The Curious Case of Brandon Mayfield
The front of this Sunday's Oregonian Opinion page promised a gripping column from Dave detailing the "Legend of Brandon Mayfield," who had wrongly been imprisoned in Portland by the federal government for two weeks as a "material witness" to the March 2004 Madrid bombings. I was curious as to what this "legend" might be- would the legendary Brandon Mayfield be a strapping lad, 12 feet tall with the ability to cut down entire forests with one swing of his trusty axe? Did he kill himself a bear when he was only three? Or maybe the legend would detail how Brandon Mayfield built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination and as Oswald shot, Brandon met all three bullets, deflecting them, causing JFK's head to explode out of sheer amazement?
Sadly, Brandon's "legend" is pilloried in Dave's new column, which attempts to justify the latest celebrated conservative cause- the over-reaching ability for the federal government (as long as it's run by Republicans) to snoop wherever, whenever, and however it wants. The about-face the right has done is so unbelievable, and flies in the face of long-standing conservative ethics, that it falls on the shoulders of lower-level conservative pundits to make this view palatable for the general public.
The reason why this issue is important, and why Dave makes such an attempt to belittle Mayfield's "legend", is because Mayfield is taking the federal government to court. Mayfield is claiming that the provisions under the Patriot Act that allowed the covert break-in and searching of Mayfield's house violated Mayfield's Fourth Amendment rights. If this is proven true in court, it could threaten Dave's beloved Patriot Act and parts of it- if not the whole thing- could be stricken from the books. So, faster than you can say "right-wing spin machine," Dave is making an attempt to discredit Mayfield's case, calling it an "adult fairy tale", regardless of whether or not Mayfield's constitutionally protected rights were violated.
Dave attempts to convince us that recent reports from the Justice Department debunks this so-called "fairy tale." It appears the opposite is true, that recent Justice Department reports will, according to legal experts, strengthen Mayfield's case. The report states that "performance issues... helped cause the errors in the Mayfield case." These performance issues range from following up with a wrong fingerprint identification although Spanish authorities weren't convinced, to bolting the wrong lock when leaving the Mayfields' home and leaving a footprint when searching Mayfield's home, to removing "Spanish documents"- his son's Spanish homework- from the house. If this is the crack team that's supposed to be protecting us from terrorists- and, possibly, listening in and spying on me without my knowledge- consider me not impressed, and just a little worried.
Dave makes the argument from a crime-fighting perspective: if the FBI had examined the evidence in total- the wrongly-matched fingerprint, the fact that Mayfield was a converted Muslim, had represented a member of the 'Portland 7' al Qaida cell [in an unrelated child custody case, which Dave fails to mention]- it would've been reprehensible for the FBI not to act to some extent. This would be acceptable, as long as the law is followed by the government's attempts to enforce the law. Did the government seek and acquire the proper warrants before placing Mayfield under surveillance and traipsing through his home? Dave doesn't say so- he says the government had plenty of authority before a pre-Patriot Act FISA to "make a move on Mayfield"- and the government has refused to say whether they had received the proper warrants or not. Given their hard-line stance on the insistence of defending the administration's domestic surveillance program sans proper FISA warrants, I'd wager they didn't. (But Dave does applaud the National Review talking point of the elimination of "the Wall" between intelligence agencies, as if this so-called "Wall" thwarted efforts by the Clinton administration to prevent the Y2K attacks or Project Bojinka.)
Also, isn't a law enforcement perspective the wrong approach when we're fighting a war on terrorism? In an October 2004 profile on John Kerry in the New York Times magazine, Kerry proposed fighting the war on terror using law-enforcement and prosecutorial practices until it gets to the point where it could recede until it was barely in our thoughts. The right lambasted Kerry's perspective as how he- a former prosecutor- would fight the war on terror, and Bush informed audiences that Kerry "just didn't understand this war." Bush and the right emphasizedthe word "war," as if to point out that an attempt to apply a prosecutorial or crime-fighting approach would be foolhardy- until, that is, they have to defend their own prosecutorial and crime-fighting approach.
George Lakoff points out in his treatise Don't Think of an Elephant that immediately after 9/11 the administration spoke of a crime and victims, of bringing the perpetuators "to justice" and "punished"- using the rhetoric of prosecution and fighting crime. That "framing" lasted hours- until the rhetoric of fighting a "war" on terror was introduced, with such terms as casualties, enemies, war powers, etc. Why the change in rhetoric? Well, Cheney and Wolfie had some countries to invade, didn't they?
Anyone notice that both Britain and Spain responded to their terrorist attacks with a crime-fighting and prosecutorial approach, using the help of Interpol to track down and imprison those responsible for the attacks (similar to how Clinton responded to the 1993 WTC bombing and imprisoned every single bomber invovled)? Shouldn't Spain have invaded India or some other country that had no involvement in its bombing?
In sum, Mayfield being Muslim may not have been the reason why he was investigated- there were other reasons listed in the Jusitce Department's affadavit as well. (Which, as One True B!x points out, pretty much just have to do with Mayfield being Muslim.) In the end, you have to ask yourself: if the FBI had this fingerprint match and traced it back to a Bush-voting father of three and a regular attendee of Portland's Foursquare Church, would they have arrested him and held him in detention for two weeks?
On the topic of legends, I'd like to propose the one of David Reinhard. That is, of being a competent columnist for The Oregonian who uses facts to strengthen his arguments while respecting the intelligence of his average reader. Yep. Stuff of legends indeed.....
Sadly, Brandon's "legend" is pilloried in Dave's new column, which attempts to justify the latest celebrated conservative cause- the over-reaching ability for the federal government (as long as it's run by Republicans) to snoop wherever, whenever, and however it wants. The about-face the right has done is so unbelievable, and flies in the face of long-standing conservative ethics, that it falls on the shoulders of lower-level conservative pundits to make this view palatable for the general public.
The reason why this issue is important, and why Dave makes such an attempt to belittle Mayfield's "legend", is because Mayfield is taking the federal government to court. Mayfield is claiming that the provisions under the Patriot Act that allowed the covert break-in and searching of Mayfield's house violated Mayfield's Fourth Amendment rights. If this is proven true in court, it could threaten Dave's beloved Patriot Act and parts of it- if not the whole thing- could be stricken from the books. So, faster than you can say "right-wing spin machine," Dave is making an attempt to discredit Mayfield's case, calling it an "adult fairy tale", regardless of whether or not Mayfield's constitutionally protected rights were violated.
Dave attempts to convince us that recent reports from the Justice Department debunks this so-called "fairy tale." It appears the opposite is true, that recent Justice Department reports will, according to legal experts, strengthen Mayfield's case. The report states that "performance issues... helped cause the errors in the Mayfield case." These performance issues range from following up with a wrong fingerprint identification although Spanish authorities weren't convinced, to bolting the wrong lock when leaving the Mayfields' home and leaving a footprint when searching Mayfield's home, to removing "Spanish documents"- his son's Spanish homework- from the house. If this is the crack team that's supposed to be protecting us from terrorists- and, possibly, listening in and spying on me without my knowledge- consider me not impressed, and just a little worried.
Dave makes the argument from a crime-fighting perspective: if the FBI had examined the evidence in total- the wrongly-matched fingerprint, the fact that Mayfield was a converted Muslim, had represented a member of the 'Portland 7' al Qaida cell [in an unrelated child custody case, which Dave fails to mention]- it would've been reprehensible for the FBI not to act to some extent. This would be acceptable, as long as the law is followed by the government's attempts to enforce the law. Did the government seek and acquire the proper warrants before placing Mayfield under surveillance and traipsing through his home? Dave doesn't say so- he says the government had plenty of authority before a pre-Patriot Act FISA to "make a move on Mayfield"- and the government has refused to say whether they had received the proper warrants or not. Given their hard-line stance on the insistence of defending the administration's domestic surveillance program sans proper FISA warrants, I'd wager they didn't. (But Dave does applaud the National Review talking point of the elimination of "the Wall" between intelligence agencies, as if this so-called "Wall" thwarted efforts by the Clinton administration to prevent the Y2K attacks or Project Bojinka.)
Also, isn't a law enforcement perspective the wrong approach when we're fighting a war on terrorism? In an October 2004 profile on John Kerry in the New York Times magazine, Kerry proposed fighting the war on terror using law-enforcement and prosecutorial practices until it gets to the point where it could recede until it was barely in our thoughts. The right lambasted Kerry's perspective as how he- a former prosecutor- would fight the war on terror, and Bush informed audiences that Kerry "just didn't understand this war." Bush and the right emphasizedthe word "war," as if to point out that an attempt to apply a prosecutorial or crime-fighting approach would be foolhardy- until, that is, they have to defend their own prosecutorial and crime-fighting approach.
George Lakoff points out in his treatise Don't Think of an Elephant that immediately after 9/11 the administration spoke of a crime and victims, of bringing the perpetuators "to justice" and "punished"- using the rhetoric of prosecution and fighting crime. That "framing" lasted hours- until the rhetoric of fighting a "war" on terror was introduced, with such terms as casualties, enemies, war powers, etc. Why the change in rhetoric? Well, Cheney and Wolfie had some countries to invade, didn't they?
Anyone notice that both Britain and Spain responded to their terrorist attacks with a crime-fighting and prosecutorial approach, using the help of Interpol to track down and imprison those responsible for the attacks (similar to how Clinton responded to the 1993 WTC bombing and imprisoned every single bomber invovled)? Shouldn't Spain have invaded India or some other country that had no involvement in its bombing?
In sum, Mayfield being Muslim may not have been the reason why he was investigated- there were other reasons listed in the Jusitce Department's affadavit as well. (Which, as One True B!x points out, pretty much just have to do with Mayfield being Muslim.) In the end, you have to ask yourself: if the FBI had this fingerprint match and traced it back to a Bush-voting father of three and a regular attendee of Portland's Foursquare Church, would they have arrested him and held him in detention for two weeks?
On the topic of legends, I'd like to propose the one of David Reinhard. That is, of being a competent columnist for The Oregonian who uses facts to strengthen his arguments while respecting the intelligence of his average reader. Yep. Stuff of legends indeed.....
posted by true_slicky at 3:45 PM
3 Comments:
I wish this were Bizarro World. In my dream, Reinhard would be picked up by the Feds for a column he wrote because of a SpeechCrime. He would be held indefinitely.
The "legend" was Reinhard's latest attempt to put words into the mouths of those on the other side and then debunk them. It is his formula, and I wrote about it here a couple of weeks ago: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16532534&postID=113653743827888790
Once you get on to him, you'll see him do it repeatedly. A really lazy writer.
Of course, in this column, the purpose was to show that Mayfield is really evil after all and that he deserved what he got. Because he's an attorney who has represented alleged terrorists. And a Muslim. And we know how THEY are.
I sent some of this post to David himself. this is his response:
No, they wouldn't have, because they would have reconsidered the print
because things would have seemed too odd. They didn't seem odd because
of all Mayfield's connections and the many other (ugly) things they
found in their constitutional search of property. DWR
I hope Hillary Clinton becomes President and traipses through Reinhard's home one day....
Post a Comment
<< Home