New Development In Bilal Hussein Case; Wingnuts Reaffirm Contempt For Rule Of Law
November 19, 2007 -- 5:47 PM EST // //
Okay, there's been a new development in the case of Bilal Hussein, the Iraqi Associated Press photographer whose detention in Iraq by the U.S. military for a year and a half without charges has become a wingnut blogger cause celebre.
For many months now, the Associated Press has long been making a straightforward case: Charge Hussein or release him. This simple demand has sparked months of fury from the Michelle Malkin brigade, which has ceaselessly defended the U.S. military's right to hold Hussein indefinitely. Now, however, there's been a new turn in the case, and the Associated Press is again fighting it:
NEW YORK The U.S. military plans to seek a criminal case in an Iraqi court against an award-winning Associated Press photographer but is refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented.A lawyer for Hussein adds that because it's possible that the military could introduce new charges at the hearing that could include classified material, it's impossible for them to put together a defense in advance. So the AP is objecting along these grounds.An AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.
A public affairs officer notified the AP on Sunday that the military intends to submit a written complaint against Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29. Under Iraqi codes, an investigative magistrate will decide whether there are grounds to try Hussein, 36, who was seized in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on April 12, 2006.
Dave Tomlin, associate general counsel for the AP, said the defense for Hussein is being forced to work "totally in the dark."
The wingnut bloggers' response? It's kind of perfect, actually. Malkin appears to be suggesting that this represents some kind of vindication for her -- even though Hussein still hasn't even been charged, tried or convicted of anything yet. You really couldn't ask for a more perfect expression of her contempt for the rule of law than that.
What's more, the winger bloggers are lying pretty nakedly about the new development, too. They are now pretending that the AP's current objection is to the mere fact that Hussein is going to face trial in court at all. Michelle Malkin, for instance, writes that the AP is complaining because Hussein is going to have his "day in court," adding: "No wonder the AP now objects." Other wingers are sounding the same notes here and here.
This isn't complicated. The AP's current objection is that they still don't know what the accusations to be brought against Hussein are, so they can't prepare a defense for him. The fact that the AP was never told of the specific charges against Hussein or of the evidence of his wrongdoing has always been its objection.
Yet the wingnut bloggers -- again reaffirming their contempt for the rule of law -- are blasting the AP for wanting their guy to have an adequate defense. They want you to believe that the real reason the AP is now objecting is because the organization doesn't really want to see the evidence against him. This, even as the AP continues to ask to see this evidence, and even as the wingers themselves still defend his accusers' right to not reveal that evidence. Winger logic in a nutshell.
As I've written before, I have no idea if Hussein will end up being proven guilty of something. But the folks who are convinced that Hussein's guilty of whatever the charges against him are need to explain -- again -- why it is that they're so adamantly opposed to the idea of his having a chance to defend himself against them.
Of course, they'll probably just argue that this would be a threat to our national security in some way -- as they argue about just about everything. Stay tuned for lots more of this in the days ahead.
To reach the homepage of this blog, click here. Comments section temporarily disabled.