John Walker Lindh (he has said that he wants to be known as John Lindh) is back in the States, and has been started his run through the (civilian) justice system. Meanwhile, his parents has voiced support, love, and claims that he is innocent, though Lindh did leave his family a few years ago to convert to Islam and go to a foreign land, eventually joining with the Taliban. It is nice that parents stick up for their children, but at some point, we should not use love and respect to be naïve or stupid about things. Early on, it seemed that President Bush was hypocritically or at least unwisely going easy on him because of his citizenship and/or religious motivations. Nonetheless, it is one thing to take various things into consideration (in criminal cases, it is basically always unjust not to) instead of just denouncing him as an evil traitor, but let’s not go too far. Still, his parents are not the only ones who blindly defend their criminal children; they come in all shapes and sizes, not just liberals coming from California.
I would like to comment on the article linked above that suggests giving him somewhat of a break because of his religious motivations is wrong. Just as a bombing of an abortion clinic is not justified because of religious belief, Walker should not get a pass. We don't give Bin Ladin a pass for his beliefs. Still, motivation matters, even in death penalty and yes treason cases. Religious belief (as compared to profit or revenge) is a mitigating factor to consider, especially if Walker is not shown to have attacked US forces or actively supported those who that did to any large degree. It also is important to point out how religion at times is a force of harm, so if nothing else, it will give us a more fully rounded view than some who want to deny Bin Ladin truly is motivated by religious beliefs shared by many others in the Muslim world want to admit. It is generally accepted that Lindh honestly supports Islam, went overseas in pursuit of his beliefs, and eventually joined up with the Taliban as an eager young recruit. Beliefs and even association with foreigners that the US has unfriendly relations with is not necessarily a crime. He started this religious journey when still a teenager, being captured before his twenty first birthday. Thus, though as an adult Lindh has to face up to his actions, youth is a factor. For instance, youth can be added to his religious motivations, as well as other factors if the government or a jury needs to decide whether to not to give him the death penalty. Finally, though an argument can be made that his actions could be held to be a renunciation of American citizenship, most feel he is one, and justly is being tried in US civilian courts.
The ultimate question is just how much did his acts aid our enemies in violation of our laws, including possibly treason. Did Lindh join the Taliban only in support of the movement and to help fight the Northern Alliance? Did he in some way, especially after the U.S. targeted the Taliban forces as our enemy, directly or indirectly support their mission (in deed, not thought, the key difference between free expression and criminal activity) against us? Was he involved in some way in the prison uprising that killed one of his inquisitors? Will such an “overt act” be backed up by two witnesses (the Constitution requires this or a confession in open court)? Finally, though he was an enemy sympathizer (or active participant) in a foreign land, what were his rights to remain silent, have excess to a lawyer, and so on?
The case therefore is more complex than some might want to admit. I am somewhat wary to prejudge the government’s decision to forgo even including treason in the indictment, especially given how traditionally it has been hard to prove (one interesting case is Aaron Burr, who was found not guilty largely because the government could not meet the high standard necessary to prove treason more than his guilt or innocence). Nonetheless, Burr’s very case set up a definition of treason that seems to apply here; why not at least put the accusation out there among the others? It is not like they do not want to try him for a capital offense. Perhaps, his acts are not as evil as we are led to believe? I do wish such concern would be used when detaining and trying non-citizens.
"Talib" means "student." "Taliban" is a plural form; thus, the right term really is "American Talib," not "American Taliban."