John Walker Lindh

[bossi]

Treason - something we don't talk about too much.
It was significant that even after Canada abolished the death penalty, treason remained punishable by death (for a little while, until this loophole was discovered and duly closed by the oh-so-politically-correct-modernists ...).

In any event, I've always been fascinated with the origin of the word "quisling", and how a traitor could be so reviled that his name would become a word in the dictionary.

To start the ball rolling, here's a view from the US:

December 19, 2001, The Washington Times
Walker's day of judgement
Alan W. Dowd

    Some 3,000 Taliban and al Qaeda troops have been taken prisoner. Most are being held in makeshift POW camps near Mazar-e-Sharif or Kandahar, but one POW is receiving special treatment. His name is Suleyman al-Faris. But you may know him as John Walker, the American Taliban. While the Pentagon tries to figure out what to do with him and U.S. forces fight against his co-combatants, al-Faris is safe and warm aboard the USS Peleliu. His capture has ignited a legal brush fire that could end in a full-blown trial in the United States, but if we keep in mind who al-Faris is â ” not who Walker was â ” a stateside circus trial can be avoided.
     Legal analysts have criticized the Pentagon for holding al-Faris incommunicado and depriving him of his right to counsel. Remarkably, some have argued that al-Faris should have been read his Miranda rights â ” in the middle of a war zone, no less. But with a global war on terror underway, it's fair to assume that U.S. Marines and special forces have enough to worry about without informing each POW that he has the right to remain silent.
     Advocates of al-Faris' return to the United States misunderstand not only when this war began, but how it must be waged and who al-Faris is. The carnage of September 11 was just an exclamation point to decades of terror â ” most of which went unpunished, and all of which led inexorably to the war in Afghanistan. As British historian Niall Fergusson observes, "Since 1968, there have been 500 hijackings around the world and more than 4,000 recorded terrorist bombings." Men like al-Faris imprisoned American civilians in Tehran, kidnapped American emissaries in the Middle East, and bombed American servicemen in Berlin and Beirut.
     By 1993, al-Faris' fellow jihadists threw their first blows at the World Trade Center, killing six Americans and injuring 1,000. Later that year, Osama bin Laden, first made news by taking credit for the ambush in Mogadishu, which claimed 17 U.S. soldiers. In 1998, bin Laden's network bombed a pair of American embassies in East Africa, murdering 224 civilians and injuring more than 5,000. And in October of 2000, bin Laden's men used a rubber boat to blast a hole in the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors.
     Each act of terror won more converts to bin Laden's radical strain of Islam, and al-Faris was one of thousands who willingly joined up. In a search for what he called the purest form of Islam, al-Faris effectively renounced his citizenship and traded his birthright for a bayonet. He cast his lot with Afghanistan's Taliban tyrants, with the mass-murderers of September 11, with men who cheer when innocents are incinerated and cities are maimed.
     He trained with al Qaeda and met with bin Laden. It's important to note that he fought alongside America's enemies after September 11. He was silent as they plotted to murder the men who showed him mercy on the bloody battlefields between Mazar and Kunduz. And as Mike Spann scoured the POW camps for intelligence, al-Faris was the bait for a Taliban trap.
     Given those facts, it doesn't take an FBI profiler to figure out that al-Faris was not swept away by events. He played an active part in making war against the United States and its allies. And like his suicidal brethren who hatched September 11, his long-term plans probably included a return trip to America, where he could use our freedoms and his apostate citizenship against us.
     As a result, the Pentagon is under no obligation to expedite al-Faris' transfer back to the country he turned against. For that matter, the Department of Defense is under no obligation to transfer him at all. Al-Faris made a choice to disavow his native land and, worse than that, to fight against it. It may have been misguided and short-sighted, but it was his choice, and now he must bear the consequences.
     If, as the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words, then al-Faris' actions make it clear that he may be an American by birth, but he is certainly not an American now. Nor is he a common criminal. Like all followers of bin Laden, al-Faris is a motivated and tenacious military adversary bent on destroying America. And he must be treated as such, whether he goes by al-Faris or Walker.
     In a very real sense, Walker has sentenced himself. Contrary to the media's melodramatics, he is not a man without a country. In fact, his country â ” the one he chose to fight for â ” is now occupied by the United States and its allies. And the government he chose to serve is now a relic of history. At best, he is an enemy prisoner of war. At worst, he is a traitor. Either way, we should respect his wishes and allow him to live out the rest of his life in Afghanistan â ” in a military prison.


Alan W. Dowd is a freelance writer specializing on national security and foreign affairs.
- 30 -

 

[bossi]

Okay - a fair trial (even for suspected traitors) is a hallmark of a civilised society, but this sounds ridiculous already ... (it‘s so tempting just to say "march in the guilty bastard" ... ?)


December 19, 2001, The New York Times
THE AMERICAN PRISONER
Defending, and Recasting, an Unloved Client
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 18 — When the lawyer for John Walker Lindh, the American captured with the Taliban, talks about his client, he sidesteps the hyperventilated debate that has led people to call Mr. Walker a Benedict Arnold and a rat.

The lawyer, James J. Brosnahan, says that in time there will be a different view of the young man who climbed out of a sooty prison basement in Mazar-i-Sharif into plenty of legal trouble.

"We know a lot about John," Mr. Brosnahan, one of San Francisco‘s best known defense lawyers, said in a brief interview today, "and, as we go along, I think the American people will know him well and will understand him well."

That approach — trying to win sympathy while promising that a fuller story will explain events many Americans find unpalatable — has been the mark of Mr. Brosnahan‘s legal and public relations strategy for one of the most difficult cases to confront a defense lawyer in years.

Mr. Brosnahan is using all the tools available to him, other defense lawyers say, to try to fend off the filing of a treason charge, with its potential for the death penalty. Stanley S. Arkin, a New York defense lawyer, said Mr. Brosnahan was "running a campaign — like an election campaign — as to why this is not a treason case."

Mr. Brosnahan has to persuade an audience of just one, President Bush, who will probably make the final decision about how the government handles the case. Supporters of Mr. Walker, who uses his mother‘s maiden name, were encouraged when Mr. Bush called him "this poor fellow" during a television interview, but the administration has treated him as a prisoner of war, at first keeping him locked in a shipping container, and blocking any contact with his parents or Mr. Brosnahan.

The strategy by Mr. Brosnahan, 67, a veteran of many big cases, has included regular e-mailings to major news organizations that feature carefully constructed quotations from the parents of the 20-year-old Mr. Walker. The latest came today, expressing disappointment that military officials had not allowed Mr. Walker to receive a letter from his parents and asking Americans to "withhold judgment until we know what all the facts are."

After Mr. Walker fell into American hands 18 days ago, Mr. Brosnahan tried to counter the public‘s disgust. One approach he took was to supply news outlets with family photographs of Mr. Walker as a child.

Though it is not clear whether Mr. Brosnahan approved, Frank Lindh, Mr. Walker‘s father, told Larry King on CNN that his son was "not much more than a boy," and a "very sweet one" at that. His mother, Marilyn Walker, told Newsweek that John "must have been brainwashed."

Since those interviews, the parents have been fairly quiet — perhaps, some lawyers suggested, because they seemed to embody the stereotype of parental indulgence in comfortable Marin County that Mr. Brosnahan would see as bad for the image he is trying to build.

In recent days, Mr. Walker has been transferred from Afghanistan to a ship in the Arabian Sea, and it appeared officials were preparing to bring him back to the United States.

But it remains unclear whether he will face charges in a civilian court or in a court-martial proceeding. "We‘re still considering what to do with him," Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, said today in Washington.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said it was not clear what charges, if any, would be brought. "The facts are still being gathered," Mr. Fleischer said.

At the start of any big case, Mr. Arkin said, lawyers must, for the benefit of their clients, engage in both public efforts, like handling the media, and those behind the scenes, like trying to cajole prosecutors to limit the charges.

Mr. Brosnahan, who was named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America a few years ago by The National Law Journal, indicated that his behind-the-scenes efforts were under way.

Though he released a statement on Monday rebuking the government for keeping him in the dark, Mr. Brosnahan suggested today that things had changed and that the government was being more responsive to his efforts to open communications. "I think," he said, "you would expect a lawyer to do whatever he could to talk to anybody he could to put forth the position of reason."

Some lawyers said Mr. Brosnahan‘s effort to create empathy for Mr. Walker carried risks.

"I think it is hurting his client," said Joseph DiGenova, a Washington defense lawyer. "The notion that you can create general or legal sympathy for this guy is idiotic."

Mr. DiGenova called it unrealistic to think that the public could be persuaded to take Mr. Walker‘s side. Instead, he said, Mr. Brosnahan should focus on seeking leniency from the government.

But Martin R. Pollner, a New York lawyer at Loeb & Loeb, said the interviews and the family photographs have helped blunt negative views of Mr. Walker and "helped bring some sympathy to him."

But so little is known about Mr. Walker‘s case that it may be difficult for Mr. Brosnahan to shape his defense. If, for example, Mr. Walker took part in the prison rebellion that resulted in the death of a Central Intelligence Agency officer, Johnny Micheal Spann, that would complicate Mr. Brosnahan‘s task.

Sometimes, Mr. Pollner said, a major public relations coup could be useful. He represented Denise Rich, the wife of the fugitive financier Marc Rich, who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. Mr. Pollner said an interview he arranged for Ms. Rich with Barbara Walters helped to humanize his client.

Several public relations experts said they doubted Mr. Brosnahan could succeed by portraying Mr. Walker as a gentle soul who may have been brainwashed.

"The lawyer has got to get psychiatrists in there, not merely for the legal case but for the image case," said Dan Klores, a consultant who has handled media relations in several high-profile cases.

"The psychiatrist will hopefully conclude, `yes, he suffers from something,‘ " said Mr. Klores, who like several of those interviewed said they would not assist Mr. Walker.

A spokeswoman for the law firm where Mr. Brosnahan is a senior partner, Morrison & Foerster, said that Mr. Brosnahan had not consulted a public relations adviser. But the firm has its own marketing manager, who is helping to send out releases about the case.

Albert J. Krieger, a Miami lawyer who has represented defendants like the mob boss John Gotti, agreed that a psychiatric defense would be an option. The parents might have difficulty accepting that, he said, but a lawyer might have to insist.

" `This is how I am going to approach this case,‘ " Mr. Krieger said he would tell Mr. Walker‘s family if he represented them, " `and if you don‘t like it, get yourself another lawyer.‘ "

The best-known brainwashing defense occurred in the 1976 bank robbery trial of Patricia Hearst, the heiress kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army. Ms. Hearst argued that she had been brainwashed after being imprisoned in a closet for 57 days where she was raped and threatened.

Ms. Hearst was convicted. But Albert Johnson, a Boston lawyer who represented Ms. Hearst along with F. Lee Bailey, called Ms. Hearst‘s brainwashing defense far stronger than any Mr. Walker might make.

Speaking to reporters when he emerged from the prison basement after days without food or sleep, Mr. Walker described his actions as voluntary. He said "my heart became attached" to the Taliban. When pressed, he said he supported the Sept. 11 attacks.

Lawyers who know Mr. Brosnahan say he is well prepared for the spotlight. He has represented elected officials like a former San Francisco mayor, Joseph Alioto, and political activists from places like the Philippines and Northern Ireland.

In Washington, some lawyers recalled Mr. Brosnahan best as a member of the staff of Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel investigating the Iran-contra affair. Many Republicans also remembered his 1986 testimony opposing William H. Rehnquist‘s nomination for chief justice of the United States.

Mr. Brosnahan testified that in 1962 he had seen Mr. Rehnquist at an Arizona polling place when other Republican poll watchers harassed black and Hispanic voters.

Mr. Rehnquist was confirmed. But Mr. Brosnahan was not forgotten. That, some Republican lawyers said, may explain why he has had trouble getting phone calls to the Defense and Justice Departments returned.

Mr. Brosnahan said the focus ought not to be on him, but on his client — a client, he said, who had been held for 18 days without a chance to speak to his lawyer, "which is the longest time I have ever heard of in any country."

Mr. Brosnahan was, once again, arguing Mr. Walker‘s case wherever he could.
- 30 -

 

[Mark Schiller]

Speaking to reporters when he emerged from the prison basement after days without food or sleep, Mr. Walker described his actions as voluntary. He said "my heart became attached" to the Taliban. When pressed, he said he supported the Sept. 11 attacks.

Sorry...anyone who has no pity for the suffering of his own countryman and would condone this type of action against innocent people does not deserve anyones pity. Lawyers that defend people like this are those who give lawyers a bad name. He is a self admitted member of the al Qaeda and should suffer the same fate as his Compatriots. If he indeed ever did read the Koran he obviously missed the meaning a whole bunch.

 

[Mark Schiller]

Wednesday, Dec. 05, 2001
John Walker, the "American Taliban" whose furry, burned visage has been plastered across our television screens since his capture last week, is becoming something of a celebrity in the U.S. That‘s not to say Walker should expect a ticker-tape parade if and when he manages to make it back to U.S. soil — this celebrity is more like the kind that sends mob informants hurtling into the shadows of the Witness Protection Program.

It‘s easy to understand the rage Walker inspires. At a moment when America is experiencing a rare and very real moment of national unity, this guy shows up fighting for the enemy — the same enemy accused of harboring the mastermind of the most horrible terrorist attack in American history.

We can‘t (and shouldn‘t) forget that. But even in the midst of our pain and frustration, we need to debate Walker‘s case, not simply pass judgment. There‘s a difference between engaging in a discussion about the ignorance of youth, personal responsibility and the power of cult figures and simply waving a white flag to the Taliban. We reserve judgment because we are Americans — other countries hang first and ask questions later.

I am sure victims families from Sept 11 2001 would rather envoke the later.

Try him for treason, scream the pundits. Hang him! Rip his limbs from his body! While the charge sounds suitably dramatic, legally, treason is a pretty tricky crime to prove (and is punishable by death). Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution reads, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Walker may well have fulfilled those requirements, but there‘s more. A defendant may be convicted only "on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Will two fellow fighters come forward to offer witness accounts of Walker‘s crime? Will an unrepentant Walker tell his own story to a judge and jury?

It‘s conceivable that he‘ll never have to. In the upper echelons of Washington, D.C., where one might expect the most heated of responses to the Walker case, there is a perceptible push to withhold a verdict. This week, President Bush referred to Walker as "this poor fellow," and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told reporters his fate would be decided "in good time."

Oh well it‘s there problem now and there are enough bleeding hearts in the US that will make sure he gets a pat on the head and told not to do it again...bad, bad little Taliban!!!!

 

[rceme_rat]

"Lawyers that defend people like this are those who give lawyers a bad name."


I disagree. These are the lawyers of whom you should be most proud. Their conduct is the hallmark of the profession. Unfortunately, too many people would like to tar the lawyer with the same brush as the client.

It is easy to be the lawyer who advocates the popular position or defends the local hero. It is far more difficult to represent someone who is reviled. It is an unpleasant but essential task which, if not carried out diligently, leads to the decline of the justice system and the society it represents. If we don‘t allow the reviled accused the right to full answer and defence for the most horrific crimes, why would we bother for those accused of lesser crimes? Perhaps you might be more concerned when the lynch mob is at your own door.

I‘ve always been both amused and dismayed by the repeated surveys that show most people have a general lack of respect for lawyers as a class, but rate their own lawyer quite highly.

 

[Mark Schiller]

Good point but I did not say all lawyers were of a bad class.

The lawyers that defended OJ Simpson did a good job. Everyone said he was guilty the lawyers proved there was reasonable doubt. Only three people know the truth to that tragic story and unfortunately two of them are dead.

Walker has confessed, in his own words, that he was with the Taliban and fought with them against his own country. Will the US bring him to trail, maybe. Will they hang him, I doubt it.
As for the lawyer representing Walker.

Some lawyers said Mr. Brosnahan‘s effort to create empathy for Mr. Walker carried risks.

"I think it is hurting his client," said Joseph DiGenova, a Washington defense lawyer. "The notion that you can create general or legal sympathy for this guy is idiotic."

Mr. DiGenova called it unrealistic to think that the public could be persuaded to take Mr. Walker‘s side. Instead, he said, Mr. Brosnahan should focus on seeking leniency from the government.

Seems he does not have much respect from his own class either.

Leniency is the key here.

The President has the final say and as much as a hawk Bush is I can‘t see him making Walker a scapegoat for the Sept/11 tragedy and taking away the focus from bin Laden. He may see some prison time and maybe there he might re-discover the true meaning of Islam. I say let his own words be his defense.

 

[Marauder]

One Beretta service pistol. One 9mm round. One shovel. A 3‘x7‘x6‘ hole in the ground somewhere in the ‘Stan. Cheap, easy, effective. No fanfare, no pandering, no flowery oration.
What‘s the problem here?

 

[towhey]

Originally posted by Marauder:
[qb]One Beretta service pistol. One 9mm round. One shovel. A 3‘x7‘x6‘ hole in the ground somewhere in the ‘Stan. Cheap, easy, effective. No fanfare, no pandering, no flowery oration.
What‘s the problem here?[/qb]

I guess the problem, as I see it, is that such a solution is unprofessional, unethical, and unsoldierly. He‘s a POW and, therefore, cannot be summarily executed.

 

[enfield]

Originally posted by Marauder:
[qb]One Beretta service pistol. One 9mm round. One shovel. A 3‘x7‘x6‘ hole in the ground somewhere in the ‘Stan. Cheap, easy, effective. No fanfare, no pandering, no flowery oration.
What‘s the problem here?[/qb]

"the Stan"??!! WTF?

Funny.. when the SS and Hitler Youth summarily executed our guys in 1944 it was considered bad. But it‘s ok for us now?

Bring him home, execute him or send him to jail for a long time, whatever. Makes no difference, he‘s a almost a non-entity in this war, .

 

[winchable]

He's asking for an appeal to his 20 year sentence, it seems another american fighting for the Taliban was released and not charged.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6124543/

I think he's a buffoon for his interpretation of the religion and how he went about practicing it.(As if he jumped on because it seemed cool)
I don't particularly care what comes of him, but the other case must set some kind of precedence?

Edit-This is my thousandth post...release the doves and let ths streamers fly.

 

[Cloud Cover]

The individual circumstances of these two cases obviously are going to produce different outcomes, but I don't think they are inconsistent in law. Cases that can be distinguished on the facts usually produce dissimilar outcomes. Even more importantly, Lindh settled his case, and settlements are always final and binding once approved by a court. In US federal penal law, in order to void a settlement on appeal, the onus is on the appellant to show, on a balance of probabilities,  there has been deception or mistake of fact.  That is a very high hurdle to cross, because the evidence will be tested stringently by the court. The standard of the evidence rises well above circumstantial, it must go to the heart of the appeal, and must be "clear and convincing." Can JWL do that? I remain sceptical ...

 

[Lt Michael Philips]

We have Canadian  version of John Walker Lindh, here is the story: http://army.ca/forums/threads/21444.0.html

 

[CougarKing]

Great...they had to open up this can of worms again... :

http://www.foxnews.com/po...taliban-ask-bush-freedom/

Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty in 2002 to serving in the Taliban army, which violated U.S. economic sanctions against Afghanistan at that time.

At a news conference in San Francisco, Lindh's mother Marilyn Walker asked the president to show mercy during the Christmas season by commuting her son's sentence.

"John made a mistake in joining the Taliban," she said...

 

[Niteshade]

The link does not appear to be working...

Nites

 

[CougarKing]

My mistake...here is the link fixed:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/12/17/american-taliban-ask-bush-freedom/

It should work this time. Hopefully.

 

[Teflon]

"John made a mistake in joining the Taliban," she said...

You think?!

Rather big F***ING mistake I would say!

 

[PMedMoe]

Yep, it's Christmas, let's commute the sentences of all the criminals, terrorists, etc.  Why not Easter?  It would have been earlier.  :

 

[GAP]

NO

 

[1feral1]

He wasn't in Afghanistan on a wine tasting holiday was he!

He knew what he was doing.

Too bad he was not finished off there, that said, I feel no empathy for this terrorist. he had made his bed, now he lays in it and rots in his cell.

Keep him there!

OWDU

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well this is typical of what happens in the dying moments of a Presidency.  There are all sorts of appointments and pardons granted just to show that he is a good guy and also the fact that he won't be in the job much longer to answer for it either. 

As OWDU said, he, Lindh made his bed and should now have to lie in it.  Too right.  He should not receive any mercy or forgiveness from his Nation or Countrymen.  If his Mummy and Daddy want to forgive him, well that is their right and decision as his Parents.  Were he my kid, he could get stuffed and stay so.