Irish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

You say, "In my mind it was never established "why" he was considered a
criminal in the first place." Tell us, are you really of the opinion that
someone of US citizenship captured bearing arms against United States forces
in a foreign land is not prima facie a criminal - if not a traitor - against
the United States? Note Linh's own words to the court as per the referenced
Wikipedia article -
"I plead guilty", he said. "I provided my services as a soldier to the
Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so,
I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly
knowing that it was illegal." "

So how exactly is Lindh a victim of circumstance as you allege? Or do we
again have to put on our mindreading hat to figure out your meaning?
GLOBALIST
2013-01-12 21:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by GLOBALIST
Post by Gary
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:14:10 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in
daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government
from
curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest,
U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.
I wonder how damn stupid you have to be to qualify to be a federal
judge ? This idiot thinks it a violation of the crimals
constitutional rights.
Believe it or not criminals have some federal rights. In my mind
it was never established "why" he was considered a criminal
in the first place. He happened to be in the wrong place after
911, then we realized that the Taliban did not have a damned
thing to do with 911. Being a Taliban is not a crime.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]
So how is it that being an accessory to 911 absolve the Taliban?
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
"Taliban-controlled Afghanistan—with previously established connections
between the groups, administered with a shared militancy,[110] and largely
isolated from American political influence and military power—provided a
perfect location for al-Qaeda to relocate its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed
the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their
Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of
Afghanistan.
While in Afghanistan, the Taliban government tasked al-Qaeda with the
training of Brigade 055, an elite part of the Taliban's army from
1997–2001."
Or do we have to fall back on our mindreading powers to understand how it is
that you deem "that the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"?
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/accessory.html
And exactly, how pray tell, was John Walker Lindh (one does presume - you
not explicitly identifying him - that Lindh is the "he" you reference)
"happened to be in the wrong place"? After all, Lindh had ample
opportunity not to take arms against the US forces. Specifically, he was in
position to help the US authorities at Qala-i-Jangi and did not. In fact,
rather than admit that he is a US citizen, he claimed to be Irish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh
You say, "In my mind it was never established "why" he was considered a
criminal in the first place." Tell us, are you really of the opinion that
someone of US citizenship captured bearing arms against United States forces
in a foreign land is not prima facie a criminal - if not a traitor - against
the United States? Note Linh's own words to the court as per the referenced
Wikipedia article -
"I plead guilty", he said. "I provided my services as a soldier to the
Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so,
I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly
knowing that it was illegal." "
So how exactly is Lindh a victim of circumstance as you allege? Or do we
again have to put on our mindreading hat to figure out your meaning?
=================

So you naively believe "an admission of guilt" by any defendent, means
he was guilty of the charges. Plea-bargaining at it's best. You are the judge and jury, in about 10 years
he will be out of jail. He has placated his accusers, who wanted revenge
and so 11+ years we are still punishing Afghanistan, knowing full well that
belonging to the Taliban has nothing to do with al-Quida.

The Taliban are in internal problem and , as usual, we felt the need to
butt in and tell them what we thought they should do. Are all the Irish Catholic in Northern Ireland , enemies of England?

No one can even surmise where the al-Quida are as we speak. Africa?
Pakistan? Syria? None of those nations want them there.
==================
I support Lindh and his parents and have since day one, realizing
that all our government had in mind after 911 was to show the Americans
that we were going to punish the first person that walked by. REVENGE
....but against who?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
2013-01-12 22:06:59 UTC
Permalink
"GLOBALIST" wrote in message news:d60606cf-2b47-4418-b060-***@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:55:49 PM UTC-6, Lawrence T. Akutagawa wrote:
/snip - follow the thread/
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
So how is it that being an accessory to 911 absolve the Taliban?
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
"Taliban-controlled Afghanistan—with previously established connections
between the groups, administered with a shared militancy,[110] and largely
isolated from American political influence and military power—provided a
perfect location for al-Qaeda to relocate its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed
the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their
Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of
Afghanistan.
While in Afghanistan, the Taliban government tasked al-Qaeda with the
training of Brigade 055, an elite part of the Taliban's army from
1997–2001."
Or do we have to fall back on our mindreading powers to understand how it is
that you deem "that the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"?
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/accessory.html
And exactly, how pray tell, was John Walker Lindh (one does presume - you
not explicitly identifying him - that Lindh is the "he" you reference)
"happened to be in the wrong place"? After all, Lindh had ample
opportunity not to take arms against the US forces. Specifically, he was in
position to help the US authorities at Qala-i-Jangi and did not. In fact,
rather than admit that he is a US citizen, he claimed to be Irish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh
You say, "In my mind it was never established "why" he was considered a
criminal in the first place." Tell us, are you really of the opinion that
someone of US citizenship captured bearing arms against United States forces
in a foreign land is not prima facie a criminal - if not a traitor - against
the United States? Note Linh's own words to the court as per the referenced
Wikipedia article -
"I plead guilty", he said. "I provided my services as a soldier to the
Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so,
I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly
knowing that it was illegal." "
So how exactly is Lindh a victim of circumstance as you allege? Or do we
again have to put on our mindreading hat to figure out your meaning?
=================

So you naively believe "an admission of guilt" by any defendent, means
he was guilty of the charges. Plea-bargaining at it's best. You are the
judge and jury, in about 10 years
he will be out of jail. He has placated his accusers, who wanted revenge
and so 11+ years we are still punishing Afghanistan, knowing full well that
belonging to the Taliban has nothing to do with al-Quida.

The Taliban are in internal problem and , as usual, we felt the need to
butt in and tell them what we thought they should do. Are all the Irish
Catholic in Northern Ireland , enemies of England?

No one can even surmise where the al-Quida are as we speak. Africa?
Pakistan? Syria? None of those nations want them there.
==================
I support Lindh and his parents and have since day one, realizing
that all our government had in mind after 911 was to show the Americans
that we were going to punish the first person that walked by. REVENGE
....but against who?

***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]

Well...yes. Plain and simple - if you are not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent.

So how is it that you deem that "belonging to the Taliban has nothing to do
with Al-Qaeda"? Where o where are your references/quotes/citations? All
you have provided us with is that mouth and your expectation that your
readers exercise their mindreading prowess.

Are you really of the belief that John Walker Lindh did not bear arms
against US forces? Do you really believe that Lindh helped the US forces at
Qala-i-Jangi ? Again - except for that mouth of yours and your expectation
that we be able to read your mind - where are your
references/quotes/citations to support such beliefs?

I've provide citations to maintain that first - the Taliban is an accessory
to 911 and second - that Linh is indeed a criminal...if not a traitor...in
carrying arms against US forces. Where are your citations to support your
maintaining that the Taliban is innocent of 911 and that Linh is no more
than a victim? Do we really have to reach for our mindreading hats?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
2013-01-13 17:57:45 UTC
Permalink
"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:kcsmpv$l8e$***@dont-email.me...

"GLOBALIST" wrote in message news:d60606cf-2b47-4418-b060-***@googlegroups.com...

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:55:49 PM UTC-6, Lawrence T. Akutagawa wrote:
/snip - follow the thread/
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
So how is it that being an accessory to 911 absolve the Taliban?
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
"Taliban-controlled Afghanistan—with previously established connections
between the groups, administered with a shared militancy,[110] and largely
isolated from American political influence and military power—provided a
perfect location for al-Qaeda to relocate its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed
the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their
Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of
Afghanistan.
While in Afghanistan, the Taliban government tasked al-Qaeda with the
training of Brigade 055, an elite part of the Taliban's army from
1997–2001."
Or do we have to fall back on our mindreading powers to understand how it is
that you deem "that the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"?
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/accessory.html
And exactly, how pray tell, was John Walker Lindh (one does presume - you
not explicitly identifying him - that Lindh is the "he" you reference)
"happened to be in the wrong place"? After all, Lindh had ample
opportunity not to take arms against the US forces. Specifically, he was in
position to help the US authorities at Qala-i-Jangi and did not. In fact,
rather than admit that he is a US citizen, he claimed to be Irish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh
You say, "In my mind it was never established "why" he was considered a
criminal in the first place." Tell us, are you really of the opinion that
someone of US citizenship captured bearing arms against United States forces
in a foreign land is not prima facie a criminal - if not a traitor - against
the United States? Note Linh's own words to the court as per the referenced
Wikipedia article -
"I plead guilty", he said. "I provided my services as a soldier to the
Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so,
I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly
knowing that it was illegal." "
So how exactly is Lindh a victim of circumstance as you allege? Or do we
again have to put on our mindreading hat to figure out your meaning?
=================

So you naively believe "an admission of guilt" by any defendent, means
he was guilty of the charges. Plea-bargaining at it's best. You are the
judge and jury, in about 10 years
he will be out of jail. He has placated his accusers, who wanted revenge
and so 11+ years we are still punishing Afghanistan, knowing full well that
belonging to the Taliban has nothing to do with al-Quida.

The Taliban are in internal problem and , as usual, we felt the need to
butt in and tell them what we thought they should do. Are all the Irish
Catholic in Northern Ireland , enemies of England?

No one can even surmise where the al-Quida are as we speak. Africa?
Pakistan? Syria? None of those nations want them there.
==================
I support Lindh and his parents and have since day one, realizing
that all our government had in mind after 911 was to show the Americans
that we were going to punish the first person that walked by. REVENGE
....but against who?

***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]

Well...yes. Plain and simple - if you are not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent.

So how is it that you deem that "belonging to the Taliban has nothing to do
with Al-Qaeda"? Where o where are your references/quotes/citations? All
you have provided us with is that mouth and your expectation that your
readers exercise their mindreading prowess.

Are you really of the belief that John Walker Lindh did not bear arms
against US forces? Do you really believe that Lindh helped the US forces at
Qala-i-Jangi ? Again - except for that mouth of yours and your expectation
that we be able to read your mind - where are your
references/quotes/citations to support such beliefs?

I've provide citations to maintain that first - the Taliban is an accessory
to 911 and second - that Linh is indeed a criminal...if not a traitor...in
carrying arms against US forces. Where are your citations to support your
maintaining that the Taliban is innocent of 911 and that Linh is no more
than a victim? Do we really have to reach for our mindreading hats?

**************
"GLOBALIST" - Have you crawled under your rock AGAIN? So where exactly are
the cites/links that support your contention that "the Taliban did not have
a damned thing to do with 911" and that Linh is a victim and not a
criminal - that he did not bear arms against US forces? I've provided links
my contention that the Taliban is an accessory to 911 and that he did bear
arms against US forces. Where are yours? Does all your supporting material
really exist only in that head of yours such that we indeed have to read
your mind for those "facts" which underlie your beliefs?
rumpelstiltskin
2013-01-14 04:44:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:57:45 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<snip>
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Well...yes. Plain and simple - if you are not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent.
Plea-bargaining comes to mind. Many, many people have been
wrongfully convicted, and some even hanged. If a person is
innocent but feels sure that he's going to be convicted of something
he didn't do, he might decide to plea-bargain just because that way
he can get some mitigation of the penalty he'd probably otherwise
suffer.

<snip>
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
2013-01-14 18:13:07 UTC
Permalink
"rumpelstiltskin" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:57:45 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<snip>
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Well...yes. Plain and simple - if you are not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent.
Plea-bargaining comes to mind. Many, many people have been
wrongfully convicted, and some even hanged. If a person is
innocent but feels sure that he's going to be convicted of something
he didn't do, he might decide to plea-bargain just because that way
he can get some mitigation of the penalty he'd probably otherwise
suffer.

<snip>

***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]

Well, that evidence against that innocent party must be most daunting and
convincing for him to feel so "sure that he's going to be convicted of
something he didn't do" that he bargains a guilty plea even though he is
innocent. The curious, of course, wonder how it is that someone so innocent
can find himself faced with such compelling evidence.

So how exactly does this observation of yours apply to Lindh? Can you find
any verifiable facts that he indeed not bear arms against US forces and is
indeed innocent of that to which he pled guilty? Clearly "GLOBALIST" - who
depends on us being able to read his mind - cannot, has not, and will not
present to us any references/citations/links that establish that Lindh is
innocent of bearing arms against US forces.
rumpelstiltskin
2013-01-14 19:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:13:07 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:57:45 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<snip>
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Well...yes. Plain and simple - if you are not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Plea-bargaining comes to mind. Many, many people have been
wrongfully convicted, and some even hanged. If a person is
innocent but feels sure that he's going to be convicted of something
he didn't do, he might decide to plea-bargain just because that way
he can get some mitigation of the penalty he'd probably otherwise
suffer.
<snip>
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]
Well, that evidence against that innocent party must be most daunting and
convincing for him to feel so "sure that he's going to be convicted of
something he didn't do" that he bargains a guilty plea even though he is
innocent. The curious, of course, wonder how it is that someone so innocent
can find himself faced with such compelling evidence.
You can't deny that it happens. Illinois (I think) eliminated
the death penalty because too many people who later were
shown to be innocent had been executed. England
eliminated the death penalty for the same reason. Texas is
infamous for that "cowboy justice" that often gets the wrong
man.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So how exactly does this observation of yours apply to Lindh? Can you find
any verifiable facts that he indeed not bear arms against US forces and is
indeed innocent of that to which he pled guilty? Clearly "GLOBALIST" - who
depends on us being able to read his mind - cannot, has not, and will not
present to us any references/citations/links that establish that Lindh is
innocent of bearing arms against US forces.
I was responding to the general case in response to
paragraphs of yours which were also about the general
case. Those paragraphs are still above.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
2013-01-14 22:06:45 UTC
Permalink
"rumpelstiltskin" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:13:07 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:57:45 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<snip>
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Well...yes. Plain and simple - if you are not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Plea-bargaining comes to mind. Many, many people have been
wrongfully convicted, and some even hanged. If a person is
innocent but feels sure that he's going to be convicted of something
he didn't do, he might decide to plea-bargain just because that way
he can get some mitigation of the penalty he'd probably otherwise
suffer.
<snip>
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]
Well, that evidence against that innocent party must be most daunting and
convincing for him to feel so "sure that he's going to be convicted of
something he didn't do" that he bargains a guilty plea even though he is
innocent. The curious, of course, wonder how it is that someone so innocent
can find himself faced with such compelling evidence.
You can't deny that it happens. Illinois (I think) eliminated
the death penalty because too many people who later were
shown to be innocent had been executed. England
eliminated the death penalty for the same reason. Texas is
infamous for that "cowboy justice" that often gets the wrong
man.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
So how exactly does this observation of yours apply to Lindh? Can you find
any verifiable facts that he indeed not bear arms against US forces and is
indeed innocent of that to which he pled guilty? Clearly "GLOBALIST" - who
depends on us being able to read his mind - cannot, has not, and will not
present to us any references/citations/links that establish that Lindh is
innocent of bearing arms against US forces.
I was responding to the general case in response to
paragraphs of yours which were also about the general
case. Those paragraphs are still above.

***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]

ah...but this thread that *GLOBALIST* started has to do with Lindh. And my
comments are made with respect to the Lindh situation. So once again:
"So how exactly does this observation of yours apply to Lindh? Can you
find
any verifiable facts that he indeed not bear arms against US forces and is
indeed innocent of that to which he pled guilty? Clearly "GLOBALIST" - who
depends on us being able to read his mind - cannot, has not, and will not
present to us any references/citations/links that establish that Lindh is
innocent of bearing arms against US forces."

And as per the other point that *GLOBALIST* maintains -

"the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"

- how say you?
rumpelstiltskin
2013-01-15 05:18:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:06:45 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<snip>
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
ah...but this thread that *GLOBALIST* started has to do with Lindh. And my
"So how exactly does this observation of yours apply to Lindh? Can you
find
any verifiable facts that he indeed not bear arms against US forces and is
indeed innocent of that to which he pled guilty? Clearly "GLOBALIST" - who
depends on us being able to read his mind - cannot, has not, and will not
present to us any references/citations/links that establish that Lindh is
innocent of bearing arms against US forces."
And as per the other point that *GLOBALIST* maintains -
"the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"
- how say you?
You'll have to take that up with Globalist. I was responding
to what you wrote in the paragraphs I cited. Those paragraphs
didn't mention Lindh. They asked why anyone would plead
guilty to a crime one did not commit. I gave an answer to that.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
2013-01-15 06:02:52 UTC
Permalink
"rumpelstiltskin" wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:06:45 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<snip>
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
ah...but this thread that *GLOBALIST* started has to do with Lindh. And my
"So how exactly does this observation of yours apply to Lindh? Can you
find
any verifiable facts that he indeed not bear arms against US forces and is
indeed innocent of that to which he pled guilty? Clearly "GLOBALIST" - who
depends on us being able to read his mind - cannot, has not, and will not
present to us any references/citations/links that establish that Lindh is
innocent of bearing arms against US forces."
And as per the other point that *GLOBALIST* maintains -
"the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"
- how say you?
You'll have to take that up with Globalist. I was responding
to what you wrote in the paragraphs I cited. Those paragraphs
didn't mention Lindh. They asked why anyone would plead
guilty to a crime one did not commit. I gave an answer to that.

***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]

Ah yes...I do see my mistake. Allow me to restate that paragraph -

"Well...yes. Plain and simple - if Lindh is not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent."

However *GLOBALIST* is firmly entrenched under that rock of his and I doubt
if we - unless we exercise the mindreading powers that he insists on us
using - will be able to ferret from him any - repeat, any -
references/citations/links to support his contention that Lindh is no more
than an innocent victim and that "the Taliban did not have a damned thing to
do with 911." Much as Jerry Okamura did, *GLOBALIST* is quick to crawl his
rock when confronted.
rumpelstiltskin
2013-01-15 16:52:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:02:52 -0800, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<snip>
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Ah yes...I do see my mistake. Allow me to restate that paragraph -
"Well...yes. Plain and simple - if Lindh is not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent."
However *GLOBALIST* is firmly entrenched under that rock of his and I doubt
if we - unless we exercise the mindreading powers that he insists on us
using - will be able to ferret from him any - repeat, any -
references/citations/links to support his contention that Lindh is no more
than an innocent victim and that "the Taliban did not have a damned thing to
do with 911." Much as Jerry Okamura did, *GLOBALIST* is quick to crawl his
rock when confronted.
I don't want to discuss Lindh, since the USA doesn't have
"clean hands" in its invasion and partial occupation of
Afghanistan. Judge Judy refuses to make judgments when
plaintiffs come to court without clean hands, and I feel much
the same. I'm not a "my country right or wrong" kind of guy.
I accept that the USA wants to prosecute Lindh, and I see
why, but I want no part of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

Josh
2013-01-12 18:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:14:10 -0800 (PST), GLOBALIST
Post by GLOBALIST
Barring John Walker Lindh and his fellow Muslims from engaging in
daily group ritual prayer violates a 1993 law that bans the government from
curtailing religious speech without showing a compelling interest,
U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ruled.
I wonder how damn stupid you have to be to qualify to be a federal
judge ? This idiot thinks it a violation of the crimals
constitutional rights.
The judge said it violated a federal statute (the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act), not a constitutional right.
Moe Islam
2013-01-13 01:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by GLOBALIST
His only crime was being found guilty by the Attorney General John Ashcroft
who did not know what the shit a Taliban even was.  Taliban or NOT al-Quida.
Everybody agrees that our country would be more peaceful it it was
less secular.

Pray to Allah 4 times a day! As-salam alaykum.


Or pay the price for hating religion! Without religion in our
schools, we will be destroyed.


That's why the Atheists are after us with their guns.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...