I’m not particularly sympathetic toward him, but I’m strongly opposed to punishments that are disproportionate to the crime.
I don’t think people are saying it was so much ‘on a lark’ as ‘however serious he was, he was young and immature’.
Mind you, being young and immature isn’t exculpatory, just explanatory. But it’s also not a crime in and of itself.
At any rate, prior to 9/11, running off and joining the Taliban was stupid but not criminal. And when 9/11 happened, he was already there and his options were probably rather limited.
Maybe you’re confusing the Taliban (the guys running Afghanistan) with al-Queda (the international terrorists). Sure, the Taliban pretty much hated America’s guts, and were willing to aid and abet al-Queda which committed terrorist acts against Americans, but if you’re going to say the Taliban itself planned to attack Americans (or other Westerners), and that that Lindh should have been aware of that, you’ll need to provide a cite.
As others have asked, for what specific crimes?
If we have strong evidence that he shot, or tried to shoot, American soldiers, then you’ve got a point. If not, then his main crimes seem to have been (a) being young and stupid, and as a result (b) winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time. 17-20 years is pretty steep for that.
Criminal justice isn’t a private matter; we all have a stake in its being done right. The prosecution should, IMHO, make public the evidence they were planning to bring against him at trial.