Both Hamdi and Padilla are being barred from seeing attorneys, and Ashcroft has suggested that the government, instead of bringing them to trial, may just hold them indefinitely, like the captured Afghan and foreign fighters being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, for the duration of the war on terror. Lindh, who was caught before the other two, was instead brought to the U.S. and indicted on federal criminal charges.

Had Lindh's case gone to trial, a number of major issues could have had an impact on those other cases involving Hamdi, Muhajir and the captives on Guantánamo -- a factor that may have been paramount in the government's decision to strike a deal with the defendant. Key among those issues was whether statements made to military interrogators could be allowed in court -- particularly if those statements were made under threats of abuse, and if no Miranda warning about the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney were given to the captive.

Lindh's attorneys, in the hearings set for this week, were preparing to question military personnel and a CNN reporter who had witnessed or participated in Lindh's first interrogation by Spann, to determine whether he had been "read his rights" and whether he was being threatened or maltreated.

Lindh had been shot in the leg at the time he was captured, and was malnourished and dehydrated. He had claimed that his wound was left untreated for days while he was held in a dark, closed metal shipping container, and that he was only removed, while taped to a stretcher, when he was being interrogated. In his court papers, Lindh had alleged that when he was finally read his Miranda rights by an FBI investigator, on Dec. 3, at each point where it refers to a right to counsel, the agent would add, "Of course there are no lawyers out here."

At that point, Walker1's family had already hired San Francisco attorney James J. Brosnahan, something Lindh was not told. "The government never would have gotten away with using confessions obtained through that kind of treatment in any other case," Cole said yesterday.

The government has denied that Lindh was mistreated in any way during his captivity, and Lindh, as part of his plea bargain, has had to agree to that.

A second issue that arose in the Lindh case that will now remain unresolved is whether he had a right to call, as witnesses, other captured combatants. The government, in its filings in the case, had acknowledged that some of the captured al-Qaida fighters being held at Guantánamo Naval Base had exculpatory information concerning Lindh. Specifically, according to sources familiar with the case (in which most documents have been sealed), they were apparently saying that the uprising of captives during which Spann was killed had been spontaneous, not planned, and was motivated by fears of what would happen to them at the hands of their Northern Alliance captors, not by a desire to kill the Americans.

When Lindh's lawyers said they wanted to go to the base to interview those witnesses, however, the government objected, saying that they were concerned that such interviews could jeopardize the ongoing interrogation process. As someone close to the Lindh case puts it, "What they meant was that they were afraid those guys would find out that they might have a right to a lawyer and a trial."

Judge T.S. Ellis declined to allow the defense to question the witnesses in person, requiring them instead to provide military interrogators at Guantánamo with written questions, which would be put to the potential witnesses as part of regular interrogation sessions. Written responses were being supplied to the defense. Significantly, however, the judge indicated at the time that he was inclined to think the defense would have the right to put those witnesses on the stand once the formal trial began -- something the government was not happy about.

With Lindh's case over but for the scheduled Oct. 4 sentencing, the legal war on terror now moves to Guantánamo, and to the two other American captives from the conflict, both of whom are expected to challenge their incarceration without charges.

Lindh, meanwhile, may yet be free sooner than the plea agreement suggests. The agreement refers to his being returned to prison if he is in violation of the terms of any "supervised release." The judge is not bound by the 20-year sentence cited in the agreement -- though that does set a maximum term -- and could sentence him to a shorter stay in prison.

Lindh also has agreed to cooperate with prosecutors and the Department of Defense in efforts to combat terrorism.

Recent Stories