Catholic family in San Francisco suburbs shocked to see son captured in Afghanistan
By DOUG SAUNDERS Tuesday, December 4, 2001 – Page A1
LOS ANGELES -- Teenage rebellion is something of an industry in the San Francisco Bay area, but John Walker's case is extreme even by local standards: It's not every kid who becomes a PoW in a holy war against his own country.
Somehow this 20-year-old, a shy, skinny Irish Catholic kid who went to high school in the plush northern suburbs of San Francisco, transformed himself into an Islamic holy warrior, a member of an elite branch of the Taliban known as Answar (the helpers), personally trained by Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Walker had disappeared from family and friends for months until Saturday, when TV cameras picked up images of a bearded, grimy Taliban warrior being pulled from a besieged prison fortress near Mazar-e-Sharif in northern Afghanistan.
He had fought at the siege of Kunduz and surrendered along with hundreds of other fighters. Among the 86 Taliban who had somehow survived a violent prisoner revolt and subsequent bombing, shelling, burning and flooding of the fortress a week ago was a smiling, pale man who called himself Abdul Hamid.
He was born John Phillip Walker, and the fact he had become a Taliban fighter came as quite the surprise to his parents in the prosperous suburb of San Anselmo.
His transformation began three years ago with a typical moment of youthful radicalism, when, at 17, he read the autobiography of Malcolm X and announced to his parents that he wanted to become a Muslim scholar. They figured it was a phase.
"It was clear he had developed a different point of view," Mr. Walker's father, a lawyer named Frank Lindh, said in an interview yesterday.
Mr. Lindh supported his son's new beliefs, even after he dropped out of high school to study at a local mosque, even when he made repeated trips to Yemen and Pakistan, ostensibly to study religion.
But Mr. Walker had not just been studying Arabic language and interpretations of the Koran.
Impressed with Afghanistan's fundamentalist movements during a visit, he joined the Taliban's elite foreign corps
The last his parents had heard, Mr. Walker was studying the Koran in Bannu, Pakistan.
Then he appeared on the television news.
"I was a student in Pakistan, studying Islam and came into contact with many people connected with Taliban," Mr. Walker said in a TV interview yesterday.
He was being held by U.S. forces in northern Afghanistan, with gunshot wounds to both legs.
Mr. Walker said he had become a "jihadi" and he was fighting for a pure Islamic state. He told reporters he had fought in Kashmir before joining the Taliban.
This is all more than a little surprising for his mother, who watched it all on TV in California. She believes that her son must have been out of his senses. "If he got involved with the Taliban he must have been brainwashed," she said. It is unclear where Mr. Walker's fate lies. As a U.S. citizen fighting with an enemy in war, he could be charged with treason, which carries a maximum penalty of death.
His parents just want to see their errant son. While they say they have no sympathy for the cause he has apparently embraced, they still say they are impressed with his dedication to Islam and his scholarly prowess. "I'm proud of John," Mr. Lindh said yesterday. "He's a really good boy. A really sweet boy."
[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I wondered how long it would take for this to show up. Here's some more on it.
quote:A case against Walker "would be a tricky thing to prosecute because the Constitution requires two eyewitnesses to the act of treason," University of North Carolina law professor Eric Muller said. "I would think somebody in the Justice Department will have to take a very careful look at this." Also, President Bush's military tribunals are limited to foreign nationals, not U.S. citizens.
Another possible avenue would be to charge American Taliban fighters with seditious conspiracy, which has a lower standard of proof. That's one of the charges that radical Islamic cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman, who plotted to blow up New York City landmarks, was convicted on in 1995. One of Abdel-Rahman's sons was captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
When good Americans go bad. This Sunday on Fox.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
My grandparents and i shared a chuckle at this story. I'm not sure whether or not i should feel bad for the kid or whether we should let him fry.
So .. I'll do both.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Because, obviously, there's no chance he might be supporting the Taliban willingly. God forbid anyone disagree with the American way of life.
If he was executed, I can't see America's status as "leader of the free world" sticking without everyone laughing at the hypocrisy.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Is it legal to execute or charge POWs? I don't mean the high-ups of the organizations, I mean the average Joe Blow foot soldier. We didn't put the common German soldier in prison after WWII -- we did try and imprison many of the Reich's leaders, however.
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
Not that I condone random executions, but what exactly is treason if not a disagreement with the government. Nathan Hale was tried for treason and was hanged because his beliefs didn't match that of the English Crown. Of course that situation is 200+ years removed, but you see my point. Or maybe not. In either case I don't believe he'll be executed, jail time maybe.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
We did, however, put American citizens on trial for sedition during World War II for voicing support for Adolf's reich right here in the US. And there is a big difference between putting a German national on trial for being drafted into his own country's military, than say if we found American youths who had embraced Adolf's ideals and joined the SS for some reason.
The differences here are that 1) The Taliban is not a country or government, but maintains its tax-exempt status as a religious group with guns. Theres some issue with exactly how to treat the POW's legal status. The 'foreign Taliban' are in the middle of this mess. 2) We have no idea what he thought he was doing. If he was incommunicado and thought he was fighting homeland infidels like the Northern Alliance, he could find himself a ticket home. Not likely though. And besides .. how stupid was that. He'd quickly find himself a casualty, a paler-skinned than usual footnote in some really pointless middle eastern war that wasnt really on its way to solving anything about the muslim world. He'd have been better off taking an Islam studies course at the learning annex, i think.
but... if he hates his US upbringing and hates the western world and decided to join the Jihad which has been declared on Americans, then i say fuck him. Because I fly on planes and i have been in skyscrapers and if he considers me a target for his fucked up holy war, then i can surely support my own self defense by watching my government place him in front of a firing squad. Its his mistake for not officially renouncing his citizenship before he committed treason.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"'I'm proud of John,' Mr. Lindh said yesterday. 'He's a really good boy. A really sweet boy.'"
I'm forced to wonder why fucked-up people's parents never seem to be able to admit that their children are fucked up...?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Being "good" and "sweet" does not mean "agree with you politically." Or even "will not kill you if given the chance." Lots of people who do bad things are good and sweet. That doesn't make them innocent.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Little fucker should count himself lucky he wasn't lynched like all the Pakistanis and Arabians who'd flocked to the Islamic Paradise on Earth, only to find that their fellow Muslims, once free of them, were really less than appreciative of all they'd done.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (from the good folks at dictionary.com)
The key word here is action. To truly commit treason, you have to take action against something. If I disagree with, or refuse to support a country's policies, it's not treason. If I disagree with their policies and help the people that are trying to overrun them, it is.
Just thought I'd throw that in there. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about the kid. I don't really think anyone has enough info to make that call yet.
Posted by Mojo Jojo (Member # 256) on :
quote:I'm forced to wonder why fucked-up people's parents never seem to be able to admit that their children are fucked up...?
There is of course absolutely no way this kid isn't fucked up.
"Everyone should want to be in the Federation!" - Eddington.
[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
As Yeats (or was it Keats?) said, "they fuck you up, your mum and dad, they may not mean to, but they do."
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
He IS "fucked up", as you so eloquently put it. Remember who we're talking about, here: someone who agrees with the TALIBAN. The Taliban, as in the most "fucked up" group on the planet?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: The Taliban, as in the most "fucked up" group on the planet?
Come to an anime convention with me.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The guy has been quoted (he talked to reporters) as saying he supported the terrorist attacks on the WTC.
You CAN'T say that, and NOT be 'fucked up.'
Anyway, I'd like to see him spend some jail time in a military prison, in a cell with a few guys from New York.
Give 'eating pork' a new meaning.
Posted by akb1979 (Member # 557) on :
Oooooooooooooh shit!
This guy hasn't just jumped out of the pan and into the fire - he's jumped into a fucking active volcano!!!
What the fuck was he thinking?????
And dare I ask - if he's done this, how many other have too?
Personally I think he should be shot as an example to others.
All in all: that is some nerve-wracking shit!
Oh yeah, this is gonna cause loads of trouble for TPTB.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
I don't think this is one of those "black or white" case where you can just say that he is most definately a traitor or committed treason.
This dude clearly cut all of his ties with the U.S. long ago and therefore, he's a U.S. citizen only by definition of law (because he's born in the state, and have an American passport). But the report sounds like he's been there for a very long time, he study in Middle East, and joined up with their military, so in reality, he's really more "Taliban" then "American".
Also, if he joined up with the Taliban, wouldn't that mean he requested sanctuary with the Afgan government and therefore cutting all ties with his formal statues with U.S.?
So, to accuse him of being a traitor would be unfair because the only thing left that define him as an American is the passport and the fact that he's born in the U.S.
I think the worst the U.S. will probably do on him is to banish him by revoking his citizenship and treat him like any other Taliban POW.
[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Also, if he joined up with the Taliban, wouldn't that mean he requested sanctuary with the Afgan government and therefore cutting all ties with his formal statues with U.S.?
The Taliban government no longer exists. He's therefore fair game.
So, to accuse him of being a traitor would be unfair because the only thing left that define him as an American is the passport and the fact that he's born in the U.S.
And since that's the legal definition of being an American, he is therefore legally classified as a traitor, seeing as he committed treason, and he legally can be executed.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
what a silly little bitch he was
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I belive it all depends on whether or not he has renounced his US citizenship, something he'd actually be required to do if he'd taken Afghan nationality; do we have any information on this?
What do you mean by "fair game" Omey? That as his chosen nationality no longer exists, he could be said to revert to being a US citizen and therefore liable to trial for treason?
I also overheard a conversation the other day between my father (a former Foreign Office diplomat) & grandfather about the disparity between US & Uk lists of British citizens killed in the WTC attacks: seems the rule over US citizens not holding dual nationality means that each has a different definition of what consitutes a Brit.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Why should he - assuming he did renounce his U.S. citizenship - be treated differently then any other Taliban foot soldier?
Of course, if his unit was the equivilant of the S.S., thats a different story.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
That's true, he shouldn't be treated differently.
But we're arguing if he's guilty of treason or not.
If he did joined the Taliban military or request sanctuary from the Taliban government (while they were still the offical governement of Afganistan), AND if he willingly give up his U.S. citizenship, which is probably a reasonable step for him to joined Taliban, then he's no longer U.S. citizen right?
Also, I don't think U.S. allow people with "dual-citizenship" statues, therefore, if he did joined up with Taliban, therefore accquiring an Afganistan citizen statues, then he's no longer U.S. citizen under U.S. regulations.
So he's no longer a U.S. citizen in both cases, therefore he shouldn't be guily of treason.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I'm not sure, but i havent heard anything about him officially renouncing his citizenship.. i wonder if hes going to say 'well, thats what i meant to do'
Thats like walking into a stock exchange and saying 'Well, I meant to buy that stock yesterday' and expecting to get it at the old price.
Just because he no longer considers himself an American doesnt mean he isnt. Thats why we have the treason laws.. so that people here wont go and pick up guns and stand with our enemies..
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't really think it would work for that purpose. I mean, if someone's going to "pick up a gun" and go to war, they obviously aren't all that worried about being killed.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm not saying that he should be treated differently, just that his exact status should be determined. Either he is held to be first and foremost a US citizen, who has therefore committed treason; or, he is a Taliban fighter and should be treated however the rest of them will be. Given there's no war per se, that rules out straight internment without trial as a POW. And with the current plans for the proposed powersharing goverment, it's unlikely that massive trials against people at his level will occur, rather it's the leaders who'll be put on trial.
Well, I say that, but then again, it's the leaders of the Taliban who will likely be called to serve in the powersharing government, so maybe they'll try to appease the people of Afghanistan by using their own soldiers as scapegoats. . .
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It's EXTREMELY difficult to renounce your citizenship. You have to be outside the US to do it, in one of our embassies. We don't have an embassy in Afganistan. I suppose he could have made a stop somewhere on the way, though.
And the US DOES allow dual citizenship. It just discourages it, and it's a total pain in the butt. In fact, most people who renounce their US citizenship are dual citizens because they happened to be born here while their parents were traveling from somewhere else.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution -- often called the "citizenship clause" -- reads as follows:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The original intent of this provision was to guarantee citizenship to the former slaves and their descendants following the Civil War. However, the Supreme Court held in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas (1980) that the "citizenship clause" prevented Congress from revoking a person's US citizenship without evidence of his or her intent to give up said citizenship.
"...although intent to give up citizenship had to be proved, Congress was free to establish the standard of proof. Specifically, it was OK for such intent to be established via a "preponderance of evidence" standard (as in a lawsuit). It was not constitutionally necessary for a loss-of-citizenship case to be treated like a criminal trial, requiring intent to be proved by "clear and convincing" evidence."
The US did not allow dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had US citizenship by birthplace), but a series of Supreme Court rulings in 1967.
quote:The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized in individual cases. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they'll usually say it's OK.
quote:But doesn't serving in a foreign army result in automatic loss of US citizenship?
No. As explained above, essentially nothing causes automatic loss of US citizenship any more. If you join a foreign army, you can lose your US citizenship if you acted with the intent of giving it up. Otherwise, you can still keep it.
Current US law says that foreign military service result in loss of US citizenship if the person served as an officer (commissioned or non-commissioned) or the foreign military force is engaged in hostilities against the US; the service was voluntary; and (most importantly) the person intended to give up his US citizenship.
Current US policy goes further. Unless a dual citizen is serving in a "policy level position" in a foreign government, commits treason against the US (e.g., by fighting the US voluntarily during wartime), or acts in a manner considered totally inconsistent with any possible intent to keep US citizenship, the State Department is unlikely to take any action. Further, the current policy statement on foreign military service recognizes that dual citizens sometimes find themselves legally obligated to participate in the military forces of their other country of citizenship, and can do so in such situations without endangering their US status.
[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
He made lots of stops along the way.. he originally left for Yemen and his last known whereabouts were at his studies in Pakistan.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Erm... What is there in the military, other than commissioned and non-commissioned officers? Warrant officers?
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueElectron: If he did joined the Taliban military or request sanctuary from the Taliban government (while they were still the offical governement of Afganistan)
I think the problem is that the Taliban was NEVER the official gov't of Afghanistan in the eyes of the United States, since we never recognized the Taliban as a ruling body.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Man, no offense, why would a governement need U.S.'s recognition to be "official"?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because we're the ones arresting the guy.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
So, if I were to assume that U.N. recognized Taliban as the official ruling body of Afganistan.
Then what? Does U.S. still maintain it's view that Taliban ain't official?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
...except the UN didn't.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
that's why I use "if I were to assume..."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:What is there in the military, other than commissioned and non-commissioned officers?
They might want to distinguish from a militia or guerilla force.
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueElectron: So, if I were to assume that U.N. recognized Taliban as the official ruling body of Afganistan.
Then what? Does U.S. still maintain it's view that Taliban ain't official?
My guess... probably. The UN isn't a world government (unfortunately or fortunately depending on your view), so what it thinks doesn't really have an effect on any individual nation's actions or policies. I think.
[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
By saying that, do you mean that U.S. can over-powered U.N.'s dicision as it wish?
Now, if that's true, then what the hell is the point of having U.N. around
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
To quote the Simpsons,
Principal Skinner- "Do you kids wanna be like the real U.N., or do you just wanna squabble and waste time?"
From the episode "Das Bus"
In other words, ask someone else, the only relevant knowledge about the UN I have is from the Simpsons.
[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Even if the US never "officially recognized" the Taliban as the Afghan government, they were still the ones in control of the country. I mean, if I could convince some leader somewhere to recognize me as the legitimate government of the US, would it count for jack shit?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Jesus, remind me never to ask a question at this Straight Dope place if this is the response it gets. If merely asking about the process nets you a torrent of abuse and accusations of treachery, then, for what he's done, this American Taliban guy is well and truly fucked. What a twat this Cecil is, even allowing for the fact he has to go through life AS a Cecil.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Eh?
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
who's cecil?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The guy in charge of "The Straight Dope", the site which was linked to earlier, and which Lee was referring to.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
In war there have always been traitors to one side or another. for example during veitnam, a north veitnamese pilot defected and brought his MIG over to the US forces. But it was usually because they didn't agree with what they were fighting for. but I don't understand why this guy would fight for an oppressive government, maybe he was brainwashed by propaganda. I don't know. On a totally unrelated topic, i was wondering: since a V-22 Opsrey can hover in helo mode, could it do the same if the rotors were tilted forward while the craft went into a verical climb?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, Jane Fonda seems to have gotten away with it.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Looks like John wasn't the only Westerner fighting with the Taliban. The Australians had one of their own go, too.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Well, there's no shortage of stupid people.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Nice to see that they are spred evenly over the planet and not just bunched up in one country.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Don't sell yourselves short.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
*chuckle*
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But they are bunched up in one country. Afghanistan.
