Comments (47)

Anonymous wrote on June 25, 2007 5:21 PM:

Paul McNulty make another appearance!

FlyOnTheWall wrote on June 25, 2007 5:29 PM:

I think you're misreading this document. It's about the violation of John Walker Lindh's constitutional rights, but not about the authorization of abuse or torture.

Look at it this way. You've got an army interogator in the field in Afghanistan. His job - what he points out he's trained to do - is extracting intelligence. The military wants to pump Lindh for his knowledge about operations, deployments, and other pieces of information of direct use to the grunts on the ground. The danger, of course, is that if the interrogation strays into the areas of Lindh's criminal conduct, he may end up trampeling all over any eventual criminal prosecution. That's why, for the first hour, he was "not to collect anything that could be used in a criminal court." That makes sense. Any judge in America would throw out a confession offered in those circumstances. Why jeopardize the case?

Then, new instructions come down. He's to "take off the gloves," in the pungent phrase of the DoD Counsel. What does that mean? The memo actually tells us. Everything was fair game; if Lindh strayed into his criminal conduct, he was to Mirandize him and keep on going.

To his credit, the interrogator objects. He's not trained for this. He doesn't even ahve the text of a Miranda warning available. He wants tactical info, and that's all he's comfortable asking for. If DoD wants to ask questions related to criminal conduct (what Lindh was doing, rather than what he knows) then they should send their own damned lawyer.

I don't know what happened to Lindh in Afghanistan. It's perfectly plausible that he was roughed up, abused, or even tortured. But this isn't a smoking gun. It's a red herring.

dm wrote on June 25, 2007 5:31 PM:

Is it clear that "take the gloves off and ask him whatever he wanted" means "torture him" and not "ask questions which may lead to criminally incriminating answers"? Does the comment indicate a willingness to torture or an authorization to proceed without concern for preserving admissible evidence for a criminal trial?

Sam wrote on June 25, 2007 5:37 PM:

FlyOnTheWall beat me to it, that's how I read it. "Take the gloves off" in terms of questioning, not abuse.

EH wrote on June 25, 2007 5:41 PM:

False dichotomy, Fly.

anonymous wrote on June 25, 2007 5:46 PM:

Remember, that "Secretary of Defense's counsel" guy referenced in the letter was Mr. Haynes, whose nomination to an appellate judgeship on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals hung out there for a while before coming to naught last fall. Not that he wouldn't have been appointed if, say, the Republicans had maintained control of the Senate....

Just the guy to hear your case, huh?

Gtash wrote on June 25, 2007 6:02 PM:

What is clear to me is that VP Cheney and Rumsfeld were interested in making an example of an AMERICAN whom they believed to be a terrorist threat---and that was about all. I don't think they really wanted or expected any useful information to be forthcoming from Lindh.

JMOHR wrote on June 25, 2007 6:05 PM:

I am sorry but I have been involved in investigating the actions of an Air Force JAG (General Officer) involved with the case of an Air Force member dealing in secrets with the Soviets. Guess what, I can see the a major command JAG making the call. I can see even a deputy TJG making the call. However, I really doubt that the counsel to the Secretary of Defense would be getting involved with the decision to go after tactical vs criminal information. Lindh had little of intelligence value. He may have been a US citizen but a low level drone in the organization. I think that one may actually infer a go ahead to play rough.

JMOHR wrote on June 25, 2007 6:05 PM:

I am sorry but I have been involved in investigating the actions of an Air Force JAG (General Officer) involved with the case of an Air Force member dealing in secrets with the Soviets. Guess what, I can see the a major command JAG making the call. I can see even a deputy TJG making the call. However, I really doubt that the counsel to the Secretary of Defense would be getting involved with the decision to go after tactical vs criminal information. Lindh had little of intelligence value. He may have been a US citizen but a low level drone in the organization. I think that one may actually infer a go ahead to play rough.

JMOHR wrote on June 25, 2007 6:06 PM:

I am sorry but I have been involved in investigating the actions of an Air Force JAG (General Officer) involved with the case of an Air Force member dealing in secrets with the Soviets. Guess what, I can see the a major command JAG making the call. I can see even a deputy TJG making the call. However, I really doubt that the counsel to the Secretary of Defense would be getting involved with the decision to go after tactical vs criminal information. Lindh had little of intelligence value. He may have been a US citizen but a low level drone in the organization. I think that one may actually infer a go ahead to play rough.

Tap Duncan wrote on June 25, 2007 7:07 PM:

I understand how most people must feel, I am a former Marine 86-91- But I also understand how many young people can be unduly influenced by those whose true motives remain a mystery. However, JWL has obviously been the victim of such brutality that those of us on this continent cannot possibly concieve, and which we supposedly resigned ourselves to withstand. Rumsfeld is a war criminal, no less than Cheney and/or Bush. The sad thing is he s considered colatteral damage, Hang Tough, Tap

Tap Duncan wrote on June 25, 2007 7:11 PM:

This young man is a poster boy for breaking the law in the name of National Security, Like a low level mafia man is central to a huge Godfather-type prosecution, it's a bunch of made up bullshit

lysias wrote on June 25, 2007 7:16 PM:

Jay Bybee, who signed his name to the notorious torture memo largely authored by John Yoo, now sits on the Ninth Circuit judging appeals.

I just read his concurrence in an en banc decision of the court.

lysias wrote on June 25, 2007 7:26 PM:

They probably also chose U.S. citizen Padilla to serve as another example.

Jack wrote on June 25, 2007 7:35 PM:

Rumsfeld's authoritarian mindset gave new life to the phrase "I was only following orders."

According to the mass media, we should all be far more concerned about Paris Hilton going to jail. Get with the program, people.

Kewalo wrote on June 25, 2007 7:56 PM:

Jesselyn Radack has a diary up at Kos today.

http://jesselyn-radack.dailykos.com/

She doesn't seem to have any trouble calling it torture.

Kewalo wrote on June 25, 2007 7:57 PM:

Jesselyn Radack has a diary up at Kos today.

http://jesselyn-radack.dailykos.com/

She doesn't seem to have any trouble calling it torture.

parrot wrote on June 25, 2007 8:02 PM:

"play rough"? You mean run roughshod over legal rules of interrogation so someone in command can get their rocks off remotely? Seriously, a war crime is a war crime and abuse by lawyers of their obligation and oath to uphold the law and the US Constitution need to be dealt with severly and the sooner the better. This wound on our body politic has been festering for sometime and the Congress or the Judiciary must take some action to correct it...otherwise, we are headed for a lot of civil turmoil in this country, not just political turmoil that has mostly been the result so far.

Dano wrote on June 25, 2007 8:16 PM:

Lindh was railroaded by the Bush Administration for political gain, just as it exploited Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. What the past 6-1/2 years has proven, if not anything else, is that the Bush Administration will blatantly lie about its actions if it can gain any political capital out of it. It has shown that it is capable of the worst forms human rights abuses - even surpassing those of the NAZI Gestapo in WWII concentration camps. It has also shown that it is comfortable with such terms as "Unitary Executive" a term only used by Adolf Hitler to describe the power and authority he represented..

The remark "take the gloves off" in of itself speaks to "HARSH" treatment. How "HARSH" no one will ever know unless, and until, that "treatment" is exposed.

This is not the direction that the Constitution takes us regarding the treatment of US Citizens. In its ambiguity, the statement hints at the tactics that we were later to learn were employed at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the CIA's rendering (outsourcing) of prisoners to be tortured in secret third world prisons.

Because no one questioned what was going on, back then, the German people have had to bear the responsibility for the human rights abuses its leaders inflicted on civilians during the NAZI "Reign of Terror." if Americans fail to fully investigate such abuses - committed in their name, and prosecute those responsible, those abuses will come back to haunt them in the future.

I believe that Congress should should delve deeper into this, subpoena Rumsfeld, and any other person, or persons, that may have had a hand in Lindh's interrogation, and subsequent prosecution.

mbbsdphil wrote on June 25, 2007 8:50 PM:

By all accounts Mr. Lindh was a foot soldier. What on earth was "taking the gloves off" going to accomplish? Names and training locations a semi-competent CIA already knew? This is more about desk-bound draft dodgers showing that they really had cajones that than running a competent war or anti-terror campaign. How many American service personnel have to die, how many legal and cultural traditions must be thrown to the wolves in order to justify Dick Cheney's five deferments?

Bathrobe Vinnie wrote on June 25, 2007 9:01 PM:

That's nice, Rahm, except as an American Democrat the right thing for you to have done for your nation merely to accurately represent both our genuine interests and sentiments according to every poll and every other measure would have been to state that both Cheney and Bush must be impeached immediately.

The definition of Fascism is when money corrupts government to the degree that they essentially become one, such that democracy and the rule of law itself are negated by collusion between business and governmental tyrants, and this is exactly what we now have in our formerly free and democratic America.

Thus, Rahm now bleating that he wants to take away Cheneys money, instead of standing up like a self-repecting American to demand Impeachment. If George Washington had stood up to King George in the same half-hearted half-assed way that the Democratic leadership has confronted the GOP election theives since 2000, America herself would never have been born let alone existed since 1776.

To the regret and detriment of every American and to the world itself, every aspect of our nation has been warped so far rightward that the Democratic party, led by Emmanuel, Pelosi, Reid and others of their ilk have become nothing more than GOP Lite. There is no more loyal opposition because all democratic interest has been subsumed by considerations of money, power and control.

If Rahm, Nancy, Harry, John Conyers and the rest will not stand up behind Dennis Kuchinich to Impeach both Cheney and Bush immediately, then they must somehow be overruled by the will of We, the People
of the United States of America, who never actually did vote for Cheney or Bush either in 2000 or in 2004,
or American democracy as it has existed since the inception of our nation will have come to an end not with a bang but with a whimper, to be replaced by an explicitly fascist and thus entirely unamerican, illegitimate and unacceptable regime, which if history is any teacher will not be any government at all; merely a tyrannical fascism, a brief prelude to dictatorship, a preface to anarchy and an invitation to disaster.

Cranky wrote on June 25, 2007 9:23 PM:

Do not forget the Bush put forward William " Waterboard Willie" Haynes to be a Judge. His name was withdrawn twice after new of his part in the Torture Memos was widely spread. FYI, I personally named him Waterboard Willie last yr.

Al in Austex wrote on June 25, 2007 9:26 PM:

What we need is to get the conservative defenders of civil liberties ( such as former Cong Bob Barr ) & liberal defenders of civil liberties ( such as former VP Al Gore ) to have a national conference on the War Crimes of the Bush Admininstration. Both the right & the left have a dog in this fight with the Current Neo Fascist if not out right fascist )BushCo et al . We all should be very aware that the Busheviks have mounted a concerted effort to subvert our Republic . We all as Americans ,need to stand up to these Brook Brother Brownshirts(

Mary wrote on June 25, 2007 11:29 PM:

What JMOHR said (a couple of times)

There were reports of lots of abuse at the time, and a few pictures (that were not destroyed) showed up as well
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/04/12/ret.walker.lindh.photos/index.html

Chertoff requested, and Judge Ellis (astoundingly IMO) allowed, a plea agreement where, to forestall having Lindh talk about torture and the coercion behind his statements (which certainly weren't ticking time bomb variety) Ellis allowed a plea that conditioned the sentence on Lindh being bound by a gag order for the 20 year or so no parole sentence and also dropping torture claims.

I'm thinking that a few "rogue interrogators" who did not receive top level DOD authorization to abuse/torture wouldn't have precipitated the gag order etc.

But ? who knows. Very weird to think in this country you can be tortured by the government and a Judge would authorize a plea that requires you to not mention it.

Emily wrote on June 26, 2007 1:10 AM:

I would like to believe, I insist on believing that there is hope. Eventually, these nightmare people WILL be brought up on war crimes charges, and domestic crimes charges and convicted. There is too much proof now of their crimainal acts. As far as the rest of America, there will have to be changes made on every level of government because these have all been made toxic to basic democracy by the neo-cons/republican-bushies/corporate-junta operatives. In other words, a sea change will eventually have to happen. I believe it will. But I am terrified of the intervening times. Perhaps Americans will have to learn what it is to become a 'third world' country first. We are well on our way.

Emily wrote on June 26, 2007 1:13 AM:

I would like to believe, I insist on believing that there is hope. Eventually, these nightmare people WILL be brought up on war crimes charges, and domestic crimes charges and convicted. There is too much proof now of their crimainal acts. As far as the rest of America, there will have to be changes made on every level of government because these have all been made toxic to basic democracy by the neo-cons/republican-bushies/corporate-junta operatives. In other words, a sea change will eventually have to happen. I believe it will. But I am terrified of the intervening times. Perhaps Americans will have to learn what it is to become a 'third world' country first. We are well on our way.

MantisBot wrote on June 26, 2007 5:11 AM:

I kind of get the feeling that throughout the questioning of Lindh, be it before or after the "take the gloves off" order was given, he was tortured. I agree with FlyOnTheWall when he says that "take the gloves off" referred to the line of questioning, rather than the methods used to questions.

Al in Austex wrote on June 26, 2007 5:30 AM:

Emily ,
We are going through that sea change you describe even as we sit here . I drive a cab in Austin- I sit & listen to my customers -unsolicited they will say many of the same things in the same context you have described. We as a country did not get in this compromised position over night - it wil take us awhile to get back to where we need to be - but we will get back. Its basic Civics 101. Meanwhile heres something to ponder - McNulty the Lindh Prosecutor , & McNulty the DAG went to see Sen Schumer at home "to clear the record of McNulty's testimony " -might that clearing of the record include fessing up about how Lindh was tortured. You know compared to all the leaks concerning President Clinton & his girl friend there has been only a miserly stream of info coming from the current investigations. It leads me to believe that there is a whole bunch more the Democrats have that they are holding fire on until the targets are well defined and obtainable. The VEEP & Rumsfeld are tough ,competent , & dangerously twisted individuals -and so must be engaged in just that fashion - with toughness & competence. In assesing sitreps often times its whats not being heard or seen - but can be infered -that important
So Emily I trust that our Constitution will be protected by Conyers ,Leahy and others in the Commmittees of Congress. I also know that the Constitution has other Loyal Allies out there -like James Comey - and Mr Comey represents all the career DOJ s that would not go along with the Brownshirts at the OVP. Emily if I can trust that Civics 101 will work to save our Republic - I pray you can too (Lookit even Ted Olson & John Ashcroft have ratted out & or denounced Addington & Yoo -that makes me optimistic !)

Billy Pilgrim wrote on June 26, 2007 8:24 AM:

Echoing Al's, Vinnie's, & Emily's sentiments, there are very serious consequences for not taking action against the abuses perpetrated by Rumsfeld, Cheyney, et al. Pursuing justice against them will cause divisiveness and upheaval, but that path must be followed because the alternative is far more threatening.

Ted wrote on June 26, 2007 9:26 AM:

Hold on about the Walker plea deal...

It was July 2002, he was going to be tried in Alexandria, VA. Just miles away from the Pentagon. The Jury Pool would had been many military to retired military personel. He had nine counts against him. There was clear evidence, even without the use of torture and the violation of habeas corpus that the US gov't had information about Lindh, from his training at Al-Qaeda training facility, to violaing a law, that was signed by President Clinton that forbid US citizen going to Afghanistan without US gov't approval.

Yes, I think the Walker defense could had poked some big holes in the gov't case if this went to trial, mainly how he was treated and how he was denied due process. However, the deck was clearly stacked against Walker, given the location of the trial, that Federal court cases have a 95% or so conviction rate, that the appeals court in Richmond, is one of the most conservative in the country, have something like a 99% record of upholding convictions. It was also during the time that Bush had approval ratings in the 70 percent range, and the administration could run amok without much political backlash.

The plea bargain was wrecked in 2004, when the US gov't left Hamdi go back to Saudi Arabia, given he did the same exact things as Lindh, and was caught in Mazari Sharif along with Walker.

David Hicks was much more involved in Al-Qaeda than Walker Lindh or Hamdi was ever involved, including translating an Al-Qaeda manual into English.

Walker Lindh had one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the country at his plea bargain. If would had been unethical for his lawyer to turn his case into a political show trial. Perhaps under appeal and with the different political climate today, Walker Lindh would had his case commuted if he got convicted on all nine counts, but the attorney did the best possible deal under the circumstances. In Hindsight, the deal was awful, given the commution of Hamdi and Hicks sentences, However, the US Gov't didn't do the plea because they panicked, if they went to trial, they knew they would have some major embarrassment, but they would had likely gotten conviction on all nine counts.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 9:49 AM:

Ted - I agree with you that Lindh's lawyer did the best they could for him at the time and you can't use hindsight to evaluate that. My comment went to the judiciary and the court's response to a plea agreement that required a defendant to be gagged from speaking about being tortured by his government. IMO, a court should never have allowed that in a plea.

OTOH, if they didn't get that, gov might not have gone forward with the deal, so for Lindh the result might have been fine - for what this country stands for, it was just flat out creepy for a Federal District Ct judge to be faced with someone tortured by the government and agree to gov gagging them on that torture.

Sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing Lindh's lawyers - that wasn't my intent.

ted wrote on June 26, 2007 10:46 AM:

On the aspect of Walker Lindh gag order. It is strange, as much as Hicks has a gag order as well in order to get his deal. However, I think the US gov't or back then the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal, were kind of a paranoid about the bad PR that violation of habeas corpus would be for them. Much like Walker Lindh is not allowed to speak Arabic while in captivity, and has gotten punished in the past for saying Arabic greetings to other Muslim inmates. Sort of like saying Latin Phrases during masses would put someone in cooler for a couple days.

I find also bizarre that Walker Lindh has been moved to SuperMax, and that would only be done as a form of punishment, even though the Bureau of Prisons has stated it was for his protection.

My main criticism of the article was that the US gov't made the plea deal because they were worried they might lose their case. Given that the DOJ did seriously looked into a case of treason against Walker Lindh, but decided to go an easier route. They would had still won in a criminal trial. Judge Ellis also allowed in evidence all the interrogation of Walker Lindh while he was on the USS Peleliu, which precipitated Walker Lindh's attorney to ask for a plea deal. Also Ashcroft, not Rumsfeld, was the one who either delayed or ignored due process when Walker Lindh was transferred to the USS Pelieliu.

JEP wrote on June 26, 2007 11:05 AM:

"There's no beating around the bush."

But just out of earshot, there's lots of it going on...

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 1:20 PM:

Take a look at the addresses in the letter. The first is to San Francisco. The address matches Morrison & Foerster.

Now google this [ Morrison & Foerster Rendition].

Why is this law firm getting DoD Faxes on this subject, and apparently linked with legal arguments over what are alleged war crimes connected with Boeing subsidiary: Rendition?

There's a person named "Rushing" who is with Morrison & Forester who [wait for it] was trial counsel for BOEING.

Consider also the Boeing connection with the telcoms: Morisson & Forester is assocaited with Connexion, a subsidiary of Boeing.

It appears:

A. DoD has disclosed the identify of counsel interetsed in rendition;

B. Counsel is linked with telephones in the San Francisco Area, which could have been linked with the NARUS STA 6400, Boeing, and AT&T

C. There is a means by which illegal captured data was sent via AT&T to DoD; used to engage in illegal abuse; and information from that interrogation was used to target AMericans using the Boeing subsidiaries for rendition/interception.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 1:22 PM:

Take a look at the addresses in the letter. The first is to San Francisco. The address matches Morrison & Foerster.

Now google this [ Morrison & Foerster Rendition].

Why is this law firm getting DoD Faxes on this subject, and apparently linked with legal arguments over what are alleged war crimes connected with Boeing subsidiary: Rendition?

There's a person named "Rushing" who is with Morrison & Forester who [wait for it] was trial counsel for BOEING.

Consider also the Boeing connection with the telcoms: Morisson & Forester is assocaited with Connexion, a subsidiary of Boeing.

It appears:

A. DoD has disclosed the identify of counsel interetsed in rendition;

B. Counsel is linked with telephones in the San Francisco Area, which could have been linked with the NARUS STA 6400, Boeing, and AT&T

C. There is a means by which illegally captured data was sent via AT&T to DoD; used to engage in illegal abuse; and information from that interrogation was used to target AMericans using the Boeing subsidiaries for rendition/interception.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 1:23 PM:

Take a look at the addresses in the letter. The first is to San Francisco. The address matches Morrison & Foerster.

Now google this [ Morrison & Foerster Rendition].

Why is this law firm getting DoD Faxes on this subject, and apparently linked with legal arguments over what are alleged war crimes connected with Boeing subsidiary: Rendition?

There's a person named "Rushing" who is with Morrison & Forester who [wait for it] was trial counsel for BOEING.

Consider also the Boeing connection with the telcoms: Morisson & Forester is assocaited with Connexion, a subsidiary of Boeing.

It appears:

A. DoD has disclosed the identify of counsel interetsed in rendition;

B. Counsel is linked with telephones in the San Francisco Area, which could have been linked with the NARUS STA 6400, Boeing, and AT&T.

C. There is a means by which illegal captured data was sent via AT&T to DoD; used to engage in illegal abuse; and information from that interrogation was used to target AMericans using the Boeing subsidiaries for rendition/interception.

Anonymous wrote on June 26, 2007 1:28 PM:

Take a look at the addresses in the letter. The first is to San Francisco. The address matches Morrison & Foerster.

Now google this [ Morrison & Foerster Rendition].

Why is this law firm getting DoD Faxes on this subject, and apparently linked with legal arguments over what are alleged war crimes connected with Boeing subsidiary: Rendition?

There's a person named "Rushing" who is with Morrison & Forester who [wait for it] was trial counsel for BOEING.

Consider also the Boeing connection with the telcoms: Morisson & Forester is assocaited with Connexion, a subsidiary of Boeing.

It appears:

A. DoD has disclosed the identify of counsel interetsed in rendition;

B. Counsel is linked with telephones in the San Francisco Area, which could have been linked with the NARUS STA 6400, Boeing, and AT&T

C. There is a means by which illegal captured data was sent via AT&T to DoD; used to engage in illegal abuse; and information from that interrogation was used to target AMericans using the Boeing subsidiaries for rendition/interception.

Addington Problems wrote on June 26, 2007 2:17 PM:

After reading this letter . . .look what we have here: Haynes' and Addington's atty standards of conduct problem: Hit the Link for the Model Rule citations.

Attorney Standards of conduct! What illegal activity did DoD and OVP legal counsel induce others to commit?

Mary wrote on June 26, 2007 4:49 PM:

Ted: " It is strange, as much as Hicks has a gag order as well in order to get his deal. "

My understanding is that the Australian court has already said it will not enforce that order. fwiw

What a US court should do here as well, IMO.

Mary wrote on June 26, 2007 4:52 PM:

"Also Ashcroft, not Rumsfeld, was the one who either delayed or ignored due process when Walker Lindh was transferred to the USS Pelieliu."

His recent "sainthood" notwithstanding, Ashcroft has a lot on his ledger.

LITBMueller wrote on June 26, 2007 5:31 PM:

I love this site, but c'mon guys: FlyOnTheWall has the best analysis of this document. It doesn't prove anything regarding authorizing torture, etc. Why stick by your story? Why not provide both potential analyses evenhandedly, instead of saying, "Eh. Make up yer own minds."?

The other possibility here is that harsh interrogation had already been authorized either verbally, by standing order, or in another document. And, the interrogators orders included the directive not to ask questions about events that pertain to any potential criminal case. Any statement made under duress would be thrown out.

But, when the interrogation starting turning up nothing, SecDef's counsel basically said, "Forget it. Ask anything you want, and Mirandize him when he starts getting into 5th Amend. territory."

This is all made clear in the sentences which you chose not to quote in your post.

Bumbaclaat wrote on June 27, 2007 4:07 AM:

John Walker Lindh - The Human Rights implications of an Extraordinary Case - Speech by Frank Lindh
http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/story/2007/john-walker-lindh-human-rights-implications-extraordinary-case-speech-frank-lindh

ted wrote on June 27, 2007 8:32 AM:

"John Walker Lindh - The Human Rights implications of an Extraordinary Case - Speech by Frank Lindh"

I think I want to be clear where I stand on John Walker Lindh.

What he did was pretty disgusting, he not only had no qualms training with Al-Qaeda at their al-Farooq, he took training from Harakat ul-Mujahideen, who are known as pretty violent Kashmiri Separtist, who are known to the west for kidnapping and beheading Europeans tourists/travellers who went to Kashmir in the 1990s, besides other acts.

Much like some Liberian and Sierra Leone soldiers who seemed to be indoctrinated and were more like robot soldiers, Walker Lindh wasn't much different. Whether killing Northern Alliance troops or Indian Troops in Kashmir or American Soldiers he would had done it.

However he was caught fighting Northern Alliance troops with some CIA special ops advisors besides them like Mike Spann. He was a foot soldier, and should be treated as such. There is no intelligence gold mine in interrogating John Walker Lindh.

Whatever his behavior and actions, the US gov't needs to act accordingly and with the writ of habeas corpus guaranteed in the Constitution unaltered. Walker Lindh's sentence should had been commuted once Hamdi plea bargain was reached in Sept. 2004. Walker Lindh did violate US Law by going to Afghanistan, and hanging out with Harakat ul-Mujahideen, i believe is a US Federal Crime in itself, spending time at Al-Farooq, with a person who already was responsible for the US embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack of the USS Cole, whether he is 20 years old or not, he is hanging out with an international criminal organization.

All this evidence against Walker Lindh was very clear cut, which makes me more flabbergasted that the US gov't had to use harsh interrogation techniques and/or torture and denied his right of habeas corpus which is included in the US Constitution. It wasn't Rumsfeld who was running amok and a law onto one's self, Ashcroft pretty much ignore the law and denied due process for Walker Lindh, when he could had easily made sure Walker Lindh was treated properly. The US gov't had enough evidence to put Walker Lindh away in prison for many years, and they used the mainly the evidence passed by the Clinton Administration for their plea bargain sentence.

John Walker Lindh isn't a martyr, he was an arrogant deluded trained killer, and he would had killed if order to, whether by the Taliban, HUM or Al-Qaeda. However I would fight for his freedom, because the legal system that violated his rights did in my opinion more damage than a foot soldier of the Taliban did to US freedom and Civil Rights.

I don't believe alot of the crap that Frank Lindh has said about his son, to make look more appealing to American eyes, as much I didn't take seriously the crap that was coming out of DOJ and Ashcroft's mouth about Walker Lindh...

Al in Austex wrote on June 27, 2007 10:06 PM:

Ted,
You are right we must make sure Lindh gets due proccess- are as best we can after the Plea Deal .
This is it precisely what is at stake in our struggle with the Islamist Radicals-- Lindh probably is a brain washed Jihadi Killer.But that is precisely why we must all fight for his habeaous corpus rights under our jurisprudence system. These very ideals are our very best defense against the Wahabees & Salafist
Abu Ghraib did more to damamge our national security & intersts then a whole divison of Lindhs could have done.
This is also why Rummy , Addigton, Yoo , the Veep, & the King George himself must be held acountable for the illegal War in Iraq.
Make no mistake this all part & parcel to the Neo Con Agenda. The Neo Cons are as big of threat to our Way of Life as UBL has ever been,,
Stay tuned & Ted thank you for your comments-

aertesda wrote on August 4, 2007 7:55 PM:

hello world http://www.umxo.com

merik wrote on September 2, 2007 4:43 PM:

hello world!

murava wrote on September 7, 2007 3:39 PM:

my name is murava! are you? http://www.benimblog.com/murava/