Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
From the accounts I've heard, he was in a flooded prison basement (tw's "room") of Taleban and possibly al Queda (tw's "undesireable people"), who were armed, resisting, and conspiring to kill (tw's "just in") US forces.
|
He was in a basement prison and being held by Northern Alliance when his peers started an armed uprising. He was found, still in that basement prison and without weapons. To make a case against him, we must prove he participated in the uprising or at least was in possession of weapons. Neither has been proven nor even stated. From his own testimony, he apparently did not participate in the uprising nor takeup weapons.
John Walker was simply a soldier in a civil war when others in his 'army' attacked the US. We have no reason to believe that John Walker physically supported or participated in any military or terrorist action against the US. That's the rub. Regardless of how we may emotionally feel, emotion is irrelevant. Logic must prevail. Until we have evidence of crimes, John Walker is innocent. That is the problem. Too many people have convicted him only based upon emotion or based upon who his peers were. There is a severe shortage of incriminating facts.
As things stand today, it is likely that John Walker is guilty of no crimes against America. That's the logic of it when the emotion is removed.