We've thrown a bunch of folks in jail on "suspicion" since 9/11. Many, after "intense questioning", confessed to various crimes. After all, some prosecutor had a "gut feeling" they were guilty.
Which brings to mind Richard Jewell. Remember him?
Richard A. Jewell; Wrongly Linked to Olympic Bombing
By Adam Bernstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page B07
...
One television outlet featured an interview with a psychologist who said Mr. Jewell resembled a "lone bomber." On NBC, Tom Brokaw said, "The speculation is that the FBI is close to 'making the case,' in their language. They probably have enough on him to arrest him right now . . . but you always want to have enough to convict him as well."
...In October 1996, the FBI cleared Mr. Jewell. In a news conference, he called his 88 days under suspicion a nightmare for him and his mother...
Notice how, despite all the apologies from various media outlets, they keep pretending that poorly-sourced anonymous tips are "news"? Say, about Iran/Iraq links? (more below)
Consider this Op-Ed piece:
Bush's Lost Iraqi Election
By David Ignatius
Washington Post
Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A21
Ayad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, hinted in a television interview last weekend at one of the war's least understood turning points: America's decision not to challenge Iranian intervention in Iraq's January 2005 elections.
...
Behind Allawi's comment lies a tale of intrigue and indecision by the United States over whether to mount a covert-action program to confront Iran's political meddling. Such a plan was crafted by the Central Intelligence Agency and then withdrawn -- because of opposition from an unlikely coalition that is said to have included Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was then House minority leader, and Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser.
As recounted by former U.S. officials, the story embodies the mix of hubris and naivete that has characterized so much of the Iraq effort. From President Bush on down, U.S. officials enthused about Iraqi democracy while pursuing a course of action that made it virtually certain that Iran and its proxies would emerge as the dominant political force.
(Emphasis added.)
I'd say David Ignatius' whole column "embodies the mix of hubris and naivete that has characterized so much of the Iraq effort" - or at least that of the media. He bemoans the "fact" that the CIA reportedly wasn't allowed to "donate" money to "centrist" Iraqis, "leaving the field to Iran." Short version: Mr. Ignatius is upset that we didn't fund a second bunch of unpopular CIA-backed stooges to sign over Iraq's oil wealth after Ahmed Chalabi's bunch failed to convert promises to oil leases. And we're supposed to believe anyone in the Bush Administration was talked into behaving ethically by Nancy Pelosi, the uber-demon of Republicans everywhere? What bilge!
Too bad we're about to see this Pentagon-tested, Cheney-approved garbage turned into breathless news stories in the next few weeks. Expect Wolf Blitzer to be grilling Nancy Pelosi about it, real soon