Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Alliance Defense Fund plans to honor former Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese by giving away an annual award called the Edwin Meese III Originalism and Religious Liberty Award.
"Ed Meese worked harder and more successfully behind the scenes than any other person to make sure that the Reagan legacy of freedom has continued," Alan Sears, president of Alliance Defense Fund, told WND.
Legacy of freedom? Ed Meese? The same man who said anyone who is a suspect in a crime is also guilty of that crime and therefore has no rights? This is from a 1985 interview with US News and World Report:
U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection?Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
Wow, what a legacy of freedom. And let's not forget his lifelong crusade in favor of arresting and imprisoning consenting adults for having sex in unapproved ways (or watching others have sex in unapproved ways). And his advocacy of Robert Bork, as authoritarian a legal scholar as there is this side of David Gibbs.
Giving Ed Meese an award for his legacy of freedom is like giving Ron Jeremy an award for his legacy of chastity.
Politics
Comments
I'd like to say something amusing and arch and witty in response to this, but all I've got is "You've got to be kidding me."
::headdesk::
Posted by: Mara | May 15, 2009 9:47 AM
What's next, giving accused war criminal Henry Kissinger a Nobel Peace Prize... [whisper, whisper] No shit? Well then, carry on.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 15, 2009 9:56 AM
So in his theory, we just need to make sure they are innocent before allowing them a lawyer? Do we get to shoot them before they have proved their innocence as well?
Posted by: Odie | May 15, 2009 9:58 AM
Ed:
How dare you! I can't believe that you have the gall to compare those two. One is a despicable piece of filth who would happily fuck every other human on the planet; the other simply does his humble best to entertain this nation's consenting adults. Ron Jeremy suffers the slings, arrows, thongs and buttplugs of outrageous fortune.
Posted by: democommie | May 15, 2009 9:59 AM
Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
This mentality is extremely common amongst conservatives, I get it every year with my government/poli sci students. Many of them honestly don't have a problem with the idea of executing innocent people because they believe they must be "guilty of something" to be picked up in the first place. They also don't have a problem with the fact that the actual guilty person is allowed to go free to continue to commit crimes because they will "prey on other bad people" and "will be caught eventually."
I've used a number of examples where people were completely innocent, in places where these students would be likely to be present, for example a college student returning from the library, stumbling upon a body and then being discovered with that body ... mostly, they still don't get it.
Damn scary mindset. No empathy whatsoever.
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 15, 2009 10:07 AM
Will someone please remind the wingnuts that Dirty Harry was only a movie, not a guide to proper police procedure?
Posted by: Finch | May 15, 2009 10:10 AM
"If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."
Doesn't this make the word 'suspect' obsolete?
Posted by: Rodney | May 15, 2009 10:28 AM
That seems like a much more basic failure than a lack of empathy. Even a sociopath should be able to reason that prosecuting the innocent and letting the guilty off free a) endangers them even if they don't do anything wrong and b) leaves dangerous people at large.
I don't know how you'd describe the unreasoning behind what you describe - a blind trust in Authority as some sort of abstract entity where anyone being punished must necessarily deserve it, because the Authority can do no wrong? (And even then, how you get to "it's okay to punish someone for something they didn't do, because they must have done something else deserving similar punishment anyway" is beyond me.)
Posted by: Morgan | May 15, 2009 10:29 AM
dogmeatib stated:
Do your text books or peripheral materials take on this topic?
It's my understanding that the philosophical underpinings of our system of law is cognizant of the fact that the guilty are favored far more than the victims in order to minimize the probability of convicting those that were unjustly indicted. It would seem helpful if this premise was both formally stated in writing beyond the teacher's materials and provided as examples the very arguments made by its originators in order that these students understand what our tradition is.
I ask because I think one of the most valuable ways to teach these types of people is to confront them with the fact that their opinions stand squarely contrary to our founding ideals. Properly framed primary source material provides devastating evidence helpful to these such arguments.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 15, 2009 10:56 AM
Ohhh, so that's who Ed Meese is. Suddenly Frank Zappa's "Promiscuous" makes a little more sense.
Posted by: Aaron Golas | May 15, 2009 10:57 AM
I was initially appalled, then I realized that it was the ADF giving out this award.
'nuff said.
Posted by: FastLane | May 15, 2009 11:01 AM
dogmeatib,
How much can you get away with in a real-life simulation? That is, is there some way you could "punish" an innocent student?
I remember once in a class where a student was arguing against the 9th Circuit's pledge ruling. Her argument was, "Well, nobody put a gun to the student's head and forced her to say it." In one of my better teaching moments, I instantly told her to get out of my class. She just stared at me open-mouthed. I again told her to get out of my class, and she slowly picked up her books and made her way to the door, almost crying. When she reached the door, I stopped her and asked, "Did I put a gun to your head?"
It made a strong impression on everyone, but of course it's a risky approach. Parents can get pretty pissy if you use their kids as object lessons. Of course I apologized to her as well to cover my ass (it was, in fact, a class of high school students in a summer program, rather than college students).
Posted by: James Hanley | May 15, 2009 11:10 AM
I remember reading Bloom County making fun of the "Meese Commission" when I was young, and I had no idea what they were talking about. Now, thanks to Ed, it is 20 years later and I finally understand the joke!
Posted by: sinned34 | May 15, 2009 11:13 AM
Giving a award, for any kind of liberty*, to Ed Meese, what were the ADF thinking?
I mean, would the IOC give the Olympic Games to the Nazis?? :D -DJ
*even if it's attached for 'Originalism and Religious Liberty', both concepts that are often diametrically opposed to any common definition of 'liberty')
Posted by: DIngoJack | May 15, 2009 11:18 AM
What's next, giving accused war criminal Henry Kissinger a Nobel Peace Prize...
I'm currently accepting nominations for a new award for honesty and accuracy in television reporting. It is of course named after Bill O'Reilly and sponsored by the Media Research Center.
Posted by: ??? | May 15, 2009 11:38 AM
The Meese legacy continues with Anthony Kennedy--yes, THAT Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice of (and perpetual swing vote on) the SCROTUS...
Posted by: Woody | May 15, 2009 12:00 PM
"Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."
I had heard something like this in every day life. But it became poignantly clear when I was on jury duty and the state simply had no case. The only witness openly admitted that she didn't get a good look and couldn't be sure. To me if they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guy did it then you have to let him go. No mater how much of a scumbag the guy looked like.
Several others on the jury clearly admitted the state had no proof and that the witness was weak. But thought we should give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt saying that if the police brought him in and the prosecutor had brought him to trial he had to be guilty of something. Four jurors, based on his assumed but unproven guilt, pushed to temporize and convict on a lesser charge.
I held the line that either the guy was proven guilty as charged, or not. The guy got off. In a later conversation the prosecutor said we should have convicted him because he was absolutely sure he had done dozens of similar crimes but couldn't use much of the evidence. He claimed I had let him, and the state down. I told him he should have made a better case. He claimed that in most cases he would have gotten a conviction.
Evidently the prosecutors know that jurors assume people are guilty if brought to trial so they see no point in working harder to assemble solid cases. Irony is that the defenders are also used to easy to break cases. It is like a conspiracy where both sides agree to be lazy and play easy.
Posted by: Art | May 15, 2009 12:22 PM
Giving Ed Meese an award for his legacy of freedom is like giving Ron Jeremy an award for his legacy of chastity.
I think it's safe to say that right-wing authoritarians do not really understand freedom, and when they are exposed to freedom or people who espouse lifestyles of freedom (such as the youth movements of the '60s), the RWA's are in drastic opposition.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 15, 2009 12:28 PM
And the really ironic part is that cases going to trial tend to be relatively weak. That is not always the case, but in general when prosecutors have copious evidence, and there really is no doubt about who perpetrated the crime, defense attorneys will bargain for a better plea deal, but won't go to trial. Cases where the evidence is totally weak or missing are not pursued by prosecutors, who want to keep their conviction rate up.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 15, 2009 1:15 PM
Michael Heath:
I only have empirical data about this, but given what I have observed here in Texas this past decade, I am extremely skeptical of how many "law and order" conservatives really care about founding ideals when it comes to the judicial system (except when they're caught up in the system, of course).
They are much more concerned that one person might get away with murder than over the possibility that one or more might be wrongfully convicted. One only has to consider the almost complete lack of concern anti-abortion "pro-life" activists (including conservative Catholics, it has to be said) have about the unequal imposition of the death penalty and the good chances that in places like Texas, innocent people get caught up in dragnet all the time.
In the end, I suspect that the gut sense that these people must be guilty of something if the end up getting convicted, combined with the more understandable concern that a guilty person might get off is stronger than any education based on the founding ideals of the judicial system.
Posted by: tacitus | May 15, 2009 1:18 PM
Morgan@#8:
As some have found, I'm a big fan of Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Which leads me to observe, per Kushner, that these people are comforting themselves with the idea that Bad Things can't happen to them, since they are Good People.
Thus, those slime on Death Row must deserve it, regardless of the details -- because the alternative is to confront the possibility that a mistake might happen to them -- and that there's nothing they can do to really be safe.
The real world is a scary place. Shit happens, and sometimes it happens to you. We try to shelter children from the worst of that, so they can grow up believing that the Big People will Take Care of Things. Some of us grow up to accept that the only Big People around are looking at us in the mirror and that there's work to do; others cling to the illusion that somewhere, somehow, Someone is looking out for them to make sure that Bad Things never happen to them.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 15, 2009 1:41 PM
since its the "Reagan legacy of freedom" it makes perfect sense.
Reagan freedom is freedom in non-free sense of the word. Freedom to control and exploit while refusing to pay taxes...and all the rest of you get told what to do...
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | May 15, 2009 2:25 PM
But Ed, don't you understand that if people are watching porn and masturbsting, thrn they're not having sex; therefore, we can give Ron Jeremy an award for promoting chastity!
Posted by: Bachalon | May 15, 2009 2:56 PM
Perhaps so... but I recognize that blindness in myself about all kinds of risks and unpleasant possibilities outside my control, and the result is simply that I don't have any real emotional awareness that it might happen to me, not some unjustified assumption that those it does happen to "deserve" it. Does Kushner explore whether a "they-had-it-coming" narrative is constructed for, say, victims of congenital diseases, car crashes, freak accidents of all sorts?
Do people not have the ability to assume that bad things won't happen to them, but imagine them happening to innocent others, as per any number of drama plots?
Posted by: Morgan | May 15, 2009 3:31 PM
So does that mean that since Cheney, Bush, Gonzales etc are suspected of torture, there is no reason for an investigation and a trial because they are already, de facto, guilty? Works for me. What's good for the goose...
At least that'll same O'Same the trouble of shredding the evidence that Cheyney didn't get to with his hotel bonfire.
Ted Rall has a great comic showing O in a cop uniform in front of the yellow tape, saying "Move along, now, nothing to see here" while two "interrogators" are torturing some guy along the side of the road. Right on once again.
Posted by: teammarty | May 15, 2009 4:08 PM
Perhaps a good teaching technique for the government students would be to do the following just before you want to discuss the justice system and the protection of the innocent:
Get somber, and say that you have something important to ask of the class. Say that you left your watch on your desk during the last class these kids had with you, and your wristwatch was stolen. Ask that the guilty party return the watch right now, no questions asked.
Then, when no one comes forth, say that in cases of opportunity theft, 90% of the time the guilty party is the student(s) closest to the desk. Pick the closest student(s), and say that they must hand in a 200 page report on a topic of your choice by next class, or they will be failed and reported to the police.
You just might get some objections from the class about punishing the innocent.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 15, 2009 4:17 PM
That's where he starts.
For those who don't know about Rabbi Kushner, his son died of old age at 14. The book is a commentary on Job, and primarily addresses "Job's Comforters:" his neighbors who keep insisting that all of Job's suffering must be because Job deserved it.
One of his modern-day examples is the funeral of a young victim of disease or an auto accident, and the guests who spend all of their time "comforting" the bereaved parents by telling them how the child could have avoided the horrible whatever by better living, prayer, or whatever -- or, in the case of a dead infant, how the parents could have prevented etc.
Worth reading. Job was incredibly controversial when it was first considered for inclusion in the canon because on the one hand it's a brilliant commentary on human nature and society -- and absolutely not flattering at all about religion.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 15, 2009 4:42 PM
Meese is a twit and has no respect for the fourth or ninth amendment.
Reading his work is like reading Clarence Thomas. It annoys the crap out of me.
Posted by: JStein | May 15, 2009 5:02 PM
Ed, quoting Meese:
But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.
Hundreds of "guilty" people exonerated later by advances in DNA testing and other forensic sciences must be laughing mirthlessly as I read this.
Posted by: chriskrolczyk | May 15, 2009 5:25 PM
Hundreds of "guilty" people exonerated later by advances in DNA testing and other forensic sciences must be laughing mirthlessly as I read this.
some uncounted scores, perhaps hundreds, of wrongfully convicted and executed people would laugh humorlessly if they could, I'm sure.
I cannot remember where I read it, but about 20 years ago (approximately) I read a report on a study that found more than 70% of people who approved the death penalty in principle wouldn't change their minds even in the face of indisputable evidence that innocent people had died at the hands of the State...
I am worried, actually, about cult of DNA/forensic evidence, because I fear we are creating a culture that reinforces the idea that if a person were innocent, they wouldn't be arrested...arrest becomes thereby proof of culpability...It's the kind of sentiment that, in a culture as violent as our own, could be seized upon and exploited by a sufficiently vicious demagogue...
Posted by: Woody | May 15, 2009 5:43 PM
Giving Ed Meese an award for his legacy of freedom is like giving Ron Jeremy an award for his legacy of chastity.
That is, naming a freedom award in honor of Ed Meese is like naming a chastity award for Ron Jeremy.
Posted by: Grumpy | May 15, 2009 6:22 PM
They may not have done the things they were convicted of, but they were certainly guilty of something -- after all, there are none without sin. One of the basic Biblical lessons that our country is founded on is that every single one of us, right down to the baby being born, deserves eternal torment.
It's only through totally undeserved patronage that some of us are selected to escape that fate, and nothing we can do will save us.
So, you see, those bastards on Death Row do deserve to not only die, but fry -- forever. If one gets free it's the Fickle Finger of Fate and not justice; intervening in the process (for instance, with a new trial after DNA evidence turns up) is thwarting the Will of God.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 15, 2009 6:42 PM
This actually reminded me of an argument on a mainstream local news site I had with someone recently. Since I live in the Bay Area, CA, local news last month was dominated with coverage of the murder of Sandra Cantu. On this news site I was on, several commenters took up the lynch mob mentality and said that the murderer should not have any rights at all, not even a fair trial. I asked one of these mob commenters how one could possibly know the suspect is a murderer unless she gets a fair trial? I was of course bombarded with the predictable "how dare you!?" and "this is an innocent little girl we're talking about!" expressions of outrage that had little to do with my point. The one closest "rationale" I got was someone claiming that the suspect shouldn't get rights because she didn't give her victim any rights before she killed her. Guilty with no chance to prove your innocence was a common theme here.
Apparently, there are some people out there who hold Meese's stance on the treatment of suspects and their rights. Let us hope these people never get selected as jurors.
Posted by: AL | May 15, 2009 6:47 PM
Isn't the definition of "originalism" to pretend that it's still the 18th century?
Posted by: CHV | May 15, 2009 7:30 PM
In all seriousness, I thought Ed Meese died a long time ago. I'm frankly shocked that he didn't expire long ago from a grabber considering how obese he is.
But anyhow, after re-reading Meese's quote from US News above the words that stands out for me more than any (in terms of sheer ignorance, not to mention a wink to Stalinism) is "many suspects" which strongly suggests that the longtime constitutional standard of individual rights (not to mention a presumption of innocence) means nothing to old Ed.
In his dusty brain, should we all be presumed guilty in court (circumstances be damned)?
Posted by: CHV | May 15, 2009 7:56 PM
Well, it's worse than that. He isn't even talking about people who actually went to trial and were found guilty (rightly or wrongly). He's talking about mere suspects. I guess this is why some police departments use the phrase "person of interest." Y'know, to prevent the Meeses of the world from presuming guilt.
Posted by: AL | May 15, 2009 8:13 PM
Unfortunately, juries often take the view that "But surely they must be guilty of something or those fine policemen wouldn't have charged them with an offence...."
Posted by: Stephen | May 15, 2009 9:29 PM
@27: Aaaah, Reagan-era freedom. Freedom for businesses to screw over unions, freedom for Latin American death squads to murder people, freedom for human immunodeficiency viruses to infect whoever they please without the Center for Disease Control butting in...
Posted by: Finch | May 15, 2009 10:37 PM
The Ed Meese I remember was a corrupt, amoral piece of sleaze, but the people giving him this "honor" are probably counting on the fact that most of us have short memories.
Posted by: Raymond Minton | May 15, 2009 10:54 PM
The people who think that there are no suspects are getting their training for people like Ray Comfort. Comfort does his "Are You a Good Person?" thing with telling people that if they thought about sex with another person, they're actually guilty of having sex with them, even though it's completely imaginary.
Deep thought and thinking are not what Comfort and his lot want to cultivate. And they get to vote and serve on juries.
Posted by: Scott | May 16, 2009 8:05 AM
Ed Meese, and specifically the quote highlighted, is the reason I joined the ACLU.
Posted by: blf | May 16, 2009 8:43 AM
That totally made me recall the famous "Troops" video set in the Star Wars universe: "All suspects are guilty. Period."
Posted by: Jon Lester | May 17, 2009 12:03 AM
Ed Meese's 19-year-old son Scott died with his speeding car wrapped around a tree in July 1982. He had been pulled over for speeding and reckless driving several times in the Washington DC area since his family came to DC with the Reaganites, but had arrogantly told the cops his father was the Attorney General and they couldn't touch him. But the tree didn't respect his father's high office.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/25/us/service-set-for-meese-s-son.html
Posted by: Paul Burnett | May 17, 2009 11:38 PM
My apologies, horribly busy the last few days, didn't get back here long enough to compose a reply:
Do your text books or peripheral materials take on this topic?
We actually don't use our textbook. The selection committee botched it badly and selected a book that is virtually useless, doesn't address standards, etc. It doesn't address this issue at all.
I ask because I think one of the most valuable ways to teach these types of people is to confront them with the fact that their opinions stand squarely contrary to our founding ideals. Properly framed primary source material provides devastating evidence helpful to these such arguments.
Unfortunately these kids literally, openly admit they disagree with the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Many of them don't like the 14th amendment and want to amend the 1st amendment to do away with types of speech they don't agree with. I've pointed out that there are others who don't agree with them and could do the same to them (silence them, declare their religion illegal, etc.), they scoff at the idea that they could ever be part of a minority opinion. Of course these are the children of local "tea-baggers" screaming about how "Obama the Marxist will make them all eat welfare fried chicken while taking their money away from them to give to illegal immigrants."
Like I said, some truly disturbing mindsets, they aren't a majority, but a significant minority.
How much can you get away with in a real-life simulation? That is, is there some way you could "punish" an innocent student?
James,
I do a number of simulations that cut fairly close to the edge. I've had my share of complaints, etc. Unfortunately the group of kids to whom I am referring seem to be able to rationalize a general "it wouldn't happen to me" mindset.
I believe these kids will be the next generation of Ed Meese's, despite my best efforts to develop an understanding of the principles of our system.
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 18, 2009 3:28 PM
dogmeatib:
Can't you just flunk them? And then tell them they must not have prayed hard enough?
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 9:24 PM