|
opinion:
ourview
Lindh should not
be treated differently
With 20-year-old American
Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh returning to the United States
this past week, the issues of citizenship and betrayal are hot
topics of discussion in the United States.
Lindh is being charged in federal court with conspiring with
terrorists to kill American citizens and is being treated as
a traitor to his nation of birth.
But the label of traitor is difficult to throw around, especially
when placed on the shoulders of an educated and idealistic young
man.
There have been many traitors in American history, from Benedict
Arnold during revolutionary times to the more recent story of
FBI agent Robert Hanssen.
Arnold, a colonial general during the Revolutionary War, gained
command of West Point and attempted to surrender it to the British.
Hanssen traded top secret information to communist Russia during
the Cold War for a large quantity of diamonds.
But Lindh's supposedly traitorous story is quite different.
Finding a newfound faith in Islam, Lindh traveled to Afghanistan
where he found what he felt was the purest Islamic state and
he joined the Taliban's fight to uphold this state.
When Lindh moved to Afghanistan and fought in a jihad with the
Taliban he renounced his U.S. citizenship and should be treated
as a member of the Taliban, not as some glorified traitor.
Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are being detained in Afghanistan
and Cuba and Lindh should not be treated any differently due
to his place of birth or his parents' high-priced lawyer.
Many people have problems with the United States and its policies
even among its citizens. White supremacists, anti-abortionists
and others all have very serious problems with American policies
and the countries current way of life.
Some radicals have resorted to the murder of innocent civilians
to further their causes. Lindh left this nation and joined a
war that he felt was just. He chose to fight on the battlefield
in support of a fanatical way of life that he thought was right.
His choice to do so is much less traitorous then it is a skewed
attempt at personal, moral salvation.
A traitor should be defined as someone who made a conscious
decision to try and hurt the United States or the American way
of life. Lindh merely followed his heart toward a way of life
that he felt was right.
Lindh's actions were in no way commendable or right by any means
and he should face the same consequences that the rest of Taliban
and al-Qaida fighters claim. But a traitor he is not.
John Walker Lindh is a young man who became disenfranchised
with the American way of life.
If he chose that freedom as we know it is unjust and wrong,
then he should be afforded only the rights of the men he fought
with and nothing more.
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Search our site
DEPARTMENT
OF
JOURNALISM
ONLINE 49ER
DEPARTMENTS
ADVERTISING
ADMINISTRATION
DAILY
49ER ALUMNI
SUBSCRIPTION
SERVICE
GIVE
FEEDBACK
|
