Saturday, August 19, 2006

Is Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Trying To Free Jon Benet Ramsey's Killer?

When Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that President Bush's warrantless spying program was unconstitutional, many people speculated that under her ruling the recent British terrorist plot would not have been foiled. Nitpickers will say there isn't any actual evidence that this program had anything to do with capturing these terrorists, but I don't think we should let that stop us from linking the two cases or from attacking her personally for her ruling and saying she "hates America." In fact, after JonBenet Ramsey's alleged killer John Mark Karr was arrested in Thailand, which according to the news media was apparently a more important story, I began to wonder if he would still be free under Judge Taylor's ruling. Now I know Karr does not fit the standard definition of a terrorist and, in fact, he might not even be a murderer, just a nutcase who confessed to a crime he didn't commit, but I'm sure we're all glad he's off the streets anyway. And I don't have any direct evidence that any of the powers Judge Anna Diggs Taylor just ruled unconstitutional were actually used in this case. But if it turns out that Judge Taylor's ruling frees JonBenet Ramsey's killer, I think a lot of people would be very upset so I think we should all speculate about it now no matter how wild those speculations might be.

One of the ways authorities identified Karr in the first place was through email. What if the NSA was prevented from looking at all our private email if, indeed, they are doing that? Would Karr have been caught? I have no idea but I think it's worth posing the question. Who knows how many other terrorists and criminals would not be caught if Judge Taylor has her way? These questions are worth asking again and again even if they have no bearing whatsoever on the case at hand because even if they don't relate to this case they might have bearing on another hypothetical case in the future.

A lot of ACLU types are upset about the policy--which no one in the government has even confirmed exists--of rendering suspects to foreign countries where they don't have to worry about meddling from activist judges. I don't think it's a coincidence that Karr was apprehended in Thailand. How did he get there? I'm not saying that the government had anything to do with "rendering" him there exactly but who knows? There is so much about this case we don't know and I think we are entitled to speculate about it until we do. Anyone who has seen Midnight Express or Brokedown Palace knows that the Thai justice system has a little more leeway when it comes to dealing with criminals than our own system. I'm not sure how Thai officials got that confession out of him but I bet they probably used a few methods that would have made Andrew Sullivan squeamish though I don't know that for a fact. And although he actually confessed to a few things, like drugging her (although no drugs were found in her system) and picking her up from school (although it was Christmas vacation) that were not actually true, I think we can all agree that too much confession is better than not enough.

Another issue the ACLUniks are hysterical about is profiling. The fact that the terrorists captured in London were all Muslims and John Mark Karr is really creepy looking proves, I think, that profiling works. Instead of wasting resources on investigating normal Americans, we should be concentrating all of our resources on going after Muslims and really creepy-looking people. Let's face it, though it might not be politically correct to say so, the fact is that most terrorists are Muslims and most child molesters are really creepy looking. Although there are some Muslims who are not terrorists and there are some really creepy-looking people (like, for example, CIA chief Michael Hayden or UN Ambassador John Bolton) who are probably not child molesters, I think it's better to be safe than sorry.

It's possible that Judge Taylor's ruling has no bearing at all on the JonBenet Ramsey case, or the British terrorist plot, or the Muslims who bought an excess of cel phones (although they were freed; so every now and then people make mistakes--if, indeed, it was a mistake), or the claustrophobic woman in the airplane who may or may not have written a note or said something about Al Qaeda, or the Egyptian students who disappeared (who supposedly didn't have terrorist ties though I have a hard time believing that) or the wannabe terrorists apprehended in Florida or any number of other incredibly scary things that have happened recently, which have been the subject of hourly Breaking News alerts on cable and numerous panicky blog posts, but I think this is all beside the point. The point is that Judge Taylor's ruling might make capturing terrorists and criminals more difficult and I don't think we can afford to take any chances. In this case, I think it's clear that might makes right.

Share This Post
blinkbits BlinkList digg Fark Furl LinkaGoGo Ma.gnolia NewsVine Reddit Shadows Simpy Spurl TailRank Wists YahooMyWeb

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Whether or not this fellow is actually guilty of the crime to which he has confessed, he is certainly an unwholesome person, and I don't doubt that there is SOME crime he has committed which he can be convicted of and imprisoned for (such as, for example, interfering with law enforcement by "confessing" to have done something he really didn't.)

An interesting theory about what happened that fateful night, that conflicts with Karr's confession, can be found at

Anonymous said...

If you are going to link someone and say that they attacked the judge "personally," make sure they actually did so.

Otherwise, you simply look foolish.

Jon Swift said...

As a conservative, I hate to admit a mistake, which might be taken as a sign of weakness, so let me just say I must have been drunk when I added the links to that piece and let me offer my sincere apologies, if you were offended. I've moved the link to your piece elsewhere in the post so that no one will get the wrong impression.

Anonymous said...

"There is so much about this case we don't know and I think we are entitled to speculate about it until we do."

The guiding principle of the 24-hour news networks.

Jaesoreal said...

Speculation is what makes America great! Who needs facts or evidence when we don;t even have room for all the speculation!

Desain Rumah Minimalis 3 Kamar Tidur said...

Nice to be visiting, a while were a few. Well just use this one, much appreciated. I need something like this something I am working on, and mine is on a similar subject as the one here. Thanks, great share.

The 2008 Weblog Awards