Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
Do you also believe Bush and Clinton should be charged with treason for giving money to the Taliban? The money was more help to them than this one little guy. Bush gave them money only months before 9/11, that money may have been used to finance the 9/11 attack. Using your logic, wouldn't Bush also need to be charged with treason?
I'm not saying that Clinton and Bush should be, I'm just asking about your thinking process on this issue.
|
So you want to know my thought process about the whole issue?
My thought process is based on constitutional law. Do I really have to quote Article III Section 3 again?
Using my logic neither Clinton nor Bush (though I wish I could hang Clinton with it) could be charged with treason.
Neither levied war against the US -- nor did either adhear to or give comfort or aid to enemies -- by Pathfinder's admission, neither were enemies when aid was provided.
Using Pathfinder's findlaw article...
"8. In or about July 2001 to November 2001, during the commission of a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, namely, Supplying Services to the Taliban as
charged in Count Nine of the Indictment, the defendant knowingly carried with him an AKM rifle and two grenades."
If is was July or August, Pathfinder's comments may have some merrit... but I doubt Lindh was in Mazar-e-Sharif since July, August, or early September waiting for US troops to turn the place into a POW camp.
Regardless -- in mid-November, he was discovered fighting US forces alongside the Taliban/Al Qaeda -- key words "fighting alongside" and "against US forces".