www.csua.org/u/ivx -> economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/libbys_sentenci.html
I'm troubled by one quote in the column from the ineffable former Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia: "If the public believes there's one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." Seems to me that could work either way in these cases: Neither Paris nor Scooter would be facing jail time if they weren't part of "a certain group of people," namely celebrities. His "perjury"--not telling the truth about which reporters he talked to--would never be considered significant enough to reach trial, much less sentencing, much less time in stir if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man. The Libby trial brought needed public attention to the criminal negligence of the Bush White House. Do we really want to spend our tax dollars keeping Scooter Libby behind bars? This "perjury" case only exists because of his celebrity--just as the ridiculous "perjury" case against Bill Clinton, which ballooned into the fantastically stupid and destructive impeachment proceedings.
Walton derided the attacks launched by Libby partisans and commentators against the CIA leak investigation, the trial, and the verdict. "The evidence overwhelmingly indicates Mr Libby's culpability," he declared. He blasted Libby for discussing Valerie Wilson with reporters without considering that she might have been an undercover officer.
this: Advocates of a pardon can't deny that a jury found Libby guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So they are suggesting that his perjury is no big deal because Special Prosecutor Patrick J Fitzgerald never charged anyone with disclosing the status of CIA employee Valerie Plame. At Tuesday's debate, Giuliani complained that "ultimately, there was no underlying crime involved." But as a lawyer he, like Libby, knows that the law is entitled to every man's evidence. As a high government official, he lied to agents of that government; As he well knew, that was a crime, and one for which he deserves to go to prison. So, Joe Klein thinks lying in an investigation about outing a CIA agent is no big deal? If I destroy evidence, lie to investigators, or use other means to hinder prosecution and I am successful - prosecutors are unable to pursue charges - can I then argue that my crimes during the cover-up aren't serious enough to warrant a sentence? The problem, of course, is that once you find out that there has been an attempt to lie and cover-up, you can never be sure you actually know the full extent of the crime that was hidden. How anyone can say that lying during an investigation to determine if a CIA agent has been illegally outed is not a serious crime is a mystery to me. An undercover CIA agent was outed potentially putting her contacts in danger and destroying any chance to learn from the work she was involved in. To say that is a trivial matter buys into the right-wing apologists whose situational ethics are on sad display in this affair. Had it been a Democrat who outed a CIA agent (and the record clearly indicates she was undercover at the time), or had it been you or me that blew her cover, this same group would demand heads on a platter. Ask yourself what you would be facing if the right-wing noise machine turned on you for outing an agent. They wouldn't rest until you were more than a mere example. To claim the only point here is to show the law is fair, or that is isn't serious because the lies prevented us from discovering crimes that may have been committed, belittles the seriousness of the crimes being examined in the broader investigation.
He is for jail time for a "twit" who was merely stupid enough not to hire a chauffeur while her license was suspended but against jail time for one of the Neocons who pushed the US into this miserable, terrible war that has brought death to hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
June 10, 2007 at 01:21 PM real person from the real world says... The Romans had their gladiatorial shows, we have celebrities and their antics. Jail times for both Paris and Scooter for their "crimes" is merely hype to demonstrate *impartiality*, but if I had to evaluate the two cases, the Libby case is legit. As for harking back to Clinton's troubles, frankly, while a lot of these guys are philanderers (JFK for one), it exposes a really unseemly side to politics, and was embarrassing to the country to have him caught with his pants down.
The right is motivated by an elitist, authoritarian view of how the world should be organized. As such, the elite knows what is best and, therefore, should be left alone to do whatever they need to do to reach the desired ends. What follows from this is that the end justifies the means. When looked at through this lens, 90% of justifications for various policies become obvious. Lie to support an invasion - acceptable because the goals are what count. Lie about the affects of tax or trade polices - justified by the need to put these policies in place regardless of the popular will. Politicize government agencies so that more conservatives can get into power - necessary to continue the great work that must be done. Those on the left who like to discuss policy as an abstract entity and think that normal polical processes should be used to arrive at the best solution get out maneuvered by the other side. One side wants to play by the rules, the other makes up the rules as they go along.
html June 8, 2007 Conservative Legal Scholar Smackdown Edited by Mark Thoma I don't think Scooter Libby trial Judge Reggie Walton appreciated the intervention of "12 fancy lawyers" into his case....
Repeatedly this morning public radio news sources assured us that there will be no leaving Iraq for years and possibly decades to come. Iraq has become Korea is the current metaphor, and this Administration is insuring that Administrations to come will not and cannot leave. This insurance is brought to us from the same analysts who before gave us the surge and before an before....
Anne: Your only mistake is in thinking that there was ever any other plan besides a long term presence in Iraq. This was evident from the start as several people on the inside have pointed out. One of the most consistent has been Chalmers Johnson who continues to harp on the existence of nearly 750 US overseas bases. Right after the invasion the US started building permanent bases in Iraq. Real data is hard to come by, but most estimates are 17-19 bases with four of them being super bases with western-style housing, air strips, movie theaters and fast food restaurants. One of the objectives for the war was to set up a new base of operations in the region to replace those lost when Saudi Arabia kicked us out. Turkey has proven to be unreliable as their unwillingness to allow us to use even their air space for the invasion illustrates. My take on the objectives of the war: 1 Replace the lost bases 2 Install a client regime which will supply oil to the world markets at favorable rates 3 Intimidate neighboring states 4 Prevent China from getting the oil How are we doing: 1 Done 2 Mostly done, although production is lagging 3 Syria and Libya are now behaving "better" so this has been partially successful 4 China used the US distraction over Iraq to secure supplies in Africa and Latin America, so they out flanked the effort. I don't even think the Korea analogy was a recent development, it was just kept in reserve until it was clear that the cease fire negotiating process was about to start.
robertdfeinman: "Those on the left who like to discuss policy as an abstract entity and think that normal polical processes should be used to arrive at the best solution get out maneuvered by the other side. One side wants to play by the rules, the other makes up the rules as they go along. The sheer, breathtaking ruthlessness of "the other side" -- the Right -- is quite frightening, as is their apparent inability to even acknowledge a strategic or policy failure. I wonder, though, what motivates Joe Klein or David Broder to act as apologists for these guys. Is it just the job they were hired to do, by their corporate employers?
IMHO Your explanation should be at the ...
|
http://csua.com/feed/