John Walker Lindh's attorneys yesterday asked that most of the charges against the California man captured with Taliban soldiers be dismissed because they violate Lindh's First Amendment right to associate with any cause, no matter how unpopular.
Motions to dismiss nine of the 10 counts against Lindh were filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria. In one, defense attorneys argue that Lindh is not accused of violent crimes and, therefore, should not face a firearms charge that carries a mandatory prison sentence.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Randy I. Bellows, who is prosecuting Lindh, declined to comment on the filings.
Lindh's attorneys had filed motions Monday to dismiss five of the charges, arguing that Lindh's alleged status as a foot soldier in the Taliban army gave him "combat immunity" from prosecution and that he was improperly charged with providing aid to anti-U.S. forces.
The government will have an opportunity to respond in writing to the defense motions. Arguments on the motions to dismiss are scheduled for June 17 before U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III.
Lindh, 21, was captured in Afghanistan in November. The government alleges that he had been trained at a terrorist-run camp beginning last May, then joined Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda forces in June.
Prosecutors believe that Lindh remained with his fighting group in Afghanistan, opposing the rebel Northern Alliance forces, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States and after learning that U.S. troops were involved in the war against the Taliban.
Eight of the 10 counts against Lindh accuse him of providing material support, resources and services to foreign terrorist organizations, al Qaeda and the Taliban. Defense attorneys George C. Harris and William B. Cummings argue that the indictment "does not specify what services Mr. Lindh allegedly contributed or supplied to al Qaeda or the Taliban. . . . The government's theory of liability is that Mr. Lindh provided 'personnel' by 'providing himself.' "
Lindh's attorneys contend that "services" and "personnel" aren't adequately defined in the law being used to prosecute Lindh. They argue that "the freedom to associate with unpopular groups is protected under the First Amendment" and that the only thing Lindh supplied to those groups, according to the charges, was his association.
The lawyers also argue that the indictment does not allege any violence, so the charge of using weapons during a violent crime should be dismissed.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23447-2002May15.htmlE-mail this article