In between rapidly breathing in and out of a little paper bag (or at least I hope so- I don’t want anyone else to get hurt because of John Walker), J. Wilkes fires (misfires?) back:
You might not have liked my interpretation of your words but maybe you should be more careful in your writing. For each claim made by JW’s attorney, you blithely dismiss them as if they are nothing to be concerned about. JW’s attorneys might be full of it but neither you nor I have the facts to dismiss their claims out of hand.
But you are willing to accept every argument as fact. I see it as ‘poisoning the well,’ and his attorneys know damn well what they are trying to do.
Your flip attitude suggested that if constitutional rights were violated, that’s OK, it could have been worse.
Here’s a good example:
From the article- His lawyers said Mr. Lindh, 20, was abused by his American captors, who bound him to a stretcher with heavy tape, placed him in a windowless metal container, gave him little food or medical attention and refused to allow him to speak with a lawyer.
See that disclaimer at the beginnning? HIS LAWYERS SAID. What his lawyers said means NOTHING. Are you really this obtuse? What I wrote was that his lawyers are acting like idiots, and if anything, are hurting the traitor’s case (not that this bothers me at all).
My original words- However, he was not hung by his wrists, beaten until his internal organs resembled blood pudding, and then had his testicles zapped with a cattle prod, all before being thrown from a tall building.
to which you respond:
So it’s OK to deny him access to his attorney and to create conditions that can lead to a coerced confession? You and Charles have this obsession with comparing JW’s treatment with what he would get in Afghanistan or under the Palestinians. I don’t give a god-damn about them. JW is an American citizen and any American citizen deserves to have his constitutional rights protected and given a fair trial.
No, and no. AGAIN, you are simply BELIEVING THIS HAPPENED. Whether or not his rights were trampled is something that will come out in the future. You just choose to believe it because ‘his lawyers said.’
And, FWIW, that is a nice bit of selective editing and sophistry on your part. My words originally were:
However, he was not hung by his wrists, beaten until his internal organs resembled blood pudding, and then had his testicles zapped with a cattle prod, all before being thrown from a tall building. Cruel fates like that are reserved for individuals whose chief offenses against humanity are practicing Christianity and being homosexual.
What has obviously escaped you is that is not how I think people should be treated in any circumstance, but it sure as hell was a daily activity for the Taliban and the Al Qaeda that Johnny Walker chose to associate himself with.
I accept that on the battlefield, things happen that are not consistent with the rule of law. But Mr. Ashcroft is trying to claim the opposite, that everything was done as if this was on American soil. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
Where? The only claim about his rights in this article were:
“At each step in this process,” Mr. Ashcroft said, “Walker Lindh’s rights, including his rights not to incriminate himself and to be represented by counsel, have been carefully, scrupulously honored.”
Do you have proof to the contrary, other than lawyerly assertions? I have proof that he is being afforded his rights. It is in the form of the hours of footage on television and the findlaw transcripts of the court proceedings.
I don’t know if JW’s confession was coerced or not.
Which is entirely consistent with your position of not knowing anything and proving it loudly to everybody.
But I’m not going to accept that it didn’t just because Ashcroft said it didn’t. I want some facts and I want to make up my own mind. You are pretty quick to come to conclusions without any evidence.
You want facts that you agree with, particularly if they are damning of John Ashcroft.
You’re right, your opinion by itself doesn’t weaken our constitutional rights but its your kind of mentality that gives the A-OK to the legislation being trotted out these days to “protect us” from the terrorists. No thanks, I prefer to keep my rights, thank you.
This is stupid beyond comment. My opinion doesn’t weaken our constitutional rights but it weakens our consitutional rights through legislation? You opinions weaken your argument.