Cao is again making clear her contempt for American values:
It’s clear that the ACLU is fighting for the rights of terrorists who in my opinion, should NOT have a right to have “their side” of things heard in court, particularly repeatedly, with appeal after appeal.
Cao overlooks a couple of minor items. First, Jose Padilla has not been convicted, only indicted. There’s this unfortunate little problem: an indictment does not mean that the person indicted is automatically guilty. Second, the American system of justice is predicated on the belief that everyone is entitled to defend themselves in court — and that necessarily requires that their side be heard.
What’s humorous about this is how thoroughly Cao ignores the fact that nothing in this indictment mentions the original claim that Padilla was planning to detonate a “dirty bomb” in an American city. The DOJ is refusing to discuss this earlier accusation. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be lack of evidence?
UPDATE: It seems that there’s another reason: according to the New York Times, the US may have employed torture to elicit evidence against Padilla, and didn’t want that to come out in open court:
The decision not to charge him criminally in connection with the more far-ranging bomb plots was prompted by the conclusion that Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Zubaydah could almost certainly not be used as witnesses, because that could expose classified information and could open up charges from defense lawyers that their earlier statements were a result of torture, officials said.
Thanks to John Scalzi for this nugget.
Cao also claims that
The evidence against the “enemy combatant”, Jose Padilla, is pretty well documented…
Well, golly, I guess that settles it. No need for a trial. After all, everything we need to declare Padilla guilty is “pretty well documented”. That’s more than any red-blooded American patriot should need. The courts are a waste of time. Throw the bastard in the hoosegow.
How badly do we want to gut the American justice system, and the principles that we claim to stand for, in order to prosecute the fight against terrorism? Should we allow the fear of terrorist attacks to drive us to accept the proposition that if the government accuses someone of a crime, the accused must be guilty?
Is this really the America we want to leave to future generations? If Cao and her ilk get their way, that’s exactly what we’ll get.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 25th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
GM Roper
Your argument might hold a heck of a lot more water if those of you on the left side of the political aisle shouted equally loud that Libby was innocent until proven otherwise… and wasn’t it Kos, DU and others (perhaps you even thought so yourself although you may not have been blogging at the time) that were talking about a “Merry Fitzmas” and seeing Rove “frog marched” out of the White House? Hmmm, take the log out of your eye before complaining about the mote in Cao’s
November 25th, 2005 at 6:39 pm
meatbrain
Nice try, GM, but completely fallacious:
You’re not discussing the gist of my argument, GM. You’re simply trying to dismiss it by associating me with a group you disparage. And you’re doing it on the basis of opinions that you attribute to me out of sheer ignorance. You don’t know what my opinions of Libby or Rove are — so you invent them out of whole cloth.
Now, do you want to try to actually discuss the attempts to gut the US justice system, and Cao’s approval of same?
November 25th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
GM Roper
Your guilt by association won’t wash… I said folks on the left, and the left did indeed overwhelmingly cheer on the indictment of Libby and are drooling at the thought of Rove being indicted. I also specifically noted I had no idea if you held the same thoughts ”(perhaps you even thought so yourself although you may not have been blogging at the time)” That is acknowledging that I don’t know and you need to learn the difference.
Try again. The evidence agains Padilla is fairly overwhelming if the MSM reports are to be believed (I do not know this, because I, like you haven’t seen any evidence). I’m more than willing to hold him innocent until proven guilty, but I notice you are more than willing to repeat the unproven (unprovable?) issue of was Padilla tortured. Neither of us know. If he was, those engaging in the torture need to be prosecuted (they may be found innocent – who knows).
But I do find it interesting that because the word “torture” is used, thusly “could open up charges from defense lawyers that their earlier statements were a result of torture,” you seem to be assuming that he was tortured and that is the reason they “didn’t want that to come out in open court.” Interesting that a claim of torture by defense (and it was mentioned as a possible, not a given) that it makes it “ok” to use. Please, don’t lecture me on guilt by association and then make up your own arguments out of whole cloth as you accused me of doing. I excluded you and you know it.
November 25th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
meatbrain
False:
You tried to lump me in with unnamed others whose views you ridiculed, GM, and dismiss my argument by means of guilt by association. Have the good good grace to admit that you were caught doing so. Your transparent attempt to backpedal from the accusation in the same paragraph in which you made it fools no one.
‘Scuse me? The evidence is overwhelming… but you haven’t seen it? If you don’t know what the evidence is, then how do you know it is “overwhelming”? Or is this a tacit admission that you are willing to see a man tried and convicted in the media, simply because you believe him to be a terrorist, on the basis of evidence that you admit you have not seen?
November 25th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
GM Roper
Meatbrain, you are amusing if nothing else. But, mostly nothing else.
November 25th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
meatbrain
So you cannot discuss the attempts to gut the US justice system, and you cannot admit using the tactic we both know you used.
Thanks for clearing that up, GM.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:33 am
meatbrain
It’s worth noting, too, that GM’s first instinct was not to respond to the message, but to attack the messenger. Nothing in his initial comment has anything at all to do with the evidence against Padilla, the government’s rationale for finally indicting him on lesser charges, or Cao’s conflation of indictment with conviction.
Nope, GM’s response was to try to discredit me. This tells us a great deal about his confidence in his ability to discuss the issues themselves.