Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Jesselyn Radack
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Initial inquiry into Lindh case=== On December 7, 2001, Radack received an inquiry from Justice Department counterterrorism prosecutor John DePue, regarding the ethical propriety of interrogating Lindh in Afghanistan without Lindh's legal representative being present. He told her that Lindh's father had retained a lawyer for his son; Lindh was not aware of this arrangement. Radack responded that interrogating him was not authorized by law.<ref name=Mayer/> The principle at issue was that a person represented by a lawyer cannot be contacted by agents of the Justice Department, including the FBI, without permission of that lawyer.<ref>The application of the "no-contact rule" to the Department of Justice is discussed by James S. Montana Jr. and John A. Galotto [http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_16_2_montanta.html "Right to Counsel: Courts Adhere to Bright-line Limits."] ''Criminal Justice Magazine'' 16:2 Summer 2001, see section "Ethical rules in lieu of constitutional protections". Radack has indicated that she was relying on that principle, e.g., in [http://www.democracynow.org/2005/1/13/whistleblower_charges_justice_dept_with_misconduct "Whistleblower Charges Justice Dept. with Misconduct in Chertoff's Prosecution of John Walker Lindh,"] ''Democracy Now'', January 13, 2005.</ref> According to Radack, the advice she gave had been approved by Claudia Flynn, then head of PRAO, and Joan Goldfrank, a senior PRAO attorney.<ref>David McGowan, "[https://ssrn.com/abstract=929497 Politics, Office Politics, and Legal Ethics: A Case Study in the Strategy of Judgment]", University of San Diego School of Law, ''San Diego Legal Studies Paper'' No. 07-55, September 7, 2006, p. 7.</ref> The FBI proceeded to question Lindh without Lindh's lawyer having given permission. DePue informed Radack of the interrogation on December 10, 2001, and she advised him that Lindh's "interview may have to be sealed or only used for national security purposes; however, I don't have enough information yet to make that recommendation".<ref>Proffer of Facts in Support of Suppression Motion, at 19, ''United States v. John Philip Walker Lindh'', Crim. No. 02-37-A (E.D. VA 2002), cited in McGowan, p. 7.</ref> Radack continued to research the issue until December 20, 2001, when Flynn told her to drop the matter, because Lindh had been "[[Miranda warning|Mirandized]]". It was later learned that the FBI agent who read Lindh the Miranda warning had, when noting the right to counsel, ad-libbed: "Of course, there are no lawyers here".<ref name="Mayer New Yorker">[[Jane Mayer]], "[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/10/030310fa_fact2?currentPage=7 Lost in the Jihad]", ''The New Yorker'', March 10, 2003, p. 57-59</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)