John Walker Lindh

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.

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.