Comment: I know you're stunned...

(See in situ)


I know you're stunned...

....because you think that "innocent until proven guilty" means that you can't have an opinion until a jury of peers tells you what your opinion should be.
Due process doesn't mean people can't form a guess, or an opinion prior to the verdict. And by the way, the verdict is nothing more than the legal statment of the jury's opinion.
You want Rands opinion to be that the kid is innocent. That makes just as little sense as assuming he is guilty. Rand is trying to argue for the kid's rights, but he can't do that if he goes in implying that the kid probably didn't do it. In my opinion, the kid probably did it. Does that mean that a jury should take my opinion into account? No. Does it mean they should take Rand's opinion into account? No.
Will the GOP listen to Rand's argument for due process if he goes in sounding like an apologist? Hell no.
Rand understands that calling the kid "bomber" instead of "suspect" is the difference between being able to argue that the kid has rights, and being ignored completely. Is it political? Yes. Will anyone important listen to Rand's argument? Yes. Will anyone important listen to yours? Not to be rude, but no. By stressing that "we don't know if the kid did it", the people in DC who will make these decisions will assume he is apologizing for acts of terror, and they'll ignore anything he has to say about due process.
In the purist world of the DP, I know that sort of subtlety doesn't fly, but in politics, you can't get anywhere without it.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).