Give John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," a Chance to Tell His Story
Thursday, January 05, 2017 By Shane Ralston, Truthout | Op-Ed
(Photo: Erika Wittlieb; Edited: LW / TO)
In November 2001, 20-year-old John Walker Lindh was captured by Northern
Alliance forces in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the Qala-i-Jangi fortress.
Once identified as an American, Lindh was transferred to US military forces
and subjected to harsh interrogation (in his initial statements, he claimed
he was tortured). He was then successfully prosecuted by his own government
on two criminal counts, resulting in a 20-year federal prison sentence.
The road to that prison cell was fraught with misadventure. The young man
grew up in Northern California, converted to Islam in his teens, made a
brief trip to Yemen and then joined the Taliban forces. In Afghanistan, he
hoped to end the atrocities Northern Alliance soldiers were committing
against unarmed Afghani civilians. When the US partnered with the Northern
Alliance to defeat the Taliban and oust Osama bin Laden, Lindh would become
an unwitting enemy of his own country.
John Walker Lindh initially claimed that he was tortured but as part of a
subsequent plea agreement, he dropped those claims in exchange for a reduced
sentence. In 2009, Lindh's parents requested clemency for their son from
President George W. Bush before he left office. However, they were denied
this act of mercy by a man who would later call Lindh "some misguided Marin
County hot-tubber." It is unlikely Lindh or his parents will request the
same from President Obama, since he will become eligible for release in less
than two years.
Nevertheless, the "American Taliban" should be given a second chance, an
opportunity to tell his story.
How the US Military Treated a US Citizen
In a 2007 opinion piece titled "Free our Talib," the Los Angeles Times
editorial staff described the government-backed media campaign to label John
Walker Lindh a traitor and terrorist in the court of public opinion:
Known unfortunately as "the American Taliban," Lindh became a symbol for
fanaticism, even treason in the early months of the nation's response to
Sept. 11....
Lindh was pilloried by officials at the highest levels of government. Atty.
Gen. [John] Ashcroft called him an "Al Qaeda-trained terrorist," and the
charges against Lindh originally included conspiring to commit terrorism....
Lindh, who converted to Islam as a teenager, joined the Taliban before Sept.
11, not after; he did so to fight the Northern Alliance, not the United
States. Lindh never took up arms against this country. He never engaged in
terrorism; indeed, his commitment to Islam leads him to oppose the targeting
of civilians....
He was ordered to spend 20 years in prison, far longer than comparably
situated defendants. Maher Mofeid Hawash pleaded guilty to violating the
same law, and after he agreed to cooperate, the government recommended that
he serve seven to 10 years in prison.
John Walker Lindh's ordeal is instructive not only for what it says about
the government's conduct of the war on terror, but also for what it tells us
about how a US citizen can be treated by US military forces and the US legal
system after being captured in a war zone. Lindh's experience at the hands
of his own countrymen involved illegal interrogation (including alleged
torture), a plea bargain that prevented him from telling the full truth and
punishment that was clearly disproportionate to the crimes he committed.
While in prison, he was prevented from engaging in group prayer, a ban he
challenged in federal court on the grounds that he is Muslim and Muslims are
required by their faith to pray in congregation.
The "Freedom Agenda"
Ever since President Obama declared the global war on terror over -- despite
ongoing US troop presences and active military involvement on several fronts
-- it has been tempting to wonder what the point of it all was. In the wake
of 9/11, George W. Bush set forth a vision of how to execute an
uncompromising war against terrorists. Several years later, it would be
rebranded the Freedom Agenda to "promote the spread of freedom as the great
alternative to the terrorists' ideology of hatred, because expanding liberty
and democracy will help defeat extremism and protect the American people."
It should not be confused with the American Freedom Agenda, an organization
formed by conservatives who were opposed to the detention of American
citizens as military combatants and the use of torture to extract
intelligence from suspected terrorists.
As I have argued elsewhere, Bush's Freedom Agenda is shot through with
contradictions. Nevertheless, it defines the US foreign policy context
within which John Walker Lindh was captured, interrogated, prosecuted and
imprisoned. He was not a terrorist. While he received training in one of
Osama bin Laden's camps, he never intended to commit terrorist acts against
the US. In Lindh's father's words, "John did not do anything against
America. John did not take up arms against America. He never meant to harm
any American, and he never did harm any American." He was a US citizen who
joined a foreign army, the Taliban, and would later find himself on the
wrong side in the US-Afghani conflict. The Taliban harbored Osama bin Laden,
and so the Taliban's nemeses, the Northern Alliance -- on the principle that
the enemy of my enemy is my friend -- would become a US ally on the
Afghanistan battlefield. The fact that the Northern Alliance had committed
atrocities against the Afghani civilian population was discounted in the US
campaign to fight terrorism.
A case can be made that once John Walker Lindh is released, he should be
given an opportunity to tell his story and reveal how he was mistreated and
abused after being captured by US forces. John Walker Lindh's father, Frank
Lindh, has made an impassioned and cogent argument that his son should be
freed. Here are some important points to remember:
1. Torture: Lindh claimed that he was tortured while on board two military
ships between December 2001 and January 2002. Pictures of him from that
time period show him gagged and bound to a stretcher. He also suffered a
gunshot wound during a prison uprising in which CIA operative Johnny "Mike"
Spann was killed. He would only receive medical treatment for the wound
after an entire week had passed with the bullet still in his leg. Besides
coercing a confession, the other possible motive CIA and military
interrogators could have had for torturing Lindh was to retaliate for
Spann's murder. According to Bob Herbert of The New York Times, "There is no
longer any doubt that large numbers of troops responsible for guarding and
interrogating detainees somehow loosed their moorings to humanity, and began
behaving as sadists, perverts and criminals."
2. Illegal Interrogation: While detained aboard the two military ships and
prior to being read his Miranda rights, Lindh repeatedly asked for an
attorney but was denied one. Once Mirandized, he was subjected to harsh
prison conditions and coercive treatment, so that he surrendered his right
to remain silent. The FBI contacted Jesselyn Radack, an ethics advisor in
the US Justice Department, asking her whether Lindh could be interrogated
without a lawyer present. She clearly advised against it, but the Justice
Department ignored her advice. Radack shares what happened next: "Three
weeks later, [Attorney General John] Ashcroft announced Lindh's indictment,
saying Lindh's rights 'have been carefully, scrupulously honored.' Again, I
knew that wasn't true."
3. Suppression of Evidence: As part of his plea deal, Lindh accepted a
reduced sentence of 20 years for two charges (compared to three life
sentences and an additional 90 years for the original 10 charges). In
exchange, he dropped his claims of torture. In August of 2002, only six
months after Lindh's indictment, US Deputy Assistant Attorney General John
Yoo wrote the torture memos, offering a legal analysis and justification for
the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainee
Abu Zubaydah, such as waterboarding, stress positioning and sleep
deprivation. Suppressing testimonial evidence that these techniques were
used on a US citizen would have been a priority for the US Department of
Justice. It was also important to the Department of Defense. According to
Lindh's father, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld requested the inclusion
of a gag order in Lindh's plea agreement so that he would not speak about
his treatment by CIA and military interrogators. However, the US public had
-- and still has -- a right to know what happened to John Walker Lindh on
those two military ships during the weeks following his capture.
A Second Chance
When Lindh is freed (which could be as soon as 2019, since his sentence will
likely be reduced to 17 years for good behavior), his release will probably
be a quiet, even solemn, affair. He never had the opportunity to truly make
his case against the US government. He never got the chance to air his
complaints about torture, illegal interrogation and suppression of evidence
at the hands of the US military, CIA and federal prosecutors. The plea
agreement he was pressured to accept prevented the full disclosure of the
truth.
Under the Son of Sam law (despite First Amendment challenges), Lindh can
sign a book or movie deal, but the profits from any project will immediately
go to the US government. Even if he does not profit by it, I hope that Lindh
does tell his story in his own words. I believe that there is more we can
learn from Lindh's ordeal than simply a lesson about the dire consequences
of youthful misadventure.
Although he will serve the majority of his prison sentence, the words of
John Walker Lindh's father ring true in any call to give Lindh a second
chance:
My hope and prayer is that at some point rational, fair-minded officials in
the American government will see the wisdom in releasing John from prison,
rather than making him serve the entire 20-year sentence. His continued
incarceration serves no good purpose. Releasing John from prison would help
restore America's image in the world, and particularly among Muslim people,
as a humane country committed to the rule of law.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
SHANE RALSTON
Shane Ralston is an associate professor of philosophy at Pennsylvania State
University Hazleton. His research covers a broad array of subjects,
including human resources ethics, environmental policy, international
relations, US political thought and public philosophy. He is the author of
John Dewey's Great Debates-Reconstructed and Pragmatic Environmentalism:
Towards a Rhetoric of Eco-Justice, as well as the editor of Philosophical
Pragmatism and International Relations: Essays for a Bold New World. As part
of his commitment to public philosophy, he regularly investigates public
organizations and exposes their corrupt operations through intelligent
inquiry, Freedom of Information Act requests and citizen journalism.
RELATED STORIES
Taliban Captives Dispute US View on Afghanistan War
By Alissa J Rubin, Rod Nordland, The New York Times News Service | Report
Afghanistan "After" the US War: Once More Down the Rabbit Hole
By Ann Jones, TomDispatch | News Analysis
Afghanistan: Are Minerals the Driving Force Behind the War?
By Bill Distler, Veterans for Peace | News Analysis
________________________________________
Show Comments
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Give John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," a Chance to Tell His Story
Thursday, January 05, 2017 By Shane Ralston, Truthout | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. (Photo: Erika Wittlieb; Edited: LW / TO)
. In November 2001, 20-year-old John Walker Lindh was captured by
Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the Qala-i-Jangi
fortress. Once identified as an American, Lindh was transferred to US
military forces and subjected to harsh interrogation (in his initial
statements, he claimed he was tortured). He was then successfully prosecuted
by his own government on two criminal counts, resulting in a 20-year federal
prison sentence.
The road to that prison cell was fraught with misadventure. The young man
grew up in Northern California, converted to Islam in his teens, made a
brief trip to Yemen and then joined the Taliban forces. In Afghanistan, he
hoped to end the atrocities Northern Alliance soldiers were committing
against unarmed Afghani civilians. When the US partnered with the Northern
Alliance to defeat the Taliban and oust Osama bin Laden, Lindh would become
an unwitting enemy of his own country.
John Walker Lindh initially claimed that he was tortured but as part of a
subsequent plea agreement, he dropped those claims in exchange for a reduced
sentence. In 2009, Lindh's parents requested clemency for their son from
President George W. Bush before he left office. However, they were denied
this act of mercy by a man who would later call Lindh "some misguided Marin
County hot-tubber." It is unlikely Lindh or his parents will request the
same from President Obama, since he will become eligible for release in less
than two years.
Nevertheless, the "American Taliban" should be given a second chance, an
opportunity to tell his story.
How the US Military Treated a US Citizen
In a 2007 opinion piece titled "Free our Talib," the Los Angeles Times
editorial staff described the government-backed media campaign to label John
Walker Lindh a traitor and terrorist in the court of public opinion:
Known unfortunately as "the American Taliban," Lindh became a symbol for
fanaticism, even treason in the early months of the nation's response to
Sept. 11....
Lindh was pilloried by officials at the highest levels of government. Atty.
Gen. [John] Ashcroft called him an "Al Qaeda-trained terrorist," and the
charges against Lindh originally included conspiring to commit terrorism....
Lindh, who converted to Islam as a teenager, joined the Taliban before Sept.
11, not after; he did so to fight the Northern Alliance, not the United
States. Lindh never took up arms against this country. He never engaged in
terrorism; indeed, his commitment to Islam leads him to oppose the targeting
of civilians....
He was ordered to spend 20 years in prison, far longer than comparably
situated defendants. Maher Mofeid Hawash pleaded guilty to violating the
same law, and after he agreed to cooperate, the government recommended that
he serve seven to 10 years in prison.
John Walker Lindh's ordeal is instructive not only for what it says about
the government's conduct of the war on terror, but also for what it tells us
about how a US citizen can be treated by US military forces and the US legal
system after being captured in a war zone. Lindh's experience at the hands
of his own countrymen involved illegal interrogation (including alleged
torture), a plea bargain that prevented him from telling the full truth and
punishment that was clearly disproportionate to the crimes he committed.
While in prison, he was prevented from engaging in group prayer, a ban he
challenged in federal court on the grounds that he is Muslim and Muslims are
required by their faith to pray in congregation.
The "Freedom Agenda"
Ever since President Obama declared the global war on terror over -- despite
ongoing US troop presences and active military involvement on several fronts
-- it has been tempting to wonder what the point of it all was. In the wake
of 9/11, George W. Bush set forth a vision of how to execute an
uncompromising war against terrorists. Several years later, it would be
rebranded the Freedom Agenda to "promote the spread of freedom as the great
alternative to the terrorists' ideology of hatred, because expanding liberty
and democracy will help defeat extremism and protect the American people."
It should not be confused with the American Freedom Agenda, an organization
formed by conservatives who were opposed to the detention of American
citizens as military combatants and the use of torture to extract
intelligence from suspected terrorists.
As I have argued elsewhere, Bush's Freedom Agenda is shot through with
contradictions. Nevertheless, it defines the US foreign policy context
within which John Walker Lindh was captured, interrogated, prosecuted and
imprisoned. He was not a terrorist. While he received training in one of
Osama bin Laden's camps, he never intended to commit terrorist acts against
the US. In Lindh's father's words, "John did not do anything against
America. John did not take up arms against America. He never meant to harm
any American, and he never did harm any American." He was a US citizen who
joined a foreign army, the Taliban, and would later find himself on the
wrong side in the US-Afghani conflict. The Taliban harbored Osama bin Laden,
and so the Taliban's nemeses, the Northern Alliance -- on the principle that
the enemy of my enemy is my friend -- would become a US ally on the
Afghanistan battlefield. The fact that the Northern Alliance had committed
atrocities against the Afghani civilian population was discounted in the US
campaign to fight terrorism.
A case can be made that once John Walker Lindh is released, he should be
given an opportunity to tell his story and reveal how he was mistreated and
abused after being captured by US forces. John Walker Lindh's father, Frank
Lindh, has made an impassioned and cogent argument that his son should be
freed. Here are some important points to remember:
1. Torture: Lindh claimed that he was tortured while on board two military
ships between December 2001 and January 2002. Pictures of him from that time
period show him gagged and bound to a stretcher. He also suffered a gunshot
wound during a prison uprising in which CIA operative Johnny "Mike" Spann
was killed. He would only receive medical treatment for the wound after an
entire week had passed with the bullet still in his leg. Besides coercing a
confession, the other possible motive CIA and military interrogators could
have had for torturing Lindh was to retaliate for Spann's murder. According
to Bob Herbert of The New York Times, "There is no longer any doubt that
large numbers of troops responsible for guarding and interrogating detainees
somehow loosed their moorings to humanity, and began behaving as sadists,
perverts and criminals."
2. Illegal Interrogation: While detained aboard the two military ships and
prior to being read his Miranda rights, Lindh repeatedly asked for an
attorney but was denied one. Once Mirandized, he was subjected to harsh
prison conditions and coercive treatment, so that he surrendered his right
to remain silent. The FBI contacted Jesselyn Radack, an ethics advisor in
the US Justice Department, asking her whether Lindh could be interrogated
without a lawyer present. She clearly advised against it, but the Justice
Department ignored her advice. Radack shares what happened next: "Three
weeks later, [Attorney General John] Ashcroft announced Lindh's indictment,
saying Lindh's rights 'have been carefully, scrupulously honored.' Again, I
knew that wasn't true."
3. Suppression of Evidence: As part of his plea deal, Lindh accepted a
reduced sentence of 20 years for two charges (compared to three life
sentences and an additional 90 years for the original 10 charges). In
exchange, he dropped his claims of torture. In August of 2002, only six
months after Lindh's indictment, US Deputy Assistant Attorney General John
Yoo wrote the torture memos, offering a legal analysis and justification for
the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainee
Abu Zubaydah, such as waterboarding, stress positioning and sleep
deprivation. Suppressing testimonial evidence that these techniques were
used on a US citizen would have been a priority for the US Department of
Justice. It was also important to the Department of Defense. According to
Lindh's father, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld requested the inclusion
of a gag order in Lindh's plea agreement so that he would not speak about
his treatment by CIA and military interrogators. However, the US public had
-- and still has -- a right to know what happened to John Walker Lindh on
those two military ships during the weeks following his capture.
A Second Chance
When Lindh is freed (which could be as soon as 2019, since his sentence will
likely be reduced to 17 years for good behavior), his release will probably
be a quiet, even solemn, affair. He never had the opportunity to truly make
his case against the US government. He never got the chance to air his
complaints about torture, illegal interrogation and suppression of evidence
at the hands of the US military, CIA and federal prosecutors. The plea
agreement he was pressured to accept prevented the full disclosure of the
truth.
Under the Son of Sam law (despite First Amendment challenges), Lindh can
sign a book or movie deal, but the profits from any project will immediately
go to the US government. Even if he does not profit by it, I hope that Lindh
does tell his story in his own words. I believe that there is more we can
learn from Lindh's ordeal than simply a lesson about the dire consequences
of youthful misadventure.
Although he will serve the majority of his prison sentence, the words of
John Walker Lindh's father ring true in any call to give Lindh a second
chance:
My hope and prayer is that at some point rational, fair-minded officials in
the American government will see the wisdom in releasing John from prison,
rather than making him serve the entire 20-year sentence. His continued
incarceration serves no good purpose. Releasing John from prison would help
restore America's image in the world, and particularly among Muslim people,
as a humane country committed to the rule of law.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Shane Ralston
Shane Ralston is an associate professor of philosophy at Pennsylvania State
University Hazleton. His research covers a broad array of subjects,
including human resources ethics, environmental policy, international
relations, US political thought and public philosophy. He is the author of
John Dewey's Great Debates-Reconstructed and Pragmatic Environmentalism:
Towards a Rhetoric of Eco-Justice, as well as the editor of Philosophical
Pragmatism and International Relations: Essays for a Bold New World. As part
of his commitment to public philosophy, he regularly investigates public
organizations and exposes their corrupt operations through intelligent
inquiry, Freedom of Information Act requests and citizen journalism.
Related Stories
Taliban Captives Dispute US View on Afghanistan War
By Alissa J Rubin, Rod Nordland, The New York Times News Service |
ReportAfghanistan "After" the US War: Once More Down the Rabbit Hole
By Ann Jones, TomDispatch | News AnalysisAfghanistan: Are Minerals the
Driving Force Behind the War?
By Bill Distler, Veterans for Peace | News Analysis
Show Comments
