One thought on “John Walker Lindh

  1. 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.

Comments are closed.