Most reports originally described John Walker as a Taliban foot soldier.  What will your reaction be if it turns out he was involved in terrorism?

As I have made clear on several radio shows, I sympathize with Walker only if he served as simply a foot soldier.  If evidence comes out that he was a terrorist, or that he committed atrocities against civilians, my sympathies for him end. In my San Francisco Chronicle/Philadelphia Inquirer column "In Defense of John Walker" I referred to him only as a foot soldier, which is what the information at the time indicated.

return to top >>

You wrote "Those who are willing to sacrifice for what they believe in deserve respect,  even if what they believe in is foolish."  This statement has been singled out and blasted in several newspapers, numerous radio shows, and on many internet sites.  "Doesn't the same thing could apply," your critics have written, "to a Nazi SS officer, an abortion clinic bomber, or even to bin Laden himself?"

My critics have a point--my statement was far too broad, and I left myself open to this criticism.  I do not have sympathy for "an Nazi SS officer, an abortion clinic bomber, or even to bin Laden himself" because their acts are atrocities against defenseless civilians.  Also, generally all of them are old enough to know better.  However, if a 19 German kid was told that fighting in the German army (not the SS--which acted against civilians) during WWII was the noble and right thing to do, and he did it, I do have a certain sympathy for the sacrifices he made, even though it was for an abominable cause.  The same can be said, as I noted in the original version of "In Defense of John Walker," for young soldiers who fought for the traitorous Confederacy during the Civil War.

return to top >>

What if Walker, instead of being a white, middle-class kid from wealthy Marin County, had instead been a poor black kid from Oakland? Would he still have as many defenders?  Would you still defend him?

I think he would probably have less defenders, because  I believe these critics are correct in saying that our society, in general, identifies and sympathizes more with people who are white and middle class.  However, were Walker a poor black kid from Oakland, I would have defended him just the same.

return to top >>

Many other critics have pointed out that while you cite Walker's youth as a mitigating factor, most of those Americans who fought in WWII, Vietnam, or Afghanistan today are no older than Walker. What about them?

They clearly made better choices than John Walker did, and they should be honored and respected for their sacrifices.  They were young and naive but still managed to make the right decision.  My grandfather, a sixteen year-old who lied about his age so he could enlist in World War I (and who was wounded and received the Purple Heart for his service in the decisive Battle of the Argonne Forest) made a better decision. John Walker didn't.

return to top >>

Walker took up arms against America.  Why shouldn't he be tried for treason and shot?

Walker traveled to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban at a time when nobody could have imagined that the US would end up fighting a war in Afghanistan.  How many readers could tell us, honestly, that they believed back in the spring (when Walker went to Afghanistan) that we'd be fighting a war there?  Nobody.

return to top >>

But what if American was at war with the Taliban and then Walker went to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban?  Would you consider him a traitor then?

Yes.

return to top >>

But once America entered the war, shouldn't Walker have refused to fight against his own country?

Walker could not simply have told his commanders "Sorry--gotta go now."  He would have been shot as a deserter. We know what the Taliban did to deserters.  Walker's only hope of survival was to stay with them and try to escape at an opportune time, which may have been what he did.

return to top >>

Walker joined the Taliban, one of the most evil regimes in modern history.  Even if the US never got involved in Afghanistan, isn't this enough to condemn Walker?

Walker certainly bears responsibility for supporting such a vile regime, but I would cite three mitigating circumstances:

1) In Pakistan, where Walker was studying Islam, the Taliban were very well thought of.  The Pakistanis who went into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban were cheered as heroes in the Pashtun villages, and were often given a hero's sendoff.  No doubt Walker was told that the Taliban were legendary, holy warriors who had set up the world's first morally pure Islamic state based on the Koran.  If millions of Pakistanis could mistakenly believe that the Taliban were a force for good, it would seem plausible enough that a naive young American might.

2) In Afghanistan, the Taliban were originally welcomed into power by most of the population.  Tired of years of Northern Alliance/Mujahedin civil war, violence, and rape, the Afghan people believed that the Taliban would bring peace,  stability, and a certain amount of justice to their country.  Obviously they were very wrong, but if the Afghan people themselves could have been fooled into supporting the Taliban, again, it seems easy enough to believe that a naive young American could.

3) For over a decade the US supported the Afghan Mujahedin/Northern Alliance and gave them billions in aid.  Much of the Mujahedin were radical Muslim fundamentalists, too.  They were known for throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women or for skinning school teachers alive for the "crime" of teaching young girls to read.  Yet they were our allies, and many Americans armed them, trained them, and some even fought with them side by side.  None of those involved in this have ever been questioned or called to account for their actions in support of radical Muslim fundamentalism--why is only John Walker blamed?  

return to top >>

Walker has made anti-American statements at various times.  Granted, that when he joined the Taliban he never could have imagined that he'd fight the United States, but he had to have known that the Taliban had an anti-American world view.  Why should we excuse him for joining a group known to be anti-American?

If one travels outside the United States to anywhere except England, Israel, or maybe Luxembourg, one is going to be exposed to a lot of anti-Americanism.  I saw a tremendous amount of it when I traveled the world at age 19, and I doubt if it is any different today.  It would not surprise me at all that the Walker bought into it, and I don't see that as particularly damning.

return to top >>

What about 18 year-olds who commit crimes?  Or gang members?  We don't use their youth as an excuse to justify their actions. Shouldn't John Walker be punished, just as they are?

I was asked this by an attorney on CNN, and again, we need to make a distinction between committing a crime and fighting in a an army.  Fighting in an army is not a crime.

return to top >>

Was Walker "brainwashed," as his mother claims?  If so, does this excuse his actions?

I know little about "brainwashing" in the psychological sense. Internationally recognized brainwashing expert  Steve Hassan, a former cult member, claims that Walker was brainwashed.  In his statement "John Walker: American Indoctrinated with Cult Mind Control Techniques by Taliban" Hassan, the  director of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center in Somerville, Massachusetts, says that Walker was a victim of cult-like techniques.  Readers can see his statement here and judge for themselves. While I think what Hassan says sounds plausible,  I don't know enough about brainwashing, cults, etc., to offer an informed opinion.

return to top >>

Is Walker simply a right-wing religious nut--sort of a radical American Christian fundamentalist with an Muslim twist?

Andrew Sullivan, a senior editor of the New Republic, advanced this theory. Sullivan, who was none too kind to me in his daily internet column (see "Glenn On-Line" page), may well have the most logical explanation for Walker's bizarre behavior.  

return to top >>

If Sullivan is right, do you still have respect for Walker?

Again, as long as he is only fighting in an army, and not part of a terrorist group, I'd give Walker some credit for being willing to put his life on the line for his religious beliefs, not matter how unreasonable they may be.

return to top >>

Doesn't it offend you that Walker may well end up on talk shows like Oprah and write a book about his life?  Does someone like him deserve to be allowed to do that?

My copy of the constitution doesn't say anything about talk shows and book deals.  There are plenty of immoral and/or idiotic people in America who become famous because of their unsavory actions, and yes, they do get to go on talk shows, write books, etc., etc.  I don't like it, but I accept it as one of the costs of living in a free society.  John Walker is entitled to be judged based upon the law and the constitution, not by the possibility that his bad decisions may, in the end, make him something of a celebrity.

return to top >>