John Walker Lindh, also dubbed the “American Taliban”, was released recently from the Terre Haute Indiana facility. His release comes early, short of his 20 year sentence for “good behavior”. Lindh was a former Islamic fighter and enemy combatant, and he was captured with other Taliban members in 2001, a short time after the 9/11 attack. This whole scenario illustrates the need to recognize the difference between terrorists and common criminals. Our criminal justice system exists for acts of criminality, not for militant Islamists that wage war against the United States. This gross miscalculation by the federal government, endangers Americans on our soil as it allows terrorists to take advantage of many of the legal loopholes that exist within the system. There is no reason why we should be trying terrorists of this nature in criminal court. These guys are not knocking off convenience stores, they are engaging in war with the American way of life. A terrorist operates with a different intent, and the tactics are crude but methodical. In this case, Lindh was actually with the Taliban and was actively fighting against the US. Individuals like Lindh, should be put before a military court, and they need not be coddled. If you are going to charge an American terrorist like Lindh with a crime, try sedition or treason for physically taking up arms against his own country. There has been a debate over whether we should try terrorists before a military court rather than criminal courts. Why is there any debate? This should be a given. Terrorists are not common criminals, and they should not be treated as such.
|