Attorneys for so-called "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, who received a 20 year sentence, are requesting a review of his sentence, based upon recent disclosures that the U.S. is negotiating with, and considering releasing, so-called "enemy combatant" Yaser Hamdi. Both Lindh and Hamdi are U.S. citizens:

A lawyer for Mr. Lindh, James J. Brosnahan, said in an interview that a decision to release Mr. Hamdi should prompt discussions in the Justice Department over whether Mr. Lindh deserved similar treatment. "We're not today saying exactly what we're going to do,'' Mr. Brosnahan said, "but this is a situation in which there's an enormous disparity, and basic fairness would conclude that the department ought to take a look at this."

He said Mr. Lindh had received especially harsh treatment because of the timing of his capture, which occurred within three months of the Sept. 11 attacks. "It was sort of a ferocious reaction to him, which in human terms is understandable but in terms of fairness is not understandable," the lawyer said.

John Walker Lindh was a trophy to the Justice Department. No way should he have received 20 years. At the time, with conservatives positing he should be charged with treason and receive the death penalty or at least a life sentence, his lawyers made the best deal they could.

But Lindh's lawyers are right: His sentence should be revisited. It was imposed at a time when emotional reaction to 9/11 were at a peak. Cooler heads should prevail now, and determine a sentence that reflects Lindh's actual criminal conduct, his ability to be rehabilitated, and the need to deter others. 20 years is excessive.