Replies

From the article: "Conspiracy is proved by evidence showing an agreement (which can be tacit, so long as it is clear) to do something illegal (e.g., killing Americans in general, and/or CIA operative Mike Spann in particular),"

The principle described here suggests that everything that the Taliban did constituted an element of the conspiracy to murder Americans. Fighting the Northern Alliance could not have been part of the conspiracy to kill Americans prior to the cooperation between the Americans and the Northern Alliance.

Any "conspiracy" to kill the Northern Alliance which occurred prior to our joining them has to be independent of the conspiracy to kill Americans.

It should be necessary to show that Lindh conspired to kill Americans after the Americans joined the Northern Alliance. The evidence that I have seen suggests that Lindh "conspired" to surrender not fight.

Let's ask ourselves what Lindh could have done at any given moment of time in order to avoid committing a capital crime. On what day did the actions of Lindh constitute the crime for which he is accused. The necessity for an overt act is so that the chain of events can be established which constitute guilt on the part of the conspirator.

In other words, with whom did Lindh agree and when. What is the overt act which represents the furtherance of that agreement. To simply state that Lindh was Taliban and that the Taliban later caused a death is a stretch.

Are all US soldiers equally guilty of conspiring to kill Afghanis? Or is there a way to agree to an act which is not criminal? Why are we not trying all Taliban? The case against Lindh lacks any specifics which establish a duty for him to have acted differently.

I doubt very much that the conspirators planned on killing any Americans on Afghan soil. The decision to oppose American forces in Afghanistan was independent of the "crimes" for which we seek members of the Al Qaeda.