Arguing for the Government

So the Miami Six trial ended in another mistrial. There is a gag order still in effect and NPR is determined to make us do just that! Now you might think that a second mistrial would indicate that something is a bit rotten at the core of the government's case. Even in the Reuter's story of the case today they reveal that the initial arrest was greeted with skepticism by some:

"U.S. officials denied there was any political link between the Miami case and the midterm U.S. congressional election in November 2006.

But the election came against the backdrop of a slump in President George W. Bush's popularity and in public support for the Iraq war, and critics of the administration frequently accuse it of exploiting fear of a repeat of the Sept. 11 attacks."

Not NPR though. They are here to explain how honest and sincere the US government is in the "war on terror." Inskeep begins the story telling us that a "dramatic arrest has turned into a legal nightmare for the federal government." Yeah, and what about the legal nightmare of people caught up in these ridiculous cases (e.g. Jose Padilla or Sami Al-Arian).

Greg Allen then files the report by talking to Wake Forest University Law Professor, Robert Chesney. Allen explains that "...one reason this has turned out to be such a tough case for prosecutors, he says, is because the government intervened in the alleged plot so early." See, Big Brother Uncle Sam was just all anxious to protect us from the big, bad jihadists and that's why the case is so weak. In case you don't get the message, Allen carries on: "at the time of their arrest Justice Department officials talked about this early intervention strategy, saying they were intent on being proactive and preventing terrorist attacks. Chesney says that strategy can make prosecutions difficult."

And this passes for journalism. God help us...