IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA


Alexandria Division

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

V.

JOHN PHILLIP WALKER LINDH  

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Number 02-51-M
Judge Sewell


GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RELEASE

AND GOVERNMENT'S PROFFER IN SUPPORT OF DETENTION

By each of the critical factors that governs detention, John Phillip Walker Lindh should be detained pending trial. He poses a grave risk of flight and an equally grave danger to the community. Defendant's claims - that Lindh has no history of violence or dangerous conduct, shows no tendency to violence, had no intent to harm anyone and is a safe bet for release to his parents - is entirely belied by the facts alleged in the affidavit, by the indictment now before the Court, and by the additional evidence proffered in this memorandum.

Several preliminary points should be made:

First, Lindh has now been indicted. That indictment charges Lindh with 10 felony counts, including three counts - Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals (Count One), Conspiracy to Provide Material Support & Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (Count Four), and Providing Material Support & Resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization (Count Five) - that carry a maximum penalty of life in prison. In addition, Count 10, which charges Lindh with Using and Carrying Firearms and Destructive Devices During Crimes of Violence, carries a 30 year mandatory minimum sentence. Thus, any assessment as to the risk of flight posed by release of the defendant must proceed from the recognition that Lindh, if convicted, faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.

Second, defense counsel devotes much of his argument to criticizing the Government's reliance on the sworn affidavit of an FBI Special Agent. Putting aside the fact that this is the type of evidence that courts rely upon day in and day out to make detention arguments, we now have a grand jury indictment that has been returned in this matter. That indictment reflects a probable cause determination by a federal grand jury on a range of very serious felonious conduct, including several crimes not charged in the Amended Complaint.

Third, Count 10 of the indictment charges Lindh with Using and Carrying a Firearm and Destructive Devices During Crimes of Violence in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c). That makes this a "presumption" case under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(e), which reads in pertinent part as follows:

Subject to rebuttal by the person, it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community if the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe that the person committed * * * [one of several named offenses including] section 924(c)....

When this "presumption" of detention is coupled with the fact that Lindh is also charged with three potential life offenses, including Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals, there is no question that he cannot rebut the presumption of detention.(1)

As further described below, each of the four principal factors to be considered in making the detention determination, see Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(g), argue for detention:

Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Charged

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(g) states that the judicial officer shall consider, among other factors, the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence. Here, Lindh is charged with multiple crimes of violence, specifically, Conspiracy to Murder United States Nationals, Conspiracy to Provide Material Support and Resources to al Qaeda, Providing Material Support and Resources to al Qaeda, Conspiracy to Contribute Services to al Qaeda, Contributing Services to al Qaeda, Conspiracy to Supply Services to the Taliban, and Supplying Services to the Taliban.

The circumstances of the offense also argue for detention: Lindh is accused of leaving his country of birth and citizenship, the United States of America, and joining a foreign terrorist organization, al Qaeda, whose stated goal was to kill Americans.(2) Toward accomplishing the objectives of al Qaeda, Lindh underwent rigorous training in explosives, weaponry and the other arts of terror, and then took up arms as a front line soldier for al Qaeda. Even after learning of the horrific events of September 11 - and with full knowledge of al Qaeda's and Usama bin Laden's complicity in it and their determination to engage in future acts of terror - Lindh did not flinch from his devotion to al Qaeda's cause. Rather, he continued to man the front lines as an al Qaeda soldier. Even the United States' entry into the war did not cause Lindh to abandon al Qaeda. Rather, along with his fellow al Qaeda members, he continued to serve on the battlefield against the Northern Alliance and its ally, the United States. One can scarcely imagine a more profound betrayal by an American citizen.

The defense would have this Court believe that Walker's participation in military activity was passive, as if he was some sort of camp follower. In statements Walker made to United States military personnel, however, Walker stated that he wanted to be a martyr, that he had fought in the Kabul, Taloqan and Kunduz areas of Afghanistan, that after his unit was informed of the bombing of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, they were ordered to dig bunkers and trenches because the American bombers would soon be arriving.(3) When Lindh was questioned about several of the terrorist incidents which had occurred, specifically the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 terrorist acts, he stated that incidents like these happen in war. He also stated that he agreed with the bombing of the USS Cole and stated that the Pentagon was a good target.

The Weight of the Evidence

Defense counsel characterizes the evidence against their client as "slim." It is nothing of the sort. The Government's case against Lindh includes numerous statements he made to military personnel, to the FBI, and to the media.(4) Each of these statements are very incriminating and consistent throughout: they establish conclusively that Lindh was a willing and eager participant in al Qaeda and its goals. They also establish that Lindh was well aware of the fact that after September 11th, the United States entered the military conflict in Afghanistan and that Lindh was now fighting in opposition to both the Northern Alliance and the United States and that it was his intent to commit "Shaheed," in other words, to die while fighting the enemy. Even Lindh's statements to non-government entities are incriminating: On or about December 1, 2001 - after months of service as an al Qaeda soldier and shortly after the QIJ prison uprising in which Johnny Micheal Spann was killed - Lindh told CNN that his experience had been "[e]xactly what I thought it would be."

But it is not just his statements that incriminate Lindh. It is also his presence among his fellow al Qaeda fighters who were taken into custody at the end of November 2001, his refusal to cooperate with U.S. authorities even when questioned alone at the QIJ prison compound, his remaining with his fellow al Qaeda fighters for almost a week after the uprising, and an array of corroborating evidence to support Lindh's statements to the FBI.

Defendant's response to all of this is to claim that Lindh's statements were taken in violation of Miranda and are involuntary. A detention hearing is, of course, neither the time nor the setting in which to argue the admissibility of Lindh's statements. See, e.g., United States v. Acosta, 769 F.Supp. 184, 186 (E.D. Pa. 1991) (suppression objections may not be raised at detention hearing), United States v. Winson, 785 F.2d 755, 756-757 (9th cir. 1986) (district court's refusal to allow defendant to delve into validity of arrest and likelihood of success on suppression motion did not violate due process), and United States v. Pasciuti, 958 F.2d 361, 1992 WL 51482 at *6 (1st cir. 1992) (unpublished) (district court not required to turn bail revocation hearing into motion to suppress hearing).

Having said that, the Government does expect that if and when the defendant properly raises the suppression issue, the Government will fully satisfy the Court that the Lindh's statements were both voluntary and in full compliance with Miranda. Before leaving this matter, one additional point should be noted. Defense counsel would have this Court believe that the defendant was essentially deprived of food and medicine prior to his FBI interview. That is not true. We proffer to this Court that after the uprising was suppressed and Lindh was recognized as an American and taken into the custody of the United States military, he was given medical treatment, food and water. He was examined and treated regularly by a United States military physician, his wounds were dressed and changed repeatedly, he was administered antibiotics as well as pain killers, and he was even given a tetanus shot. Moreover, contrary to the defendant's claim that he was given minimal food, military records for December 5, 2001 indicate that "[p]atient has been eating three MREs [Meals Ready to Eat] per day with plenty of water" and that his "[s]trength continues to improve."

The History and Characteristics of the Person

Among other factors, Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(g)(3)(A) states that the judicial officer shall consider the person's character, family ties, employment, financial resources, and community ties. Each of these factors argue for detention(5):

In summary, Lindh has no community ties, his last fixed addressed was a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and he broke off family contact last April. There is nothing in this litany that would suggest that there are any conditions of release that will reasonably assure his appearance in court and the safety of others.

Nature and Seriousness of the Danger Posed by Release

As the indictment alleges, Lindh has sworn his allegiance to jihad. He was committed to being a martyr. He joined a group, al Qaeda, involved in the worst act of terrorism in United States history. Lindh's commitment to his cause can hardly be questioned given his active participation as a front line al Qaeda soldier in Afghanistan.

Almost a year ago, Lindh made his decision to engage in combat on behalf of terrorist organizations. Toward that end, he left his studies and joined the HUM and was trained to engage in violence. When that did not satisfy him, Lindh left the HUM camp to travel to Afghanistan to join another terrorist camp. It was at this camp, and other like it, that the most dangerous criminals in history have been trained to commit the most heinous acts imaginable. Lindh left that camp as a fully trained terrorist fighter, intent on engaging in Jihad even if it meant sacrificing his own life. Having been trained in weaponry and explosives, he took up shoulder weapons and hand grenades, the only purpose of which was to kill.

Lindh was, and remains, an ever present danger to his community and to the citizens of this nation.

WHEREFORE, the Government respectfully requests that the defendant be detained pending trial.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. McNULTY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: ___________________________

Randy I. Bellows
Assistant United States Attorney


David N. Kelley
Special Assistant United States Attorney


John S. Davis
Assistant United States Attorney

 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I hereby certify that I have caused to be served by hand the foregoing pleading, this

6th day of February, 2002, on one or more of the following attorneys: James J. Brosnahan, George

C. Harris, Tony West, Raj Chatterjee, or William Cummings.



_______________________

Randy I. Bellows

 

1. This case is now a "presumption" case. However, the defense is correct in pointing out that, at the time the Amended Complaint was filed, this was not a "presumption" case, distinguishing between an offense under Title 18 United States Code Section 2332b - which is a "presumption" case - and an offense under Title 18 United States Code Section 2332(b), which is not. The Government's representation to the contrary was unintentional and inadvertent. The crimes charged in the Complaint did, however, involve "a crime of violence," as that term is used in Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f)(1)(A), and "an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death," as that term is used in Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f)(1)(B), and therefore a detention hearing is and was mandatory.

2. Nor is this the first terrorist organization which Lindh is accused of having joined. Prior to joining al Qaeda, he joined Harakat ul-Mujahideen ("HUM"), a terrorist organization operating primarily in Kashmir.

3. The Government has produced to the defense on today's date redacted military documents containing the statements referenced in this paragraph.

4. The Government has produced to the defense on today's date the FD-302 concerning the FBI's interviews of John Walker on December 9 and 10, 2001.

5. This section relies upon family emails and correspondence which have been produced to the Government in the course of this investigation.