Can John Walker Lindh get a fair trial? Should we care if he doesn’t? Known in the media as the “American Taliban,” Mr. Lindh left his Islamic studies in Pakistan last year to join the Taliban in Afghanistan. He stayed with them after the events of September 11th and was captured by Northern Alliance troops. He is now imprisoned in Virginia and faces a variety of federal charges, some of which carry a life sentence.
Convicting John Lindh won’t be a slam-dunk. Yes, he was a gun-toting Taliban, but that’s not against the law. Stories emerging from the trial preparation indicate Mr. Lindh may not have taken hostile action against American soldiers. He may have shot at – or even killed – soldiers with the Northern Alliance, but there is no formal treaty between American and Northern Alliance forces, nor was there a formal declaration of war by the United States against the Taliban government. Mr. Lindh was present at Mazar-i- Sharif when prisoners rebelled and a CIA officer was killed, but testimony from those present seems to indicate Mr. Lindh was not a participant in the uprising.
Of course, getting a clear picture of events has not been easy. Citing national security, the government has granted Mr. Lindh’s attorneys only limited access to CIA personnel who witnessed the uprising. Similar restrictions have been placed on contacts between Mr. Lindh’s lawyers and Taliban witnesses held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Mr. Lindh did make a confession while he was still in the Middle East, but that confession was made under extraordinary circumstances, when Mr. Lindh had been deprived of adequate food, water, clothing, sleep and medical attention. At the time, Mr. Lindh’s parents had retained an attorney in the U.S. and that attorney was trying to reach Mr. Lindh, but was blocked by the military.
There are two possible outcomes – conviction or no conviction. If John Lindh is convicted, in part based on a forced confession, based on his lawyers working with their hands tied – what does it mean? Sure, the verdict will be roundly cheered by the Fox Network, but if a conviction based on such an uneven playing field is allowed to stand, the American justice system will have been allowed to sink to a level not unlike that found in the former Soviet Union – not that the Supreme Court hasn’t brought us close already. We may not like John Lindh, we may not agree with John Lindh, but if we let his rights be washed away, our rights go with them.
On the other hand, if John Lindh goes free, particularly on a technicality, then what? If you think people were upset over the OJ verdict, just wait.
Which leads to a larger question: Why do people get so angry over John Walker Lindh? Running away to join the Taliban was stupid and rash and many people think he was wrong and morally reprehensible, but stupid, rash, wrong and morally reprehensible are not crimes. If they were, the prisons would be even more full than they are today.
Last week, authorities discovered one of the Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay – Yaser Esam Hamdi – was born in Louisiana and may be an American citizen. A federal judge in New Jersey has ordered Mr. Hamdi must be furnished a lawyer. Mr. Hamdi’s picture, I’m sure, will not be on the cover of Newsweek. His Taliban status will not inspire the outrage Mr. Lindh’s did.
Why? Because John Lindh is a European-American, a white kid raised as a Catholic outside DC and San Francisco. John Lindh turned his back on his upper middle class American roots and chose something else.
Meanwhile, hundreds of Middle Eastern men, who look more like Mr. Hamdi than Mr. Lindh, sit in jail cells; no lawyers, no family visits, no press – no charges. They didn’t choose to be something besides white and privileged, they were born that way. As badly as the judicial deck may be stacked against John Lindh, it’s even worse for them.
The war on terror is less than a year old; most of the casualties seem to be on the home front.
American Taliban
Can John Walker Lindh get a fair trial? Should we care if he doesn’t? Known in the media as the “American Taliban,” Mr. Lindh left his Islamic studies in Pakistan last year to join the Taliban in Afghanistan. He stayed with them after the events of September 11th and was captured by Northern Alliance troops. He is now imprisoned in Virginia and faces a variety of federal charges, some of which carry a life sentence.
Convicting John Lindh won’t be a slam-dunk. Yes, he was a gun-toting Taliban, but that’s not against the law. Stories emerging from the trial preparation indicate Mr. Lindh may not have taken hostile action against American soldiers. He may have shot at – or even killed – soldiers with the Northern Alliance, but there is no formal treaty between American and Northern Alliance forces, nor was there a formal declaration of war by the United States against the Taliban government. Mr. Lindh was present at Mazar-i- Sharif when prisoners rebelled and a CIA officer was killed, but testimony from those present seems to indicate Mr. Lindh was not a participant in the uprising.
Of course, getting a clear picture of events has not been easy. Citing national security, the government has granted Mr. Lindh’s attorneys only limited access to CIA personnel who witnessed the uprising. Similar restrictions have been placed on contacts between Mr. Lindh’s lawyers and Taliban witnesses held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Mr. Lindh did make a confession while he was still in the Middle East, but that confession was made under extraordinary circumstances, when Mr. Lindh had been deprived of adequate food, water, clothing, sleep and medical attention. At the time, Mr. Lindh’s parents had retained an attorney in the U.S. and that attorney was trying to reach Mr. Lindh, but was blocked by the military.
There are two possible outcomes – conviction or no conviction. If John Lindh is convicted, in part based on a forced confession, based on his lawyers working with their hands tied – what does it mean? Sure, the verdict will be roundly cheered by the Fox Network, but if a conviction based on such an uneven playing field is allowed to stand, the American justice system will have been allowed to sink to a level not unlike that found in the former Soviet Union – not that the Supreme Court hasn’t brought us close already. We may not like John Lindh, we may not agree with John Lindh, but if we let his rights be washed away, our rights go with them.
On the other hand, if John Lindh goes free, particularly on a technicality, then what? If you think people were upset over the OJ verdict, just wait.
Which leads to a larger question: Why do people get so angry over John Walker Lindh? Running away to join the Taliban was stupid and rash and many people think he was wrong and morally reprehensible, but stupid, rash, wrong and morally reprehensible are not crimes. If they were, the prisons would be even more full than they are today.
Last week, authorities discovered one of the Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay – Yaser Esam Hamdi – was born in Louisiana and may be an American citizen. A federal judge in New Jersey has ordered Mr. Hamdi must be furnished a lawyer. Mr. Hamdi’s picture, I’m sure, will not be on the cover of Newsweek. His Taliban status will not inspire the outrage Mr. Lindh’s did.
Why? Because John Lindh is a European-American, a white kid raised as a Catholic outside DC and San Francisco. John Lindh turned his back on his upper middle class American roots and chose something else.
Meanwhile, hundreds of Middle Eastern men, who look more like Mr. Hamdi than Mr. Lindh, sit in jail cells; no lawyers, no family visits, no press – no charges. They didn’t choose to be something besides white and privileged, they were born that way. As badly as the judicial deck may be stacked against John Lindh, it’s even worse for them.
The war on terror is less than a year old; most of the casualties seem to be on the home front.
(C) Mark Floegel, 2002