Lindh: ‘Stupid Maybe. But a Traitor?’

“John Lindh’s ‘Kid’ Defense” (editorial, Dec. 21) compares John Walker Lindh with other “dangerous young people” in the U.S., such as those convicted of school shooting sprees, and asks “why should U.S. courts judge this boy-turned-Taliban more gently than a boy-turned-Crip?” If punishment for the cited allegations of Lindh’s service in Afghanistan’s armed forces and personal expression of judgment on the Sept. 11 attacks should be as severe as the punishment for opening fire in a school and killing innocent children, then we have now sacrificed all sense of reason and justice to the war on “terror” we are waging in our minds.

For such a judgment the burden must be to prove that Lindh had prior knowledge of or involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, or that the U.S. adhered to the principles of international law in waging its bombing assault on Afghanistan.

James Brennan

Los Angeles

*

One hopes that the U.S courts will not make any judgments until all the facts have been presented. Whether we are sympathetic should depend upon Lindh’s state of mind, the situation, the nature and extent of his involvement and any mitigating circumstances. Clearly, Lindh is an adult and it clouds the issue to equate his predicament with our descent into archaic vengefulness against our children who commit criminal acts.

The decisions about how to deal with Lindh are going to be political. I hope the processes finally used will be fair and he will not be prejudged by the media or the public.

Paul Raymer

San Diego

*

On the night of Sept. 15, 1945, I, along with many other 20-year-old boys, was a crew member of a B-29 bomber on its way to what was to be the last bombing mission of World War II. According to Lindh’s attorney, he is “not much more than a boy.” That may be true, but I can assure you that every “boy” on our mission that night sure as hell knew the good guys from the bad guys!

Lindh made a choice to bear arms against the greatest nation in the world; let him now suffer the consequences of his actions.

William M. Ballon

Los Angeles

*

It is understandable if President Bush, an ex-rich-white-kid-in-trouble, has empathy for Lindh, but treason is still “betraying one’s country by making war against it” (American Heritage Dictionary). Does being rich and/or white in America today really make treason just another forgivable, youthful escapade?

Jean Bannigan

Burbank

*

There’s talk about how stupid Lindh was for joining the Taliban and also talk about trying him as a traitor. Well, stupid maybe. I believe fighting for any religious cause is stupid. But a traitor? Baloney! Throughout history Americans have often given aid and support to foreign causes, and not always wisely. Americans fought for the leftists in the Spanish Civil War and even fought for Castro against our former ally Batista.

Lindh joined the Taliban long before Sept. 11, back when we still did not officially consider that group our blood enemies. He’d have been shot if he had quit. Killing him now would make him a martyr, exactly what he expected and fundamentalists want. I say try him in civil court for illegally joining a foreign army, give him a suspended sentence with a year of community service and then remand him into the custody of his parents. That’s the America I know.

Daniel Palacios

Lancaster

*

Why not give Lindh back to the Northern Alliance for justice? He was captured by them, in their country, and he was fighting a war against them. They may give him their brand of justice, as they have to other non-Afghan Taliban fighters. It appears he wants the protection of the American justice system, even though he was involved with the losing side in a civil war in another country.

Larry Zini

Camarillo