Well, not really an update. Just an opinion.

The players:
* Abdul Hamid (AKA John Walker-Lindh), better known as The American Taliban (and but, for some unknown, CBSNews PC bit of reasoning, also referred to as The American Wanderer).
* The FBI
* The law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP (which, for reasons of “bad press”, have asked to be temporarily disassociated with employee James Brosnahan & colleagues, who are defending the case)
* Lindh’s parents
* The United States of America
* The road to Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan (without Hope and Crosby)
* The Taliban and al-Qai’da

The pickle:
Lil’ Johnny Walker-Lindh, whom his parents, Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker, insist really does love his country, was caught far from home, far from his supposed studies, and with his hand in the cookie jar -- conducting combat maneuvers against U.S.-Allied Coalition Forces. As a United States POW, he was detained and questioned, while evidence against him was compiled. As a U.S. citizen, he became a special case, and every effort was made to make a charge of treason stick.

As it turned out, the evidence against Lindh was steep, but lacking. Nowhere could it be found that he had fired a single shot at American forces -- or anyone else for that matter. The only hard evidence against him today is that he did indeed join with the Taliban. Other than that, the Feds hold nothing incriminating. That Lindh confessed to FBI agent Christopher Reimann on Dec. 9 & 10 that he did indeed know he would soon be coming face-to-face with American soldiers and that he most certainly did intend to battle them is the mainstay to the whole Lindh case, but there is now a chance the 10-count indictment charging him with conspiring to kill U.S. nationals and aid the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be tossed. You see, the FBI interrogated Lindh without the presence of an attorney, which violates the department’s ethics guidelines, and actually cannot be legally authorized at any time.

Never mind the fact that Lindh joined with the Taliban for the sole reason that he could do many things that in the United States are rude, immoral, and just plain illegal. Never mind the fact that he was picked up, armed to the teeth, and facing the U.S. Coalition with intent to do bodily harm and to kill. Never mind, as well, any thoughts that he may have just been caught in a whirlwind of activity, and was swept along with the flow.

Now for the juice:
The initial charge of treason fell through, simply because prosecutors were unable to dig up at least two witnesses who had personal experience of him planning, or committing, acts against the United States. Nor was there a personal confession from Lindh in an open court. Either of these would have won a conviction, but neither was available.

But what about that other confession?

While it is true that common law prevents the FBI, or any other law enforcement agency, from conducting interrogations of U.S. citizens without the presence of a defending attorney, the Lindh case steps beyond the commonality of the Miranda Act (which Lindh reportedly waved while still in Afghanistan anyway). Lindh has touched a thing called National Security. In fact, there is even a question as to whether agent Reimann, who carried out the interrogation of Lindh, was doing so on his own behalf, or under the supervision of Justice prosecutors in Washington. Then comes the question of the FBI’s aim. The U.S. does not Mirandize POWs, and yet with Lindh they did.

Even so, days before that fateful day in December, where young John Walker-Lindh confessed he was planning to kill members of the U.S.-Allied Coalition Forces, and that he did indeed know that the al-Qai’da had sent operatives to the United States -- the same who died in the attacks of September 11, 2001 -- his parents had managed to secure James Brosnahan & Co to defend their boy. Now, was the FBI required by policy to inform Lindh of this fact, or were they allowed to proceed, letting Lindh continue to believe he was alone in this new battle against the world’s mightiest nation? This is a question of department Internal Affairs and ethics, not common law. He is, after all, a grown man, and there really is no law stating that knowledge of third parties’ actions for the benefit of a defendant must be presented to said-defendant.

The case promises an interesting outcome.

In closing, I say he gets at least 10 years. If not, he’ll get less (obviously). And should he just happen to manage an incredibly unlikely clean walk-away, I don’t think he’ll survive the year -- without protection, relocation or otherwise.

Dan