World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
WSWS : News &
Analysis : North
America
The Bush administration and John Walker Lindh: who are the real
"conspirators"?
By David Walsh
25 January 2002
Back to screen version | Send this link by
email | Email the author
The Bush administration is proceeding with its brutal legal vendetta against
John Walker Lindh, the young American who joined the Taliban in Afghanistan last
year and surrendered to Northern Alliance forces in November. Walker (who
generally goes by his mother’s name) arrived in the US late Wednesday after
being taken off the USS Bataan warship—where he has been imprisoned—by
helicopter and transferred to another military plane at the airport in the
southern Afghan city of Kandahar. He was restrained during the flight to the US.
Walker made an initial appearance Thursday in US District Court in Alexandria,
Virginia. US Magistrate Judge W. Curtis Sewell set a preliminary hearing for
February 6.
On January 15 the US government charged Walker with four criminal counts. The
charges include two counts of providing material support to terrorist
organizations, conspiring to kill US nationals abroad and engaging in prohibited
transactions with the Taliban.
The charges, which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, are based
almost entirely on Walker’s own alleged confession, extracted from him by the
military and FBI on board the US military vessel where he was held incommunicado
for more than six weeks. The 20-year-old was neither granted access to the
lawyer engaged by his parents nor was he apparently informed that an attorney
was available. The International Committee of the Red Cross was prevented from
delivering letters to Walker.
On January 16 Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the charges brought
against Walker and indicated that the government had not “foreclosed charging
other crimes against this individual,” including those which carry the death
penalty. The attorney general asserted that Walker had waived his right to
remain silent, hypocritically declaring, in regard to the parents’ efforts to
provide their son with legal counsel, that “No other individual has a right to
impose an attorney on him or to choose an attorney for him.”
In his reactionary and ignorant, albeit defensive, comments to the press
Ashcroft did his best to poison public opinion against the young man. “John
Walker Lindh chose to fight with the Taliban,” Ashcroft said, “chose to train
with Al Qaeda, and to be led by Osama bin Laden. We may never know why he turned
his back on our country and our values, but we cannot ignore that he did.” He
added: “Youth is not absolution for treachery, and personal self-discovery is
not an excuse to take up arms against one’s country. Misdirected Americans
cannot seek direction in murderous ideologies and expect to avoid the
consequences.”
Ashcroft’s denunciations of Walker follow the comment made by George W. Bush
on December 21 that Walker was “the first American al Qaeda fighter that we have
captured.” This assertion prompted Anthony Arend, a professor at the Georgetown
University law school in Washington, to tell a reporter: “He shouldn’t have said
it.... It can prejudice various people and make selecting a jury more
difficult.”
In response to Ashcroft’s inflammatory remarks, Avern Cohn, a district judge
from Detroit, in a letter to the New York Times, observed that the
attorney general “appears to have violated Justice Department guidelines on
release of information relating to criminal proceedings that are intended to
ensure that a defendant is not prejudiced when such an announcement is made....
Mr. Ashcroft’s statement and news conference seem to suggest that there is
really no need for a trial. Moreover, evidence has yet to be presented to a
grand jury.”
The judge is referring to a section of the Code of Federal Regulations which
prohibits the type of prejudicial comments made by the attorney general January
16 and in subsequent interviews with the media. The regulation instructs Justice
Department personnel not to “furnish any statement or information for the
purpose of influencing the outcome of a defendant’s trial, nor shall personnel
of the Department furnish any statement or information, which could reasonably
be expected to be disseminated by means of public communication, if such a
statement or information may reasonably be expected to influence the outcome of
a pending or future trial.” Furthermore: “Disclosures should only include
incontrovertible, factual matters, and should not include subjective
observations.” The regulation specifically prohibits the release of “Statements,
admissions, confessions, or alibis attributable to a defendant.”
In his comments Ashcroft clearly violated both the letter and the spirit of
this regulation. The Bush administration treats Justice Department guidelines
with the same contempt it reserves for the Geneva Convention on the treatment of
prisoners of war. At every step the administration reveals its authoritarian and
anti-democratic proclivities.
In a statement to the press on the eve of Ashcroft’s comments, attorney
George Harris—a member of the legal team hired by Walker’s parents—had appealed
to the US government to stop commenting about his client to the media.
The decision by the government not to pursue treason charges is an indication
that it feels itself on shaky legal grounds. Ashcroft’s demonization of Walker,
echoed by an endlessly servile media, is in part an effort to compensate for the
deficiencies of the government’s arguments. There is reason to believe that the
Justice Department, holding the threat of possibly charging him with a capital
crime over his head, may be hoping that Walker and his lawyers can be pressured
into agreeing to plead guilty. It is likely that the government is desirous to
avoid a trial which could prove politically embarrassing.
Legal experts expect that Walker’s lawyers will first of all challenge the
admissibility of their client’s alleged confession, which forms the basis of the
government’s case. USA Today noted: “His lawyers could argue that Walker,
who had been shot in one leg and medicated for two weeks before his FBI
interview, did not intend to waive his right to an attorney. They could also
argue that Walker’s statements were coerced. He reportedly had been held in
isolation since being wounded in a failed prison uprising.”
We already know, because the incident was captured on videotape, that Walker
was taunted and threatened with death during his interrogation by CIA agents at
the Mazar-i-Sharif prison. What were his conditions aboard a US navy vessel,
entirely isolated and with the full force of the American war machine bearing
down on him?
A former Air Force lawyer, Scott Silliman, told the San Francisco
Chronicle: “There is no right to silence in military questioning. Then you
throw FBI agents at him [Walker], and he’s got to make a voluntary waiver of his
rights. Did he understand?” Douglas Kmiec, law school dean at Catholic
University and generally a shameless apologist for the Republican Party,
commented: “There is a very sizable question whether a federal court would rule
these statements as subject to exclusion because they were made in custody
[without a lawyer present].”
Criminal complaint
The criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department against Walker fails
to substantiate the charges that have been brought against him. It largely
recounts or purports to recount Walker’s experiences since May 2001 when the
young American left a religious school where he was studying and joined a
paramilitary camp run by the Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM), to fight in Kashmir on
behalf of Islamic fundamentalist forces against the Indian military.
In late May, according to the complaint, Walker traveled to Afghanistan and
made his way to a Taliban recruiting center in Kabul. As he spoke Arabic but not
any of the Afghan languages or dialects, he was assigned to the al Qaeda group
of Osama bin Laden. Walker allegedly attended a training camp, operated by bin
Laden, where he received military training. He was apparently offered several
options, including the possibility of conducting operations in the US or Israel;
he declined that offer and chose instead to fight on the front lines against the
Northern Alliance.
Walker, along with his unit, rotated in two-week shifts in the Takhar
trenches against the Alliance. When US bombs began to fall the members of his
group retreated to Kunduz and, after a withdrawal was negotiated with General
Abdul Rashid Dostum, surrendered their arms and were trucked to Mazar-i-Sharif
prison. Shortly after he was interrogated by CIA agents, fighting broke out at
the prison and Walker, wounded in the leg, retreated to the basement with his
comrades. He was thus not a witness to the massacre of the prisoners carried out
by Northern Alliance and US forces. Walker stood at one point in cold water for
20 hours before a surrender was arranged and he was transported to a hospital
near Mazar-i-Sharif.
The notion that Walker “conspired to kill American nationals” is ludicrous.
He joined the forces fighting to defend the Taliban regime against the Northern
Alliance in what was then a civil war. The United States was not engaged in a
conflict with Afghanistan and indeed has never officially declared war. In the
wake of September 11, the US began bombing the positions of his unit; then came
his surrender. If anything, the American military “conspired” to kill Walker and
his comrades who were not in any position to respond.
The remaining charges deal with Walker’s alleged dealings with and support
for “foreign terrorist organizations.” As we have noted before, to apprehend
those principally responsible not merely for “transactions with,” but the very
existence of these terrorist organizations, the Justice Department needs to look
considerably closer to home. The Taliban regime and Islamic fundamentalism both
in Afghanistan and Pakistan are largely the products of American intervention in
the region. These forces were deliberately incited, funded and armed by
Washington in the 1970s and 1980s as part of the ongoing destabilization effort
aimed against the Soviet Union. The consequences have been tragic, both for the
peoples of the region and the victims of the World Trade Center and Pentagon
terrorist attacks on September 11.
The venom directed at Walker is part of the attempt by American authorities
to throw dust in the public’s eyes and cover their own tracks. Walker is
obviously a disoriented young man, whose quest for “spiritual purity” led him
down a terribly mistaken path. He is not the first nor will he be the last young
person to be repulsed by the state of American society, but in the current
ideological climate—with its worship of money, greed and ruthless
individualism—he was unable to find his way to any progressive alternative.
There is no need to feel any sympathy for his allegiance to Islamic
fundamentalism, a deeply reactionary political and social force. Nonetheless,
the attempt by the Bush administration and the right-wing media ( Wall Street
Journal, Washington Times, the Murdoch-owned television and press) to
transform Walker into a “hard-core militant” and “traitor” is as vile as it is
inaccurate.
Robert Pelton, the individual who shot the tape of Walker on his hospital bed
(and sold it to CNN for a large amount of money), told a television interviewer,
“He’s actually a very gentle, sort of unassuming person. He’s not a militant
person at all.” He later commented to NBC, “He didn’t seem like a very bellicose
person. He was very sensitive. I mean, his whole concern was more the moral and
religious ... and not the fighting part ... This guy struck me as a [person]
that should be going to poetry readings.”
The Bush administration is pursuing Walker so relentlessly, first, because it
intends to make an example of him for the purpose of demonstrating its power to
pulverize those who resist its policies. Moreover, the central fact of the case
is disturbing to the political and media establishment: that a well-educated
young man from the Bay Area should turn his back so resolutely on the values of
American capitalism. For all its denunciations and assertions that Walker is
universally despised, the establishment is concerned that there may be more than
a few youth who will find something admirable in Walker’s opposition, if not in
the cause he espoused. Also, US authorities are determined to silence Walker one
way or another because what he knows about the conflict in Afghanistan
(including the massacre at the prison) and what he might communicate to the
American public are potentially damaging.
The US government and the media are attempting to focus the anger over
September 11 onto Walker, suggesting that he is a sinister figure somehow
responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. Walker is no more to blame
for the terrorist attacks than is an impoverished Pakistani who joined the
Taliban out of some mistaken sense that he could strike a blow against American
imperial power. In general, Walker’s role in the operations of bin Laden and the
war in Afghanistan is so infinitesimal that one would need a magnifying glass to
discover it.
Who are the genuine criminals and conspirators? John Walker, a misguided
idealist and Taliban foot soldier, or the government and oil industry officials
who, in the selfish and reckless pursuit of American geopolitical interests,
have inflicted only misery and suffering on the Afghan and Pakistani
populations? Will Carter, Reagan, Brzezinski—the architects of the US policy in
the region—face prosecution? Or CIA and American military officials who
collaborated with Osama bin Laden and his co-thinkers in the 1980s? Or
executives of Unocal, the US oil company, which supported the Taliban in its
consolidation of power in 1996, in the interest of a pipeline deal? Or officials
of the Clinton administration, who gave tacit blessing to the Taliban regime? Or
the elder George Bush and his cohorts like Frank Carlucci, who have had the
closest contacts with the Saudi ruling elite and the bin Laden family?
Moreover, there is the conspiracy of silence surrounding the events of
September 11 themselves. Will any investigation be launched to ascertain whether
officials in the US military and intelligence apparatus had foreknowledge of the
terrorist attack?
Any serious discussion of the Walker case, in all its tragic dimensions, must
address itself to these and other questions.
Copyright
1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights
reserved