I was disheartened to read The Post's rendering of events concerning my son, Masaud Khan, who was sentenced to life in prison ["Strict Sentences Meted in Va. Jihad Case," news story, June 16]. The Post quoted Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg as saying: "While the Pentagon was still smoking, Mr. Khan decided now is the appropriate time to go fight the Americans. . . . For that, he deserves every day for which this court is about to sentence him to."

My son never went to Afghanistan. He was accused of participating in target practice and brief exercises at a Lahore, Pakistan, training camp before returning to the United States.

The Post reported that "[Mr.] Khan and another defendant also were charged with conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda and Afghanistan's former Taliban rulers."

My son was cleared of any implication relating to al Qaeda, and the judge reaffirmed that fact. He was accused of aiding the Taliban.

The Post also incorrectly paraphrased my son, saying: "He said that if he had been a 'Zionist Jew or a Christian' he would have never been prosecuted." In fact, his statement was: "Had I been a Zionist Jew or Christian who trained in Israel to fight against the Palestinians, I would have never been initially charged with violating the Neutrality Act." My son was referring to others who have traveled abroad and received training and not been prosecuted.

Mr. Kromberg's parting thrust was to link the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon with Masaud's trip to Pakistan more than a week later, knowing that my son had planned his trip since July 2001 and that nothing linked him to that tragedy. That statement was the lowest blow of all, but the court did not chastise him for it. I assume Mr. Kromberg said it for the benefit of reporters in the courtroom, so that it would be printed.