but the truth is that no comments like that will ever get to the people who run this country, unless someone like Rand politics his way in.
There are two ways to make the argument for liberty here.
1. "We don't even know if this kid did it. The government is typically corrupt and unreliable, so lets just remember that he is innocent until proven guilty and lets be sure to give him his Constitutional rights."
2. Our Constition is strong enough to bring justice to terrorists so there is no reason to ignore due process just because the bomber did something especailly heinous.
As you've said, the jury should be made of people who haven't been immersed in this issue and don't have emotion on either side yet as driven by the media or other factors. Rand obviously isn't serving on the jury, and isn't trying to convince a jury of the guilt of this guy. He is trying to convince the government of the need for due process.
Argument number one would be just fine for a defense lawyer arguing to the jury, but it would be immediatly ignored or berated more likely, by government officials deciding if they should hold the kid as an enemy combatant.
Argument number two is more fitting of a politician who is trying to convince a pissed off group of right wingers that due process should not be ignored.
I realize it is a "loaded question" to call the kid a bomber, but again, Rand isn't talking ot the jury, nor is he trying to serve on the jury. He is trying to convince hardcore right wingers not to abandon the Bill of Rights.
We at the DailyPaul have the freedom to be able to speak exactly how we feel, and avoid fallacy. Rand is dealing with illogical and corrupt people. He can't speak like we do, or he'll be so irrelevent that the only audience he'll be able to get is here at the DailyPaul.
Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and