Defense Tries to Change Lindh Image

AP | 6/13/03 | LARRY MARGASAK

[kattracks]

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Jun 13, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- John Walker Lindh left America, trained as a Taliban soldier, met Osama bin Laden and found himself in a war against the United States. That resume notwithstanding, defense lawyers want him seen as a misguided young man rather than a terrorist who hates his country.

Lindh's physical image already has been transformed. The infantryman who had long, unkempt hair and a beard in Afghanistan now has a neat haircut and black-framed glasses.

The tougher job for Lindh's defense team of former prosecutors is to cast doubt on the government's portrait of a man charged with conspiring to murder Americans.

Defense lawyers often present a criminal defendant as a good neighbor or parent. Lindh's team of former prosecutors has a far tougher job in building a new image for the 21-year-old, who lived in Marin County, Calif., as a teen-ager.

Lindh is charged with conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals, providing support and services to al-Qaida and the Taliban, and using firearms during crimes of violence.

In recent weeks the lawyers have introduced evidence and arguments that Lindh sought refuge in Islam but wanted to escape the Taliban after being horrified by the Sept. 11 attacks. They argue he was so afraid during his first encounter with U.S. Marines that he begged not to be killed after his surrender.

"What they're saying is, 'He's a clean-cut kid, just like your son, who maybe was misguided and got caught up in something he shouldn't have got caught up in,"' former prosecutor Joseph Aronica said of the defense strategy. "Now he looks clean-cut."

Lindh's chances of acquittal, in a district with thousands of retired and active government workers, may depend on the defense's success in changing his image.

"If any jury accepts the government's version that he was there to kill Americans, then the case is pretty much over," said James Clark, a lawyer who practices in the same court district.

Lindh became "disillusioned when he learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center and wanted to leave his Taliban unit but could not do so for fear of death," his lawyers argue in court papers.

Rather than the Taliban who, the government says, was personally thanked by bin Laden, Lindh is described by the defense as the captured soldier who pleaded with a U.S. military guard, "Please don't kill me."

The defense says Lindh was treated like someone on display, with U.S. personnel on land and on Navy ships shooting souvenir photos.

The lawyers contend that after his capture Lindh was blindfolded, handcuffed so tightly his circulation was cut off, shackled at his feet, bound with duct tape to a stretcher, stripped naked and held in an unheated metal container in freezing weather.

He was taken from the windowless prison, unable to distinguish day from night, to face an FBI interrogator, Lindh's lawyers said. He asked for a lawyer and was told none was available. To improve his conditions, Lindh talked - and allegedly made incriminating statements.

Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, a jury consultant who has worked for prosecutors and defense lawyers, said Lindh's courtroom mannerisms would be crucial during a trial.

"They're going to see a guy who is very clean-cut but ask, 'What in the world prompted him to go to Afghanistan and become a Taliban soldier?' So a different picture is going to emerge if he has any behavior that ties into Afghan behavior. That is not going to be a favorable outcome for Lindh."

The Lindh that the government wants remembered embraced the Taliban, swore allegiance to holy war and remained with his unit after Sept. 11.

"One can scarcely imagine a more profound betrayal by an American citizen," the government says in court papers.

Prosecutors say Lindh, who had bullet and shrapnel wounds, received the same medical treatment as wounded U.S. troops. He was administered a calorie-rich intravenous fluid, antibiotics, morphine and Valium. At times he had a blanket and a heater.

"While the Navy physician who was treating him had to sleep on a concrete floor in a sleeping bag in a room with a hole in the wall and hole in the ceiling, Lindh slept on a stretcher in a container that protected him from the elements," the government says.

He was given the same meals-ready-to-eat as U.S. soldiers. When a meal was found to have pork, Lindh, a Muslim, was given a substitute.

On the USS Peleliu, where surgeons operated to remove the bullet in Lindh's leg, prosecutors say he was given a second haircut after he did not like an earlier cut. His mustache was trimmed at his request.

"He and his fellow detainees were advised five times per day as to the time for prayer and the brig supervisor called up to the deck to ascertain the location of Mecca so that he could advise the detainees in which direction to pray," prosecutors said.

Lindh's father, Frank, insists his son loves America. The government counters with e-mails the Californian sent to his parents - who had unsuccessfully begged him to come home.

"I really don't know what your big attachement (sic) to America is all about. What has America ever done for anybody?" John Lindh wrote.

"I don't really want to see America again."

By LARRY MARGASAK Associated Press Writer

Copyright 2002 Associated Press, All rights reserved

[Spruce]

Too bad this little a**hole didn't "fall on some bullets" when we had the chance.
John Walker should be hanged from the neck until he is dead.

[kattracks]

He should have been shot "while trying to escape".

[MistrX]

Lawyered up and prettied up in front of an O.J. jury. Hmmm.

[William Tell]

From the article: "...trained as a Taliban soldier,..."

I thought that there was an allegation that Lindh trained at an Al Qaeda training camp. This statement seems a little less damning regarding the support the Lindh might have provided to the Al Qaeda.

Our country was perfectly willing to deal with the Taliban if their leadership had agreed to give up OBL. Prior to the Taliban's decision to protect OBL, there had not been a suggestion that the Taliban were conspiring with Al Qaeda to kill Americans.

The tortured chain of evidence tying Lindh to a conspiracy to kill Americans depends on these connections.

[William Tell]

PA COPPERHEAD said: "HELL ILL SHOOT THE SCUM MYSELF"

And will you expect to be rewarded as a soldier performing in battle? Or applauded for having done justice to a criminal? Or will you be accused of being in the employ of the Al Qaeda trying to silence one of their own to protect their conspiracy? If you are suspected of being in league with the Al Qaeda, will you be expecting a trial? Evidence? Will you expect the prosecution to make a credible charge that you committed a crime? Will any of these things be important to you?

You may not care whether Lindh receives due process, but what about yourself?

[Fish out of Water]

*Index Bump

[mrsmith]

'"If any jury accepts the government's version that he was there to kill Americans, then the case is pretty much over," '

No.

The jury need only accept that he was there to help those who he knew were to kill, and had killed, Americans.
Obviously he was so, yes, the case is pretty much over.

[aruanan]

That resume notwithstanding, defense lawyers want him seen as a misguided young man rather than a terrorist who hates his country.

If he's old enough to voluntarily enlist and serve in the US military, he's old enough to serve time for voluntarily enlisting in a terrorist organization that's fighting against the US.

[aruanan]

This is why calling him "The American Taliban" is misleading. He was "The American Al-Qaida".

Lindh became "disillusioned when he learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center and wanted to leave his Taliban unit but could not do so for fear of death," his lawyers argue in court papers.

Argue the hole, that which was not in evidence up until after he was captured and counseled by his attorneys.

Rather than the Taliban who, the government says, was personally thanked by bin Laden, Lindh is described by the defense as the captured soldier who pleaded with a U.S. military guard, "Please don't kill me."

How about "Both A and B". Just because being bilingual came in handy, it doesn't mean that he wasn't personally thanked by bin Laden.

The defense says Lindh was treated like someone on display, with U.S. personnel on land and on Navy ships shooting souvenir photos.

All of which was a consequence of his own actions, freely taken. He wouldn't have had pictures taken of him by US soldiers if he hadn't left California for Yemen and Yemen for Pakistan and Pakistan for Afghanistan. Every single one of these moves and his actions following each one of them was entirely of his own planning. He has no one to blame but himself.

[William Tell]

mrsmith said: "The jury need only accept that he was there to help those who he knew were to kill, and had killed, Americans. Obviously he was so, yes, the case is pretty much over.

I think they may have to prove that he "helped" after he knew. Also, the word "kill" can also be used to describe the actions of soldiers in combat. I would think that the prosecution needs to prove that Lindh helped those who he knew were to murder, or had murdered, Americans.

Also, unless the claim is made that just being there constitutes help, then Lindh may have to have been found to have committed some overt act which assisted the conspiracy. Lindh's most noticeable act was to surrender. It is not clear to me how that would aid the Taliban or the Al Qaeda.

Conspiracy law does not actually require that every conspirator engage in an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, the prosecution does have the burden to prove that Lindh was a conspirator; that is, that he agreed to the commission of some illegal act.

One of the key problems, I believe, with the RICO act is that it relieves the prosecution of some of the burden of tying conspirators to the same illegal act or related acts. I don't know how far the idea can be stretched to find Lindh guilty of conspiracy to murder the people in New York just because he hated them and moved to a country where many other people hated them.

As for the death of the CIA man, I don't know whether it is reasonable to hold every Al Qaeda and Taliban member individually guilty for every death which occurred in Afghanistan. As a prisoner, Lindh was not free to leave the prison and thus his presence their does not constitute very convincing evidence that he willingly agreed or had knowledge of everything planned or done by the other prisoners.

Many would suggest that Taliban who became aware that the US had decided that they were an enemy, had an obligation to throw down their arms or risk being held accountable for the crimes of the Al Qaeda. But then, that is exactly what Lindh did. He threw down his arms and surrendered.

[VRWC_minion]

Even if a turd is dressed up to look like a rose, you still need to deal with the smell.

[VRWC_minion]

I think they may have to prove that he "helped" after he knew.

After he knew what ? That the people he was helping had sworn to kill American's ? WTC wasn't the first time these people attacked us.

[William Tell]

VRWC_minion said: "After he knew what ? That the people he was helping had sworn to kill American's ? WTC wasn't the first time these people attacked us."

The "these people" you refer to are Al Qaeda and not Taliban, are they not? Prior to the Taliban refusing to give up OBL, where they considered the enemy?

I believe that the law recognizes the crime of being an "accessory after the fact". Perhaps Lindh is guilty of being an accessory after the fact of the WTC bombing because the Taliban refused to give up OBL and Lindh did not quit the Taliban (although he did surrender).

The challenge is to define the day on which Lindh first committed the conspiracy with which he is charged. Or if not the exact day, at least what agreement he reached on a given day. Guilt by association has never been recognized in US courts, as far as I know.

[VRWC_minion]

Afghanistan: the regime and their U.N battle

June 8, 2001

The protracted struggle between the United Nations and the Taliban regime that controls most of Afghanistan shows no sign of an imminent resolution.

Since the repressive regime destroyed the ancient Buddhas of Bamiyan -- two towering ancient statues -- the Taliban have shunned international opinion and refused to bow to U.N. sanctions.

The sanctions are intended to force the Taliban to hand over the Saudi-born militant Osama Bin Laden, accused of plotting the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in which more than 250 people died.

But rather than cave in to debilitating restrictions, the Taliban have -- as seen with the stage-managed destruction of the Buddhas -- refused to budge even the minutely to international pressure.

Treating Bin Laden as a guest in their country, the Islamic fundamentalists have consistently rejected U.N. and U.S. demands for his handing over.

Since the world first became aware of the Taliban in 1994, only three countries -- Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- have formally recognized the regime.

Devastated by more than two decades of war, Afghanistan's capital Kabul now lies in ruins, and the Taliban's stated goal of creating the pure Islamic state has seen the implementation of a string of Draconian laws.

Public executions

Women are largely barred from education or employment, except in healthcare, and must remain completely covered and in the company of a male relative when leaving the home.

The teaching of other religions, rejection of Islam, homosexuality and female adultery can all result in the death penalty. Public executions are staged in sports grounds and amputations have been introduced to deter criminals.

The Taliban's criminal code has attracted global media coverage, something the regime has courted by meting out advertised public punishments.

Osama Bin Laden: at the center of the impasse between U.N. and Taleban

Last year the regime's radio station broadcast to the nation that a young woman caught trying to flee Afghanistan with a man who was not her relative had been stoned to death.

On another occasion, it was announced that 225 women had been rounded up and sentenced to a lashing for violating the dress code. Another woman had the top of her thumb amputated for wearing nail polish.

Three men accused of sodomy were sentenced to death by being partially buried in the ground and then having a wall pushed over on them by a bulldozer.

And when the Taliban castrated and then hanged the former communist president and his brother in 1996, they left their bloodied bodies dangling from lampposts in busy downtown Kabul for three days.

Photographs of the corpses duly appeared in news magazines and newspapers around the world.

Taliban origins

The Taliban owes its present status as a regional power to one of its few allies, Pakistan.

The militia first came to prominence when they were assigned by the Pakistan government to protect a convoy trying to open up a trade route between Pakistan and Central Asia.

So effective were the religious students trained by the mujahedin, or Islamic fighters, that they advanced through an Afghanistan fractured by warring Tajik and Uzbek warlords, eventually taking the capital in September 1996.

The regime, largely comprised of ethnic Pashtuns, gained wider popularity by bringing order to a lawless land and through their refusal to deal with the existing leaders.

The Taliban now control all but the far north of the country. Afghanistan's seat in the U.N. is held by ousted president Burhanuddin Rabbani.

Concessions to break the impasse by either the U.N. or the Taliban seem remote.

No doubt aware of the tide of world opinion turning against the effectiveness of sanctions in general and Iraq in particular, the Taliban -- if they care at all -- will be hoping the U.N backs down in the face of their resolute indifference to the global trade embargo.

For the U.N.'s part, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has admitted that sanctions alone will not be enough to bring the Taleban to heel. With the Taliban steadfastly refusing to talk, it is yet to be seen how the international community can assert any authority over the Islamic fundamentalist regime.

[VRWC_minion]

The Taliban
Afghanistan's fundamentalist leaders
John Bowman, CBC News Online | May 2001
Updated July 2001

The Taliban rulers of Afghanistan have drawn the ire of human rights groups and governments around the world with a series of edicts imposed on the Afghan people. Recently, they have decreed that all non-Muslims in Afghanistan must wear identification tags, destroyed two 2,000-year-old statues of Buddha and forbidden women from working, even for United Nations relief agencies.

The Taliban is a fundamentalist Islamic militia that controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan. Its rise to power effectively ended a 25-year period of civil war, but now Afghanis find themselves under the rule of an austere and puritanical regime.

The Taliban – whose name in Arabic means "seekers of truth" – have banned television, dance, film, photography, kite-flying, non-religious music and, most famously, statues such as the giant Buddhas in Bamiyan, which the Taliban destroyed in March 2001.

Quick Facts

A partial list of the items and activities the Taliban have declared to be against the sharia, their interpretation of Islamic law:

• women working and driving
• television
• satellite-TV dishes
• movies
• photographs of people and animals
• statues
• stuffed toys
• the Internet
• computer discs
• non-religious music
• musical instruments
• cassettes
• dancing
• kite-flying
• playing cards
• chessboards
• neckties
• lipstick
• nail polish
• fireworks
• fashion catalogues
• poppy crops
• pig-fat products
• anything made with human hair

Under the Taliban's strict interpretation of Islamic law – a controversial interpretation some Islamic scholars call a gross distortion – women cannot work or attend school and must be covered from head to toe when outside of their homes. Since female doctors generally cannot practise and male doctors can not see or touch their female patients' bodies, access to medical care for women is severely restricted.

Only three nations – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – recognize the Taliban and their leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The United Nations has imposed trade barriers and travel restrictions on Afghanistan. The sanctions are, in part, designed to pressure the Taliban into handing over Osama bin Laden, the accused Saudi terrorist.

The Taliban first drew the world's attention in 1994, when Pakistan recruited them to protect their trade convoys. They grew in popularity because they fought corruption and lawlessness and because they, like most of the Afghan people, are ethnic Pashtoons, while the leaders at the time were Tajiks and Uzbeks. The Taliban captured the Afghan capital of Kabul in 1996 and, by 1998, had virtually eliminated the opposing northern alliance.

Afghanistan has had a history of civil war and instability since a coup ousted King Zahir Shah in 1973, ending the Durrani Dynasty and the Afghan monarchy. The country was the front line of the Cold War for the latter half of the '70s and the '80s, with Soviet-backed Communists battling the U.S.-backed Mujahedeen, or Muslim holy warriors.

TOP    

[VRWC_minion]

U.S. Department of State
Office of the Spokesman
Press Statement

Press Statement by James P. Rubin, Spokesman
November 15, 1999

Afghanistan: Taliban Sanctions

The UN Security Council President announced today that sanctions imposed on the Taliban by Security Council Resolution 1267 are now in effect. The resolution, which was unanimously adopted by the Security Council on October 15, demands the Taliban turn over the terrorist Usama Bin Laden without further delay to authorities in a country where he will be brought to justice. Until the Taliban comply, the resolution requires UN member states to deny permission for Taliban-owned, -leased or -operated aircraft to land in or take off from their territory. It also calls for the freezing of funds and other financial resources, including funds derived from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Taliban. These sanctions have been written to ensure that humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan will be unimpeded.

The Taliban had thirty days in which to comply with this resolution before sanctions were imposed. We regret that the Taliban have chosen to defy the international community's determination to bring Usama Bin Laden to justice.

These sanctions will remain in place until the Taliban have fulfilled the obligation set out in Security Council Resolution 1267: the Taliban must expel bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice.

Taliban assertions to the contrary, the U.S. has always been willing and will continue to be willing to discuss with the Taliban a wide range of issues, including Usama bin Laden.

[end of document]

[VRWC_minion]

Ambassador Nancy Soderberg
Alternate United States Representative for Special Political Affairs
Statement in the Security Council  in Explanation of Vote on Afghanistan - Taliban Sanctions
October 15, 1999

USUN PRESS RELEASE #75 (99)
October 15, 1999

TEXT AS DELIVERED

Statement by Ambassador Nancy Soderberg, Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs of the United States Mission to the United Nations, in Explanation of Vote on the Taliban Sanctions Resolution, in the Security Council, October 15, 1999

On August 7, 1998, operatives of Usama bin Ladin bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over two hundred citizens of America, Kenya, and Tanzania and wounding thousands more. Usama bin Ladin continues to threaten not only the safety of Americans all over the world, but also other citizens in countless countries who may become victims of his terrorist policies. With the passage of the resolution today, the United Nations – indeed the world community – takes a courageous step in combating international terrorism. It sends a direct message to Usama bin Ladin – and terrorists everywhere – you cannot run, you cannot hide, you will be brought to justice. I commend the Security Council for this milestone against international terrorism.

The United States attaches the highest priority to disrupting Usama bin Ladin’s terrorist organization and bringing bin Ladin to justice for his involvement in terrorist activities. Today’s action brings new pressure on the Taliban to turn over Usama bin Ladin to authorities in a country where he will be brought to justice.

The Taliban in Afghanistan continues to provide bin Ladin with safe haven and security, allowing him the necessary freedom to operate, despite repeated efforts by the U.S. to persuade the Taliban to turn over or expel bin Ladin and his principal associates to responsible authorities in a country where he can be brought to justice. Our information confirms that bin Ladin’s organization, working with other terrorist groups, continues actively to plan attacks on Americans and others. We also have reliable evidence that bin Ladin's network seeks to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons.

The United States has consistently expressed its concern with the policies of the Taliban. As this resolution makes clear, the Council shares our deep concern over the continuing violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights, particularly discrimination against women and girls. We are also disturbed by the significant rise in illicit opium production under areas of Taliban control and the deplorable treatment of Iranian diplomatic personnel and journalists in Mazar-e-Sharif. The Taliban’s actions pose threats to their neighbors and to the international community at large.

On July 5, President Clinton issued an executive order imposing economic sanctions on the Taliban because of the threat to our national security posted by their actions and policies. Today, the Security Council sent another strong message to the Taliban: Your continued harboring of Usama bin Ladin poses a threat to international peace and security. The international community demands that he be brought to justice.

This resolution gives the Taliban a clear choice: the Taliban have 30 days to turn over bin Ladin. If the Taliban do not turn over bin Ladin within that period, the sanctions will take effect. These sanctions are limited and targeted very specifically to limit the resources of the Taliban authorities. They will restrict foreign landing rights on aircraft operated by the Taliban, freeze Taliban accounts around the world, and prohibit investment in any undertaking owned or controlled by the Taliban. The resolution also establishes a committee to monitor implementation of the sanctions.

It is the earnest hope of the United States that the Taliban will cooperate with the international community in bringing bin Ladin to justice within this period and that we will not need to implement these sanctions. The choice between cooperation and confrontation with the international community rests with the Taliban.

These sanctions in no way harm the people of Afghanistan. We will work with the Sanctions Review Committee to implement them in a way that does not hinder the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.