Washington Post Editorial
January 4, 2002


Handling John Walker


THE FATE OF John Walker, the American citizen who fought for the Taliban, is hardly the most pressing issue facing the Bush administration. Mr. Walker does not appear to be on the leading edge of a trend of American youth rushing off to fight against their country on behalf of terrorists. And the military is dealing with thousands of captured fighters in Afghanistan -- from all over the place. That said, the prospect of turning an American battlefield combatant into a criminal defendant raises some tricky issues. How the administration handles Mr. Walker could end up setting precedents for future Americans who are caught on the wrong side of the war on terrorism. So it is worth getting it right.

Mr. Walker has been held for a month now without meeting with a lawyer. His family has hired one for him, but the government has not allowed any contact. This may be within the rules: Battlefield detainees don't generally have a right to counsel. The government's initial goal in questioning Mr. Walker may well have been to advance its military objectives rather than to bring him to trial. Newsweek has reported that when FBI investigators took over the questioning, Mr. Walker was informed of his right to counsel, waived it and continued talking. All of this could serve to insulate the government against any attempts to exclude as evidence in any trial the incriminating statements he has reportedly made to investigators.

But given the severity of the charges Mr. Walker potentially faces -- which could include treason or aiding terrorism -- it would be wise for the government to permit the family's lawyer to see him and verify for himself that Mr. Walker is talking freely and does not desire counsel. When the government's interest in a battlefield detainee becomes primarily criminal, the detainee's right to a lawyer should kick in.

The other difficult question is how to charge Mr. Walker. The charges available to the authorities could bring an enormous range of possible punishments, from relatively brief jail terms to the death penalty. This gives the government great discretion. For all the talk of a young man on a spiritual quest led astray by the treachery of others, Mr. Walker does not evoke our sympathy. He was apparently a willing recruit for the Taliban cause, one who has not shown remorse in retrospect. There is no need for the government to treat Mr. Walker as just some lost soul. At the same time, if there is no evidence that Mr. Walker conspired with Osama bin Laden in planning crimes against Americans, the most severe charges now under consideration also may not be appropriate. As Mr. Walker doesn't seem to be an example of much of anything, there's no need to make an example of him.

Copyright 2002, Washington Post Company. All rights reserved.

saved from url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59696-2002Jan3.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Back to The Crime Line

Back to The Talk Line