Dear Mr. Lindh

John is entirely innocent of any involvement in the terror attacks, or any allegiance to terrorism. That is not disputed by the American government. Indeed, all accusations of terrorism against John were dropped by the government in a plea bargain, which in turn was approved by the US district court in which the case was brought.

Paternal concern is indeed honourable.

But seriously, using the \”we\’ve no evidence\” part of a plea bargain just doesn\’t prove that there\’s no evidence.

As you go on to point out, your son was a trained and armed soldier in the service of the Taliban.

10 thoughts on “Dear Mr. Lindh”

  1. “As you go on to point out, your son was a trained and armed soldier in the service of the Taliban.”

    IIRC that was when the Taleban were the recognised government. Are those joining the French Foreign Legion automatically terrorists?

  2. After a plea bargain he is serving a 20 year sentence, despite, as his father says, being “entirely innocent”.
    ?

  3. “Kay Tie, the Taliban government was recognised by only two or three countries”

    It wasn’t at war with the US. When is working for a foreign government a “terrorist” act? Or an act of treachery?

    Tim adds: Actually, I have a feeling that under American law that is a no no. You’re supposed (I dimly recall) to at least have permission before enlisting in the armed forces of a foreign government.

  4. “You’re supposed (I dimly recall) to at least have permission before enlisting in the armed forces of a foreign government.”

    Whereas they can draft resident aliens into their armed forces. It’s a funny country, isn’t it?

  5. ‘Whereas they can draft resident aliens into their armed forces.’ Except there hasn’t been a draft for about 40 years. And the key phrase is ‘resident alien’, which in this context means a permanent resident on the path towards citizenship, not someone living in the USA for some other reason, such as work.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    Kay Tie – “It wasn’t at war with the US. When is working for a foreign government a “terrorist” act? Or an act of treachery?”

    The Taliban was not a legal government. It was not only not at war with the US, it could not have been at war with the US. War is fought between States. The Taliban can no more declare war than the KKK or the Mafia can.

    Working for a group of terrorists is, by definition, working for a group of terrorists.

  7. “The Taliban was not a legal government”

    Nor was the US government in 1778. However, it was the de facto government of the relevant territory. The Taliban was the de facto government of Afghanistan up until 2002.

    It simply *wasn’t* a terrorist organisation, and only someone completely ignorant of the distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda would claim otherwise.

  8. sackcloth and ashes

    ‘IIRC that was when the Taleban were the recognised government’

    By Saudi, Pakistan and the UAE. It did not hold a seat in the UN General Assembly, and was not recognised by the international community.

    ‘It simply *wasn’t* a terrorist organisation, and only someone completely ignorant of the distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda would claim otherwise’.

    If you’d read Ahmed Rashid, or Steve Coll, or Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, you’d realise that this is a stupid comment to make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *