Skip to comments.Interview: John Walker Lindh's Lawyer
Posted on 01/27/2002 6:46:29 AM PST by flamefront
James Brosnahan, the chief lawyer for John Walker Lindh, the American accused of supporting the Taliban, had some harsh words for the U.S. government's conduct after his client's first appearance in court this week.
In an interview with TIME, Brosnahan suggested that the U.S. was breaking with widely accepted international norms in its treatment of Lindh. "My opinion is, I should have been allowed to see him in December," Brosnahan told TIME. Brosnahan says he was unfairly kept away from his client for 54 days. "I think our government is playing with dynamite. He has the right to counsel under the Geneva Convention."
Brosnahan says he met his famous client for the first time this week, in a short session before the hearing this week and in another one just afterwards. Despite Lindh's unpopularity in polls of the U.S. public, and reports suggesting that Brosnahan might have private reservations about representing a client accused of supporting enemies of America, Brosnahan insists he instantly warmed to Lindh. "It was really good," says Brosnahan. "I like him. I enjoyed talking to him. I'm glad to represent him."
Brosnahan says Lindh knew he had a lawyer and so their initial meeting was not a complete surprise to his client. Says Brosnahan: "He knew because they had finally allowed a little information in there?It was good to talk to him finally. I think no one could really understand the amount of adverse publicity that has been poured on his head. I don't think he realized how much he was being attacked."
Lindh was also reunited with his parents for the first time in two years this week. "He was pleased beyond words to see his parents," says Brosnahan. " I think he's glad to be home and he's glad to be in this country. He's a citizen of this country."
It's clear that Brosnahan and his team plan to fight for Lindh in the court of public opinion as much as the courtroom. However, Brosnahan refuses to go into detail about exactly what sort of legal strategy he and his team will employ to defend Lindh in the case. "It would take all the fun out of it," he says.
Brosnahan is clear on this point: he plans to mount a vigorous defense. Says Brosnahan: "We will be bringing many motions of many different kinds."
Screw this jerk and his idea of fun; also the two dreadful parents and their idea of "loving America."
Typical shyster mumbo jumbo. His opinion is bravo sierra, the law trumps his opinion. Unlawful combatants and non-signatory governments are not availed the benefits of the Geneva Convention. Maybe the Brosnahan Convention in his fantasy world, but not the Geneva Convention.
Brosnahan loves the spotlight and this can only serve to further escalate the already negative feelings all patriotic Americans feel towards his loser client.
THIS representative of Jane Q Public is of the very public opinion that she is sick and tired of hearing Jihad Johnnie's lawyer's totalle informationless rants played over and over on TV. I hope this tired old PR scheme blows up in their faces.
I'm as sick of the Jihad Johnnie BS as I am of the media's constant qestioning of whether the al Qaeda in Camp X-Ray are being "treated humanely".
Mine too...among many other, more unprintable epithets. Then I shut off the TV.
The OJ and klinton PR campaigns worked because of the threat of horrible things happening to our country if either of those two felons went down. Will the ragheads threaten the same thing on behalf of Johnny Jihad? Oh, please, please, please let it be so.
"If he loves America so much why did he hire a super leftwing lawyer who is generally against American policies?"
-- FNC's Fred Barnes on John Walker Lindh, "Special Report," 1/24
Can we expect Dan Rather to identify Brosnahan as a Democrat Activist and Clinton supporter?
My hope is that he overplays the weak hand he's been dealt, and actually takes this case to trial. If the case is tried, with Lindh's confession in evidence, his client will go down.
The case will be won or lost based on the admission of the confession.
If they could get statements from some of the Talibunnies stating "I saw John Walker do X,Y, and Z", wouldn't that be enough to convict without the confession?
If this A-hole's mentality had prevailed let's say during WWII, it would still be going on as all action would be stopped every time prisoners were taken, by either side, to allow each and every one of them to contact their attorney.
I can just see the history books depictin a battle: "Combat stopped at 0800 on January 27 to give time for reading of Rights to newly captured combatants and waiting for each to have made contact with and arrangements for their defense with their attorney. Combat resumed at 0600 on March 17 with fierce......."
So you're correct legally, but such evidence is a long shot. The CNN interview of Lindh is admissable in court and while damaging doesn't appear to be specific enough to amount to a confession.
excuse me ! shouldn't that be with his infamous client?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.