The Clipboard: Lindh gets his day in court, but look who's still in jail

From an article¹:

Clearly what is at work here is that of the three, it's easiest to cut Lindh some slack. In Lindh, our biases allow us to detect grays. In Padilla and Hamdi all we see is black and white.

In our minds, the impressionable and wayward Marin youth in search of spiritual awareness wins hands down over the Latino-street-criminal-turned-Muslim and way over the guy who, though born in Louisiana, was raised in Saudi Arabia and has one of those "distinctive" names. (link)

A very interesting article.

---

Complete text of the article, taken from Lindh gets his day in court, but look who's still in jail, by O. Ricardo Pimentel

Three U.S. citizens accused of terrorism.

One is Latino and a former street criminal. Another, though born in Louisiana, has Saudi roots and a thoroughly Middle Eastern name. And the third is from an affluent Marin, Calif., family.

Guess which one got due process in civilian court and which two are still being held as unlawful combatants by the military without access to counsel?

John Walker Lindh, the Marin kid turned Taliban, was, of course, tried in federal court. And, as it turns out, being tried in civilian court is no inconsequential benefit.

Lindh got a bargain, as in plea bargain. He will do 20 years instead of life imprisonment. He pleaded to helping the Taliban, a terrorist organization, and to carrying explosives, a rifle and two grenades while he did this. The government dropped charges that he conspired to kill Americans and that he had some responsibility in the death of a CIA officer.

The government is touting this as a blow for justice and, in fact, it is. Lindh pleaded guilty to two crimes he clearly committed. The government overstated its case; not unusual. But faced with the prospect of a lengthy trial that might have raised questions about the treatment of Lindh during his capture and interrogation, the government did a cost-benefit analysis.

Going to such trouble for a small-fry like Lindh was clearly not worth it.

But no such internal deliberation is necessary with our two unlawful combatants. Heck, we can hold folks and not even charge them.

Which brings us back to the original question. Of the three U.S. citizens held in connection with alleged terrorist activities, why was the kid from an affluent Marin family the only one to get civilian court?

Maybe the difference is the severity of the crime. Padilla, Brooklyn-born of Puerto Rican origin, is accused of plotting to kill folks with a radioactive bomb. This is very serious.

But the other U.S. citizen/unlawful combatant is Yasser Esam Hamdi, and he was essentially caught in much the same circumstances as Lindh - fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

OK, maybe it's that we believe citizenship for Hamdi is really a technicality. He apparently spent most of his life in Saudi Arabia and may have dual citizenship. But wait. Padilla, like Lindh, is U.S.-born and raised.

Clearly what is at work here is that of the three, it's easiest to cut Lindh some slack. In Lindh, our biases allow us to detect grays. In Padilla and Hamdi all we see is black and white.

In our minds, the impressionable and wayward Marin youth in search of spiritual awareness wins hands down over the Latino-street-criminal-turned-Muslim and way over the guy who, though born in Louisiana, was raised in Saudi Arabia and has one of those "distinctive" names.

This is way too fickle a way to operate for an allegedly fair and balanced judicial system.

How fickle? Two U.S. citizens sit in the legal limbo as unlawful combatants but we are trying two non-citizens in federal court. Zacarias Moussaoui, the suspected 20th hijacker, is a French national of Moroccan descent. Richard Reid, accused of trying to blow folks up with a shoe bomb, is the British born son of a British woman and Jamaican father.

Understand, I don't buy the widely held belief that constitutional protections are just for citizens. But we had been able to believe that U.S. citizens, at the very least, were accorded all rights therein.

So why did Lindh win this sweepstakes among the U.S. citizens accused of terrorism?

The answer is disturbing. The solution is one standard for everyone accused of a crime - constitutional protections, including the due process and public scrutiny that occurs more readily in civilian courts.

Capriciously applying the term "unlawful combatant" is really more about secrecy and simplicity than about justice.

reference=http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0718pimentel18.html