Greenwald fights the good fight
By Thoreau
Greenwald has just done a take-down on one of the allegations against Ivins: That the timeline is consistent with Ivins leaving Ft. Detrick on a particular morning, driving to Princeton, mailing the anthrax from a mailbox in proximity to a storage locker for some sorority (apparently his sorority fixation figures prominently in the allegations, because when you can’t actually prove that somebody did something you just prove that he’s a weirdo so, like, duh!).
This is why we need adversarial processes in terrorism cases: No matter how strong the evidence might look on the surface, we need a zealous advocate for the opposing view to examine the evidence and point out the possible weaknesses. A trial won’t happen in the Ivins case, because the man the government wishes to blame is conveniently dead. However, we can (and should!) still have an independent investigation. For all I know, Greenwald’s take-down might include some mistakes, which is all the more reason to have a further inquiry. The word of a notoriously error-prone agency should be no more final than the word of an indisputably awesome blogger.
Moreover, if it should turn out that Ivins was not in fact the guy who did it, that means that whoever really did it is still out there at large, free to kill more people. This is why I have never understood the determination to dispense with due processes in terrorism cases: Yes, terrorists are scary, but don’t we want to make damn sure that we get the scary guys who actually did it? If we don’t get the guys who actually did it then, shit, we’re in danger still! The more scared I am, the more I want to make damn sure that the actual culprit is locked up.
Comment by Dave W. —
August 10, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
apparently his sorority fixation figures prominently in the allegations, because when you can’t actually prove that somebody did something you just prove that he’s a weirdo so, like, duh!).
This part reminds me of me and my legendary HFCS fixation.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
August 10, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
If we don’t get the guys who actually did it then, shit, we’re in danger still!
Alternatively, it’s a tell that we were never in much danger from terrorists.
Comment by joe —
August 10, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I think that a lot of people who work in law enforcement consider it much more likely that a guilty guy will be able to go out and kill more people as a result of stupid juries, bleeding-heart liberals, slimy defense attorneys, and muddle-headed judges than because they, themselves, picked the wrong guy.
And once you’ve got an outlook like that, it must be very difficult to evaluate claims that you’ve got the wrong guy dispassionately. After all, just about every single person you’ve ever arrested said you got the wrong guy, and something approaching 100% of them, and quite possibly 100% of them, were lying.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
August 10, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Thoreau, you silly libertarian-esque person! By putting on a sham of vigorous “justice,” you demonstrate – to the people who aren’t paying attention, which is most of them – that you just need even more power to pursue the bad guys the next time something bad happens. It’s a great system if you enjoy running a police state.
Comment by Mona —
August 10, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
I see. Because Thoreau thinks it is legitimate for the FBI to actually try to solve crimes of murder or attempted murder that involve biological weapons aimed at United States senators and journalists — as well as postal workers — he advocates a police state.
Well, I must be a faux libertarian as well, since I find that the FBI properly works to solve such crimes, but ought to do so competently.
Comment by matthew hogan —
August 10, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Hmmm, a private lawsuit by victims’ families against Ivins’ estate might produce interesting info.