"American Taliban" John Walker Lindh Seeks Sentence Reduction

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:56:00 AM EST
Tags: John Walker Lindh (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In wake of the 6 year sentence imposed on Australian David Hicks by a military tribunal jury last week, lawyers for "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh are seeking a reduction of his 20 year sentence.

"It is a question of proportionality. It is a question of fairness, and it is a question of the religious experience John Walker Lindh had," attorney James Brosnahan said. "And it was not in any way directed at the United States."

Lindh is seeking a commutation from President Bush. Fat chance it will be granted. In 2004, he sought a commutation arguing he shouldn't be treated more harshly than Yaser Hamdi, who served three years. As I said at the time he was sentenced, he didn't deserve 20 years. It was a trophy sentence for the Ashcroft Justice Department. I still don't see what crime he committed against the United States.

Hopefully, after 2008, a Democratic President will see his situation without the 9/11 blinders on.

< Cheney Protest at Brigham Young University | Fred Hiatt Is An Idiot >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"American Taliban" John Walker Lindh Seeks Sentence Reduction | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Treason (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by jondee on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 12:29:43 PM EST

another example would be lying willfully and with malice in order to lead two nations into a war.

Regardless of what you think.

kinder photo of John W.? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by MSS on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:36:58 PM EST

Just searched to see if there's a recent photo of John Walker Lindh without beard and dirt. No luck yet.

If you find one, consider using it instead. He was a kid, after all, on an Afghani adventure. Did he shoot at anyone? At any Americans? Did he shoot to protect himself?

: He was a kid, on an adventure?? (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:58:25 PM EST

My God! What's next? Forgive him, he was just looking for the "Yellow Brick Road?"
How about letting all the teenage car theives lose?
Shot a 7-11 clerk? Hey, they needed the bread for the picnic!
Have you no standards??
Wait. You've answered that.

Treason (1.00 / 2) (#4)
by jarober on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 12:10:30 PM EST

Treason is actually a real crime, regardless of what you guys think. As to RePack's fantasies, the death toll in Iraq is being caused by the whackos, not by Americans. And if we leave, that death toll will grow far, far worse.

We don't get to rewind to 2003 and do it all over.

Uhh ... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 12:55:10 PM EST

... he wasn't convicted of treason.

And if we leave, that death toll will grow far, far worse.

Just like it will do if we stay. Between 300,000 and 900,000 civilians have been killed since we occupied the country. Millions more (the ones that could afford to) have fled the country. The police and interior ministry have their own separate death squads.

The green zone gets daily mortar attacks. The only way 2 rethugs could walk around a market was when they were accompanied by 100 troops, 5 helicopters, blocked off all access to the blocks they were on and wore body armor. And those guys said it showed hom much better things were.

The death count in iraq is higher now than before the surge.


Dear sailor (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:53:10 PM EST

Not to be too picky..... but can you give us a link that can explain how we have a number between 300,000 and 900,000 that can be taken seriously??

That is like saying, "if we had some ham we would have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs."


repetition for the learning impaired (none / 0) (#19)
by Sailor on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:13:37 PM EST

Uhhh ... he wasn't convicted of treason.

And if we leave, that death toll will grow far, far worse.
Just like it will do if we stay. Between 300,000 and 900,000 civilians have been killed since we occupied the country. Millions more (the ones that could afford to) have fled the country. The police and interior ministry have their own separate death squads.
The green zone gets daily mortar attacks. The only way 2 rethugs could walk around a market was when they were accompanied by 100 troops, 5 helicopters, blocked off all access to the blocks they were on and wore body armor. And those guys said it showed hom much better things were.

From your link (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 09:15:58 AM EST

reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.
The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments.

So I'm impaired? Heh. At least I have enough mental capacity to note that estimates that vary more than 200% and are based on interviews, with no hard facts, shouldn't be considered by rational people.

And thisn't the first time you have tossed out incorrect numbers.

Posted by Sailor at September 9, 2005 03:04 PM
Yeah, all the facts I quotes came from FEMA and NOAA.
You guys are amazing, bush kills untold thousands of americans because he can't be bothered to come off of vacation and all you guys can do is make it a lw conspiracy.....

Leaving aside the purely political attack on Bush, 1,836 people lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina... That is not "untold thousands." And your claim was made on 9/5 at the height of the MSM attacks on Bush.

All death is a tragedy, but the use of incorrect and shrill claims in a purely political attack harms more than it helps.

I especially liked your closing comment. Evidently meant to stop all disagreements with your position.

The death count in iraq is higher now than before the surge.

Well, let me see. We send in more troops to kill the terrorists, and you say the death count is higher? Wow. I mean, I sure hope so.


: cherry picking wrongly as usual (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Sailor on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 10:52:16 AM EST

the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
The death count of CIVILIANS is higher now than before the escalation, so that whole 'surge is working' meme is as false the 'baghdad is safe' meme.
It's sorta safe if you block off all the streets, surround yourself with 100 soldiers and 5 helicopters, wear armor and don't stick around very long.
BTW, there's an open thread for katrina and your constant personal attacks, try to stay on topic in the future.

Lindh grew up ten blocks from where I sit (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:31:03 PM EST

As to RePack's fantasies, the death toll in Iraq is being caused by the whackos, not by Americans. And if we leave, that death toll will grow far, far worse.

Where were all these "whackos" BEFORE we invaded? Are you saying that the fact that all this followed our invasion is a COINCIDENCE? That the "whackos" would have been blowing people up even if we HADN'T invaded?

Please supply evidence of this.

As far as the death toll getting worse, how do you know? Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since we invaded, and hundreds of thousands have fled the country. If this is not "worse," what would "worse" look like?

I said then that it was as bad idea, I marched in the streets, I called my congresscritters, and I did everything in my power to stop it. As it turned out, my most pessimistic projection was not pessimistic enough, because I was unable to conceive the degree of corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration.

Maybe you think I'm a left wing whacko, but I am also an Army veteran, and my patriotism is beyond question. (I'd like to hear about the most important sacrifice you have made for your country.)

What did YOU do to prevent the war? If you did nothing, why not?


Fighting with the enemy (none / 0) (#1)
by jarober on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 08:55:23 AM EST

So the whole "fighting with the enemy and against the US" is a trifle? Is there anything TL considers to be a serious crime?

: Sure (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Repack Rider on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 10:49:26 AM EST

Is there anything TL considers to be a serious crime?
Of course.
Killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and creating thousands of new terrorists.
Exposing a CIA agent working on non-proliferation.
Using the Justice Department to influence elections.
Your turn.

Yes (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:04:12 AM EST

And if Bush said he was OBL's uncle you would believe that too.

20 years is ridiculous, pure politics, the worst self congratulating kind, at someone else's expense.

Tryan (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 04:33:55 PM EST

Would you please stop with the facts.


Plea bargain (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:04:42 PM EST

He was terrified of being put to death by political hacks and liars that would even stoop so low to fix the evidence in order to go to war.

So he did a deal.


squeaky excuses him (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 09:50:20 PM EST

Wait... let me understand..

He wanted to fight against the evil US and when he did and when he was caught he was terrified that he would be put to death by those he wanted to fight and to kill...

Well, duhhhhhhhh.

You're a hoot, squeaky!

Outside of the US just giving up and letting the terrorists take over, what could we do to make you happy???


Not True (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 08:02:22 AM EST

He wanted to fight against the evil US ....

Where did you get that from. Links? That is pure misreprentation of the facts, and shows that either you are really uninformed or just making stuff as usual.


So he was just hanging out (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 08:35:24 AM EST

with a bunch of terrorists, eh? You are a funny guy squeaky.

He would plead guilty to two charges -- serving in the Taliban army and carrying weapons.

If you read the article it is easy to see that Lindh became converted to the Islamic faith and then made a series of very bad decisions, including the two charges he pled guilty.

Treason in a constitutional republic that treasures freedom of speech and action is set at a high level. If Lindh didn't commit treason it is hard to see the difference


: Noice dodge ppj (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 08:45:16 AM EST

He pled to providing services to the Taliban.
That you make the leap that he wanted to fight the US is utter BS. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Lindh made some bad decisions but he is not a killer, never was, and never will be.
Got some more proof?

Revisionist history? (none / 0) (#12)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:55:12 PM EST

John Walker Lindh's plea agreement means that the government knew it had a weak case against Lindh. It also means that the government has a new employee.
Prosecutors completely dropped charges against Lindh on his alleged connections to HUM and al Qaeda, as well as the charge of killing Americans - the charge of which Ashcroft, in a brazenly unethical display of prosecutorial malfeasance, declared Lindh's guilt to all the world.
That prosecutors were willing to drop these charges altogether means these able men did not hold much hope of proving them to a jury.
But, the plea agreement also means that even on those charges to which Lindh agreed to plead guilty, the government was not sure of a conviction. Had they been sure, they would have had no reason to bargain for it.
The plea agreement means that both Lindh and the government agree that he did NOT conspire to murder Americans, that he did NOT provide material support or resources or contribute services to HUM ("Harakat ul-Mujahideen") or to al Qaeda, and that he did NOT use, carry, or possess firearms and destructive devices during crimes of violence.
In the agreement with prosecutors, Lindh pled guilty only to ONE of the ten charges in the indictment, Count Nine: providing services to the Taliban.
In addition, Lindh also agreed to plead guilty to a separate "Information" (similar to an indictment), which charges him with carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony. The felony was "supplying services to the Taliban."
In exchange for Lindh's plea, the government has dropped all other charges against Lindh. In exchange for the dropping of those charges, Lindh has agreed to assist the government in its fight against terrorism.
The plea agreement essentially makes Lindh into a government tool.

truthout

Were he acquitted of the weak government case he was afraid that he would be named an enemy combatant. Looks like he made the right choice, considering what happened to Padilla.

ok, then (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 09:25:43 AM EST

he was terrified of life in prison, or being in limboland, aka being named enemy combatant. Being sent to gitmo, being tortured, not being able to study....

His decision not to go to trial and cop a plea deal was based on fear worse than death.


: OK, then (none / 0) (#28)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 03:03:56 PM EST

Sounds like you need a good cry. Maybe it will open up your heart up a bit. Lindh was a scapegoat.