|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the war-mongering U.$. public was expecting "treason" charges against John Walker Lindh, the 20-year-old Amerikkkan in the Taliban captured in Afghanistan. Instead on January 24th, he appeared in an Alexandria, Virginia court to answer to "conspiracy to murder" charges--a sign that the ruling class knew it was weaseling on the question of war.(1)
In a way, the ruling class was consistent in its weaseling. It did not officially declare war against Afghanistan or anyone else after September 11th. On a related point, the U.S. Government did not give "prisoner of war" status to prisoners taken from Afghanistan and now it has charged John Walker Lindh with ordinary street crime of the sort that Amerikkkans are easily sidetracked with.
Readers will recall that John Lindh is the U.S. citizen captured, threatened and interrogated by the CIA in Afghanistan while supposedly fighting on the Taliban side. The naivete of the Amerikkkan public was on display. For our readers believing John Walker Lindh should go to prison and not Bush and Clinton, we ask the following questions.
Questions for the Amerikkkan public to think through on Walker
1) About "treason," is there anything a president and his subordinates could do to warrant the charge of treason? Did you know that Colin Powell delivered millions in aid to the Taliban while calling it "terrorist"? Did you know that the CIA met with Osama bin Laden in July, 2001? Did you know that the CIA armed and trained Osama bin Laden? Are you aware that the U.S. official in Saudi Arabia in charge of visas said the U.S. government gave visas to known terrorists connected with Osama bin Laden?
Some of you will say that the U.S. Government was trying to "influence" the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, maybe by buying them off so they would not grow opium for instance. If so, why is not John Lindh entitled to the same thought? More importantly, we ask again, is there any way you would recognize that the president of the United $tates put his oil business buddies above Amerikkkan lives and was hence treasonous or does treason only apply to common people?
2) About "why?" the U.S. government would do that--some of you ask why the U.S. Government would give visas to known terrorists. The FBI says in some cases it was "infiltrating." No matter what the government has an excuse: if they deny visas to known terrorists, the government is "doing its job." If they give aid to known terrorists, the officials of the government are "infiltrating." The public needs to ask if it is giving in to sucker reasoning yet again, like in Watergate or Vietnam. One thing the government will never admit is that it was negotiating oil pipeline deals with the Taliban and that such business deals have higher priority than reducing the chances of terrorist attacks.
The U.$. ruling class is willing to jeopardize lives including Amerikkkan lives for business deals. That is what this is about, plus the insane faction of the ruling class that backs I$rael and does not mind a war with the whole Islamic world. The rulers can take risks with Amerikkkan lives by putting them in a subordinate position to getting business going with their lackeys in Saudi Arabia, the Middle East generally and the terrorists that Uncle $am put in place to create a favorable business environment.
MIM says people who want to do something about Osama bin Laden should abolish the CIA, not give it more powers to deal with people like him as the government requests. It's a point of simple logic. It was supporting "unsavoury" characters that created the problem in the first place. Now much of the international proletariat views Osama bin Laden as a hero, only thanks to the extreme depravity and hypocrisy of the U.S. Government and its CIA.
3) Some people will say there is nothing wrong a president can do; hence that is why we are in the situation we are in and it is a good thing. Such a position is consistent, but it is not "rule of law," which is supposed to apply to Walker and Bush alike. People holding this position are ready to live under a persynal dictatorship by Bush.
4) Regarding "conspiracy to murder," who was conspiring to murder whom? John Walker Lindh was already there in Afghanistan a long time before September 11th. Rule of law means that laws apply equally. Bush sent the military to kill John Lindh. Lindh did not go out of his way to kill Amerikkkans and even if he did take part in hostilities, he had the right to self-defense.
We do not know what Walker was doing in Afghanistan, but we do know that lawyers working on his behalf could serve the public immensely by investigating the U.S. Government in order to prepare for the possibility of certain defenses for Walker--questions of "equal protection under the law," "self-defense" and above all, all U.S. Government connections to the events of September 11th. If we see a sudden plea bargain struck in this Walker trial, MIM predicts it will be because lawyers for Walker offered to drop their investigations in exchange for a light term for Walker.
Those who say that they want some way to say that it was Walker conspiring and not Bush and the U.S. military, they need to advocate "declaring war" and not trying to have it both ways. Otherwise, Walker has no lower claim to self-defense than U.S. Marines. In fact, since he was already there and the Special Forces had to travel to attack Walker, Walker's claim to innocence of "conspiracy to murder" charges is better than that of the Special Forces.
Ashcroft is not doing his job when he accuses Walker of "conspiracy to murder." It is Bush "conspiring to murder," but then again, as a Bush appointee, Ashcroft knows that already.
About the prisoners of war
Meanwhile, virtually the whole world united to condemn the United $tates for not granting "prisoner of war" status to Taliban prisoners taken from Afghanistan. While it is true the U.S. Government never declared "war" and hence consciously chose to enter legal difficulties internally, the treaties that the U.S. Government signed are still valid and should be upheld. That 1949 treaty called the "Geneva Convention" says that where there is a dispute, an independent tribunal must decide who is a Prisoner of War (POW) and who is not, not the U.S. Government.(2)
Although Cuba liberated itself with the Cuban Revolution, the Cuban people were unable to liberate Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. Government took alleged Taliban and Al- Qaeda prisoners to X-Ray camp in Guantanamo Bay, because Guantanamo Bay is a U.$. colony where people have no legal rights, within U.S. standards.(3) The only rights there would be by international treaties. MIM welcomes all international criticism of the united $tates on questions of crime and war. Amerikkkans are not yet politically developed enough to view these questions objectively.
A Spanish newspaper criticized U.S. "torture" and a pair of English papers denounced "brutality." (4) The St. Petersburg Times of Florida at least had the gumption to say that Taliban prisoners should be according POW status.
International view of the war and Amerikkkans
As MIM showed before, with the exception of India and I$rael, all countries polled wanted the United $tates to negotiate with Afghanistan rather than launch a war.(5)
In contrast, Amerikkkans of the male, 18-34 age group chose nakednews.com as their leading source of news prior to September 11th. Yet somehow, Amerikkkans feel they know enough about Afghanistan, what their government has been doing in connection to "terrorism," what the CIA was doing with Osama bin Laden and the law itself to condemn John Lindh for "treason." We at MIM find the Amerikkkan public's pornographic understanding of politics a very sick joke.
Notes:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/24/walker.court/index.html
2. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/22/ret.guantanamo.detainees/index.html
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1777000/1777033.stm
4. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/01/24/Opinion/Life_at_Guantanamo.shtml
5. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mn/sept112001/text.php?
mimfile=gallupinternational.txt