United States v. Lindh
2002 WL 1489373, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12683 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of lawful combatant immunity does not apply to members of a military force, such as the Taliban, that fails to satisfy the four criteria for lawful combatant status under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW). A presidential determination that a group constitutes unlawful combatants is entitled to substantial weight and deference from the judiciary.
Facts:
- In mid-2001, John Phillip Walker Lindh, an American citizen, attended a military training camp in Pakistan run by Harakat ul-Mujahideen (HUM), a designated terrorist group.
- Wishing to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan, Lindh traveled there in May or June 2001, presented a letter of introduction from HUM, and told Taliban personnel he was an American who wanted to fight on the front lines.
- Lindh agreed to receive extensive military training at an al Qaeda training camp, knowing that a principal purpose of al Qaeda was to fight and kill Americans.
- During his training, Lindh was told that Osama bin Laden had sent people to carry out suicide terrorist operations against the United States, and he met personally with bin Laden.
- After completing training, Lindh was issued an AKM rifle and grenades and traveled with a non-Afghani fighting unit to the front line at Takhar to fight against Northern Alliance troops.
- Lindh remained with his fighting group after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, knowing that bin Laden had ordered them and that U.S. military forces were now engaged in the conflict.
- In November 2001, Lindh's unit surrendered to Northern Alliance troops and was taken to the Qala-i-Janghi (QIJ) prison compound.
- During a violent prison uprising at QIJ on November 25, 2001, CIA Agent Johnny Micheál Spann was killed, and Lindh was wounded before being taken into custody by American and Northern Alliance forces on December 1.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a ten-count Indictment against John Phillip Walker Lindh in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Lindh filed seven threshold motions, including a motion to dismiss Count One of the Indictment, arguing he was entitled to lawful combatant immunity.
- The District Court heard oral argument on the motions after extensive briefing by both parties.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of lawful combatant immunity, as codified in the Geneva Convention, bar the prosecution of an American citizen for conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals when he was serving as a soldier for the Taliban?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellis, District Judge.
No, the doctrine of lawful combatant immunity does not bar the prosecution. Lawful combatant immunity, derived from international law and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW), protects soldiers from prosecution for lawful belligerent acts, but it is not available to unlawful combatants. While the President's determination that Taliban members are unlawful combatants is not a nonjusticiable political question, it is entitled to substantial judicial deference. The court's independent review confirms this determination because the Taliban fails to meet the four criteria for lawful combatant status under the GPW: (1) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, (2) having a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance, (3) carrying arms openly, and (4) conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. The record indicates the Taliban lacked a clear command structure, wore no uniforms or insignia, and regularly targeted civilians in violation of the laws of war. As Lindh has not met his burden to prove the Taliban was a lawful combatant force, he cannot claim immunity for his actions as a Taliban soldier.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for its treatment of executive power in the context of the war on terror. The court navigates a middle ground, rejecting the government's broad claim that the President's determination is a political question immune from judicial review. However, it establishes a highly deferential standard of review, giving 'substantial weight' to the President's interpretation and application of treaties like the Geneva Convention. This approach allows for judicial oversight while still respecting the Executive's constitutional role in foreign affairs and as Commander-in-Chief, setting a precedent for how courts might handle similar challenges from detainees in future conflicts.
