Weekly Standard: Released Suspects Are Guilty

Glenn Greenwald visits the twisted minds of the Weekly Standard:

Joscelyn insists that -- even though they've never been charged with, let alone convicted of, anything -- these men are guilty, evil Terrorists. To make his case against them, he relies on Bush-era documents containing unproven, untested, and uncharged allegations. But what he dishonestly -- though understandably -- fails to note is that each of these individuals are available to appear in the ACLU video because they were released from Guantanamo by the Bush administration [. . .] If, as Joscelyn claims, the ACLU are Al Qaeda's "useful idiots" for producing a video containing interviews with these individuals, what are Bush officials who released them onto the streets?

(Emphasis supplied.) Straight from the Ed Meese School of Constitutional law:

[F]ormer Attorney General Edwin Meese III, [. . .] when asked whether “suspects” should have the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning, replied “Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a decades long story for Republicans and conservatives. They have long believed in a police state.

Speaking for me only

< A Not So Great Depression? | The Extraordinary Amendment To The Constitution >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Saddest part is that Dems have had (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    30 years now to combat the Meese/Reagan way of thinking, and with rare exceptions they have bought into it instead. Instead of instilling bravery and pride in the Constitution into the populace, they have gone along with Republican fear-mongering. We are seeing the results on every front. I honestly don't know what it would take to reverse this mindset at this point, even if Dems wanted to.

    I don't know, either (none / 0) (#3)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    On the one hand, they all like to boast about how strong America and Americans are- bravest, toughest people in the world, etc.  On the other, they are wetting their pants in fear about what these "terrorists" may do if loosed on the American population, or if they are tried here, or even if they are locked up in a maximum-security prison on our soil.  Maybe David Vitter can make some extra money selling diapers to these cowards.

    "Even if" (none / 0) (#2)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    "Even if" being the key phrase. Remember when Dukakis apologized for being a member of the ACLU? He should have whipped out his membership card and screamed "Yes, yes I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, and here's why..." Instead we had the first sighting of Dem Spineless Caving.

    Arthur Silber, for his part, posits that it isn't caving or spinelessness, that in fact, the Democrats don't really care who's in power as long as their and their puppetmasters' interests are served, and they always are no matter what. He says it's just "I got mine, who cares"-ism, not cowardice, and the only real difference at this point between the parties is that the Republicans actually care for score-keeping purposes but not much else. Don't know if I agree but it's a worthy argument.

    yes they have. (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    They have long believed in a police state.

    which always caused me to believe the whole anti-communism/fascism thing was basically just a front, to divert people's attention away from their true goal.

    For all the railing about the (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:35:50 AM EST
    curtailment of freedom in the Soviet Union, when it came down to it it was always about the money, pure and simple. They like the police state aspects of the soviet system just fine if they are married with the capitalist economic system.

    The Republicans have long been (none / 0) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:40:24 AM EST
    contemptuous of the liberal underpinnings to the U.S. Constitution especially its bill of rights.

    Holder just admitted to (none / 0) (#7)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:14:06 AM EST
    congress that KSM would not be released if he was aquitted.  

    Right (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    I guess it is de rigeur to pretend to be shocked by this obvious fact, but really now.

    Why even try him (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:48:54 PM EST

    imo (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    To incarcerate him for his crimes, or perhaps execute him for his crimes.

    charges anyway

    Hey, watch it. Ed Meese was my (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    criminal law professor.

    that must have been interesting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    Did you guys ever discuss the "criminal" exceptions to the first amendment?

    What I remember is lots of cases on (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    what is burglary and what isn't.  Oh, and I didn't sit in my assigned seat one night because my girls were with me en route to school open house.  He called on me.  I responded.  My girls patted me on the shoulder.  Way to go Mom.  Apparently my response was inaccurate, because Mr. Meese explained the concept in greater detail.  But very gently.  I have always appreciated the fact he didn't embarrass me in front of my kids.  Something about jewelry on a garment left at the dry cleaner.  

    Pres. Obama opines MSK will be (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:02:35 PM EST
    be convicted and be put to death.  How's that for presumption of innocence?  link

    It was inappropriate and yet (none / 0) (#13)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:58:05 PM EST
    does anyone really agree- its hard to have a presumption of innocence when the guy actually admitted guilt both in open court and in widely aired recordings-- the whole impartial jury thing is going to be a farce- seriously, unless the pick 9 people who just got out of decade long coma's I don't see how it could be anything other than a joke.

    Big deal (none / 0) (#17)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    KSM admitted to killing Daniel Pearl and there's good reason to doubt he actually did it.

    If I were on the jury I'd want to see the actual evidence.