John Walker Lindh

In the aftermath of September 11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, John Walker Lindh, a twenty-year-old California man, was discovered at an Afghan prison at which Taliban soldiers were being held. Prisoners at this facility were involved in an uprising against their captors and had killed CIA agent Johnny Michael Spann. The media and the public were stunned to find an American among these captives and Walker Lindh gained instant notoriety as the "American Taliban." With this designation, a battle to influence the perceptions of the American public began: officials of the government and many in the media labeled Walker Lindh a traitor, while his family geared up for a counteroffensive calling him "a good boy who loves America."

Following Walker Lindh's capture, the American public has been fascinated by the very fact of his existence, by his background, and by his crimes. He is charged with conspiring to kill Americans, providing support to terrorist organizations, and using firearms during crimes of violence. As of this writing in early 2002, it is unclear whether evidence exists supporting these charges. It is also not clear whether he knew of or participated in the tragedy of September 11, the prison uprising, the death of Agent Spann, or any other killing. His main offense seems to have been to be in bed with the "bad guys." While in the world of public opinion this lifestyle and political choice may disgust or anger many, in the world of law, criminal charges should be based on an objective analysis of law and the Constitution. But, as we have watched Walker Lindh be apprehended and as we watch his unfolding involvement in the American judicial system we should consider whether the propaganda uses of this young man's plight are more important to the government than the question of what crimes he has committed.

What is this fascination with the "American Taliban" and in what form has this interest been manifested? The media and the Bush administration have worked to focus public attention on this story. With apparent lack of concern for constitutional issues such as the notion that an accused is presumed innocent until found guilty or that an accused has the right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury, Attorney General John Ashcroft and others in the administration have taken many opportunities to assure us of Walker Lindh's culpability. Likewise, the media has cooperated in giving high-priority coverage to this matter through both news programming and talk shows. Although it does not appear that Walker Lindh's actions or inactions made any difference to any lives other than those of himself and his family, this story has been given priority over other, more significant stories. For example, whether due to coincidence or plan, Walker Lindh's initial court appearance, which was well covered by the press, was conveniently scheduled by the government to occur on the same day as the opening of hearings on the collapse of Enron. Even after the court appearance was over, Enron coverage was again interrupted by the Attorney General giving a postcourt statement to again assert Walker Lindh's guilt. According to the New York Times, the major networks devoted "far more attention" to this court process than to the Enron hearings. ¹

The coverage of John Walker Lindh's story has been one of two contrasting extremes. On the one hand, we are presented with Walker Lindh as traitor, a vile young man whose conduct is seen as all the more despicable because he rejected the luxuries offered him by the affluence of his Marin County youth. On the other hand, we have been shown Walker Lindh as a misguided "innocent abroad" who, as barely more than a child, set out on a spiritual quest gone wrong, a young man who at most was a passive nonforce in the crimes for which he is charged.

Such contrasting portrayals of Walker Lindh...