(Update) Have We Given Justice to Lindh?
By Mona
(As Lindh was taken into custody by the U.S., photo from Reuters.)
.
American citizen John Walker Lindh is now serving 20 years in this heinous prison for what appears to have been the youthful insanity of fighting in favor of one side of a war in Afghanistan — well before that nation’s Taliban had threatened us. It does not appear he ever turned a weapon on an American, and in May of 2001 when he went to fight the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, this country had “…provided $43 million in aid to the Taliban.”
.
Read the last link, and tell me, since this April 2007 story, has anything else come out that would justify this draconian sentence to a dehumanizing nightmare like Colorado’s ADX Supermax? Especially since Lindh’s functional equivalent, Australian David Hicks — after release from Gitmo — got a whopping 9 mos. in a plea agreement worked out between the U.S. and Australia?
*****
Update:
MichaelW at the “neolibertarian” blog A Second Hand Conjecture objects to my questioning whether justice was served in this case, and claims I am defending “Jihad Johnny.” But then he slips in this, my emphasis:
As the saying goes, any modestly competent prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted, so this is certainly not the be-all-end-all of the matter. However, the evidence against Lindh tended to show that he was in Afghanistan to do much more than fight the Northern Alliance.
And Michael lists the whole bill of particulars in the original indictment, failing to note that, as my second link articulates:
The government grossly overstated its case when JWL was first arrested. Consequently, the government dismissed nine out of ten of its original charges.
So Michael, do you know what Colorado ADX is like, and whether Lindh (who was a moron at 20 — as most of us are at that age — when he went to Afghanistan to fight their non-American enemies) deserves that? I ask you that as one human being to another.
Comment by Jackmormon —
December 18, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
Jesus Christ?
Comment by Mona —
December 18, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Uh, no, “Mona” will do.
Comment by Matt Witemyre —
December 18, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
Hey Mona, had you read Anthony Romero’s (ED of the ACLU) In Defense of Our America? Perhaps the most heinous aspect of Lindh’s is that although he is in extreme isolation, he is not allowed to speak Arabic, so basically, he can’t exercise his freedom of religion and pray the Koran.
Comment by the talking dog —
December 18, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
The nub of it, of course, is that Lindh pleaded guilty. Being White from Marin County (as opposed, say, to a Brooklyn born ex-Latin king from Chicago), we couldn’t (politically) “disappear him” to, say, a brig in Charleston without counsel or sunlight or anything… so he was given a coveted place in our criminal justice system.
Lindh could have taken his chances on the fact that there probably wasn’t any admissible evidence against him not tainted by torture; of course, he’d probably have had to vindicate that right in an appellate court (and probably a notoriously conservative appellate court located in Richmond, at that) after he’d have probably been sentenced to life imprisonment (if not the death penalty)… for something or other. Or he even could have risked being disappeared again, either to Charleston, or perhaps, back to Afghanistan or something (GTMO… is just for foreigners), although, once again, he may have figured that it is unlikely that a White kid from Marin could have just been “disappeared” like that… He did face a standard problem for criminal defendants considering plea bargain– the odds of doing worse at trial, and in his case… he may well have had a point.
Given that there are now hundreds of men guilty of absolutely nothing –many dozens of whom have been cleared for release by our own military– still languishing at GTMO, potentially forever (four have died… and counting… and one of those four was scheduled for release!), taking a definite 20 years– 4 or 5 of which have now been served– didn’t seem like that outrageous a bet for Lindh, given the media attention and bloodthirstiness his case generated.
In the annals of the outrages of our criminal justice system, and especially in the context of the outrages of justice committed in our name in the war on terror, Lindh just isn’t a peculiar outrage. Having taken up arms in a foreign conflict, he subjected himself to possibly getting killed or captured; he got captured. Certainly, we have treated those we have captured, including our own citizens, abysmally by our own standards; but compared to many captured by Northern Alliance’s General Dostum, for example (hundreds or more massacred in shipping containers)… as horrible as the super-max is… it could always be worse.
The Arabic restriction is deemed a necessary security precaution; freedom of religion of prisoners sometimes must yield to the security requirements of the institution and arguably the safety of other prisoners (doubtless overkill in this case, but… see above re: could be worse.)
Lindh and Hicks are the poster children for the GWOT because they are White Anglos who “betrayed us” by joining the swarthy man’s religion; both were at best bit players in someone else’s war… but just as we needed comic book heroes to land on carriers in their flight suits, we needed comic book villains in their long beards. Nonetheless, each managed a definite sentence after pleading guilty to something… note that in over 99% of our GWOT detention situations, whether at GTMO or in Afghanistan… the swarthy men get no such privileges.
Comment by Jon H —
December 19, 2007 @ 2:57 am
“The Arabic restriction is deemed a necessary security precaution”
That’s often said when police use a taser on, say, a child, pregnant woman, or person having a seizure. It was a necessary security precaution.
Doesn’t mean it’s true.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 19, 2007 @ 6:52 am
This brings back bad memories. When this was happening I was beginning to realize that my country had gone (temporarily) crazee. Depressing times.
Comment by the talking dog —
December 19, 2007 @ 8:26 am
Doesn’t mean it’s true.
Does the tone of my comment even suggest that I think it’s “true”? I’m telling you what it’s legal justification is… as if “legal” reflects reality anymore.
I should add that as bad as the super-max is, the Fourth Amendment officially applies there. Compare GTMO, Bagram, etc.
Comment by the talking dog —
December 19, 2007 @ 8:45 am
Make that the EIGHTH Amendment (prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment”).
Comment by Andrew Lale —
December 19, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Surely any punishment of any Muslim at any time, guilty or innocent, is a crime? I mean, if it interfered with their prayer routine, that would be heinous, and if they couldn’t go to mosque and pray that would be heinouser, and if they couldn’t shout “weee hate americuurr” on a Friday afternoon that would be heinousest. So I think in future no Muslim should be arrested anywhere in the world for anything. Just in case. Heinous Heinous Heinous.
Comment by Brian —
December 19, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Andrew-please go back to fantasizing about dropping nuclear bombs on Mecca. It’s a more efficient way of reaching “satisfaction” for the truly committed warmonger.
Comment by Mona —
December 19, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Andrew Lale: What did Lindh do that justifies his imprisonment in a hellish place like Colorado ADX for 15-20? I have no quarrel with the Blind Sheik who participated in the ‘93 WTC bombing being convicted and imprisoned. But what did Lindh do to deserve conviction, and especially sentence to one of the most dehumanizing prisons in the U.S., usually reserved for sociopaths who have killed inmates and/or guards at other prisons, who are uncontrollable, and beyond any pious notions of rehabilitation?
Did you read about the “life lived” by inmates there? I myself would rather be dead.
Comment by Mona —
December 19, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
talking dog: Make that the EIGHTH Amendment (prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishmentâ€).
A sentence to Colorado ADX is, in my stroing view, cuel and/or unusual punishment” unless one has killed inmates or guards in other prisons, or absolutely must be kept for reasons of public safety or national security from communicating with others. But not letting Lindh pray in Arabic is sick.
And I agree, the justice system in the U.S. every day yields plea bargains that are essentially coerced by the fear of even worse if an iffy case against an innocent goes to trial. I think the jury should always have the option of sentencing the plea bargain offered, at a minimum.
Comment by ajay —
December 20, 2007 @ 11:03 am
I agree about the horrible conditions he’s being kept in – I don’t think any crime justifies that sort of treatment. But that’s a different argument from “should he be in prison at all?” and you seem to be confusing the two. (Excluded middle).
And I’d have to say “yes, he should”. He was part of a military force that was fighting the US. I frankly don’t care whether he ever actually fired a weapon at a US soldier – doesn’t matter. Unless you can argue (and I don’t think anyone has) that he had no choice but to remain with his AQ group, he’s guilty.
So, yes, Lindh deserves a very long time in prison. Hicks just seems like a nasty racist thug.
Comment by Kurtlane —
December 22, 2007 @ 5:08 am
Why don’t you marry him, Mona.
Boy, are you stupid.
Comment by Jordan Bassior —
December 22, 2007 @ 8:38 am
“Jihad Johnny” joined Al Qaeda after the organization had already carried out terrorist attacks against America (hint: it didn’t start on 9-11) and did not desert after 9-11. In short, he carried arms in battle against his own country. The term for this is “treason,” and in most times and places, the penalty would be death. My only outrage for his fate is that he is still living and breathing, and can expect in 15 or so years to be released and resume his life, when the thousands slain on 9-11 shall enjoy no such comfort.
Comment by Simon —
December 22, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Mona,
I believe the biggest difference between Lindh and Hicks was that Lindh did not have USMC Major Michael “Dan” Mori defending him.
He did many interviews in Australia to raise awareness of Hicks and spoke out harshly against the system he said was rigged to ensure convictions. He never stopped fighting for Hicks.
He went WAY above and beyond the call of duty as a military lawyer, and he probably destroyed his own career in the process. It’s very difficult for a junior officer to ‘rock the boat’ but he stuck to his principles, and he is a hero of mine. Would that we all had such moral courage.
Comment by the talking dog —
December 23, 2007 @ 12:31 am
Dan Mori is a hero of mine as well (I met him a few weeks ago, btw, along with his other counsel, or former counsel anyway, Josh Dratel, and a number of GTMO counsel). Many languishing at GTMO had or have, comparably great counsel, btw.
What set Hicks apart was that he ALSO had the Howard government fighting for its electoral life; Hicks had become a huge albatross to it. Fortunately for Hicks, along came
a spiderDick Cheney, willing to put the fix in to help out said Howard government. And voila… suddenly nine months plus time served seemed to fit the bill. (Too bad for the Howard government that this was only one of its problems, and it was ignominiously given the boot anyway).I tend to agree that there is not a bad case at all that Lindh should consider himself lucky to have a definitive term sentence (as opposed to being in a Padilla or GTMO limbo, if not summarily killed somewhere along the line).
While very few of those held in the GWOT actually did ANYTHING (other than, say, piss off a neighbor enough to get turned in for a bounty), both Lindh and Hicks took up arms for the Taliban. Query whether that properly entitled them to POW status (legally, it did… until the Bush Administration decided to change the rules… which will duly bite our own troops on the ass for years to come; note the recent refusal of a State Dept. official to say our own troops couldn’t be waterboarded.)
Just part of the equation… of the many outrages and injustices done by the Bush Administration in prosecuting our
Crusadecounter-jihad, I must say… I’ve never considered Lindh to be a particularly significant outrage.