To be honest, I’m not sure what this piece is trying to argue, but I think it’s an interesting read for some of the information, especially three years after the fact.
Related Posts
A Letter from Saudi Arabia
Passed on from a friend from a friend. I can assure that the person is writing from Saudi Arabia. Dear Friends, As I am sitting in front of my home computer, an intense pounding is trying to break through my forehead. I am wondering how quickly the Tylenol will kick in. I have been up this morning since 5:30 AM, which any of you who know me well will be surprised to hear. I was awakened this morning by a telephone call from the Booz Allen senior employee in Riyadh who works on the Saudi Navy Project and lives on…
Torture and Cowardice, Pt.2
JMM hits it out of the park with this piece. Being bold means taking responsibility for being bold. As I’ve argued before, I think the answer to the ticking time bomb rationale for torture is this: that in the extremely unlikely circumstance that government officials ever found themselves in that position of having a ticking time bomb ticking away, they might have to make the decision to break the law. Not fudge it or keep their actions hidden, but take the decision on their own responsibility that it was the best thing to do in the situation — despite it…
9-11 on the web
Atrios on the terrorist attacks after 9-11 we seem to have forgotten about. Demi on courage. Aziz on Shahed’s post on 9-11 and Ramadan. Technorati Tags: 9/11
One thought on “John Walker Lindh”
Comments are closed.
It’s funny how Lindh was first an example to civil rights activist as to how a prosecution of an enemy combatant should work (especially compared to Hamdi and Padilla), and now he’s an example of how a prosecution should not have worked. I remember all the complaints that the white boy from Marin County was treated better (in that he had the opportunity for a trial and well-heeled counsel) than Hamdi and Padilla. Now, the same people see Lindh as a victim treated far worse than Hamdi (and we’ll see how mi cabron, Padilla, will end up).
Plenty of smarmy ideas in the article (it’s Mother Jones, after all) and I don’t have time to whack them all — one lie is that Lindh had no support outside his family at the time. Not true, a handful of Salafis were protesting and praying outside EDVA every day Lindh was there. You can google “free john walker lindh” and take a look at the support now for this moron (am I telegraphing my opinion here?). But I do have a suggestion: he can sue his lawyer for malpractice for counseling him to cop the plea. Just kidding, Jimmy (if you’re a blog reader) — I don’t advocate suing lawyers : ^).
One other comment — the article clearly takes the view that the war on terror is a legal problem the success of which can be judged by the number of convictions the government has won. And that is probably the biggest problem of all — the idea that we can depose, subpoena and “Mirandize” our way in this fight.