Bush Spares Libby 30-Month Jail Term
Is there a sentient human being on the planet who can even be bothered feigning surprise? Faced with a choice between further alienating an American public who hold him in almost record contempt and annoying what's left of the Republican base that continue to support him, Bush chose to leave aside any pretence that he believes in law and order for the moneyed clique that surround him and he has given "Scooter" Libby a commuted sentence that is a pardon in all but name.
Of course, what's unusual about pardoning this particular crook is that pardons are normally reserved for people who have expressed some kind of remorse. Not only has Libby failed to show remorse but there have been a cackle of right wing loons screaming that no crimes have actually been committed. As if perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice are trifling matters when carried out by members of Bush's administration.
I have always thought that people who work in government and therefore have a say over the laws that govern the rest of us should actually be more vigilant than anyone about obeying those laws. The Bush administration apparently does not share that view.
A more honest statement from Bush would have been that he agrees with strong messages when it comes to law and order but only as that relates to poor people.The commutation brought immediate praise from conservatives, who hailed it as a courageous step to avert a miscarriage of justice, and condemnation from Democrats, who said it showed a lack of accountability and respect for the law.
The president portrayed his commutation of the sentence, which fell short of a pardon and still requires Mr. Libby to pay a $250,000 fine and be on probation for two years, as a carefully considered compromise.
“I respect the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Bush said in a statement. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”
Certainly it confirms in my mind that Bush is now officially a lame duck President, as he obviously no longer cares what the public think of him.
Bush no longer pretends that all citizens "stand before the bar of justice as equals" and is no longer even pretending that he does.The action drew a sharp response from Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, in which Mr. Libby was accused of lying to investigators looking into the leak of a C.I.A. operative’s identity. Mr. Fitzgerald criticized the president’s characterization of the sentence as “excessive.”
“In this case an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws,” Mr. Fitzgerald said in a statement. “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals.”
Of course, nutters like William Kristol have long been campaigning for Libby to be pardoned if no better reason than it would "drive the Democrats crazy".
Such is the reasoning behind the right wing "logic".
As Joe Wilson now says, this administration is now corrupt from top to bottom.
UPDATE: Another thought. Under American justice as handled by this administration, Paris Hilton goes to jail and Scooter Libby walks free. Says a lot about perspective doesn't it?
Click title for full article.
9 comments:
I'm glad I've discovered your very useful blog through Naj's blog. Good work.
What is puzzling me, as a retired lawyer, is the Bush rationale (a true oxymoron) that Libby's sentence was excessive. That is the sort of issue that courts of appeal were created to decide. And how can Libby's sentence be excessive when Bush's prisoners at Gitmo and in secret dungeons around the world are confined indefinitely without being charged? I suppose the Bush Iagos said, "Well, you've got to give SOME reason."
I think you've given me the idea for a post!
Thank you. And yes, Bush has set himself up as the supreme arbriter going as far as not to bother even consulting his own justuc department before doing this.
This administration is simply rotten to it's core. If not for Bush to decide what part of a sentence should be served, that's what courts of appeal are for. But the truth is that Libby knows where the bodies are buried so they are not seriously going to allow him to do time. He could sink the lot of them!
a commuted sentence that is a pardon in all but name.
Well, if I'm ever convicted of a felony, I'll take the pardon any day. The consequences of living with a felony conviction aren't something I'd want to deal with.
Such is the reasoning behind the right wing "logic".
I wonder if you were so outraged at the left wing "logic" that Clinton used to pardon many criminals. It's the President's prerogative to commute or go all out and pardon. Selective outrage is pointless.
And how can Libby's sentence be excessive when Bush's prisoners at Gitmo and in secret dungeons around the world are confined indefinitely without being charged?
Since you stated you were a lawyer... While IANAL, just a former military person, are you familiar with LOAC, the Geneva Conventions, and the UCMJ? If so, then you should know how long prisoners may be detained until released - until the end of the conflict. And going along with that, there's nothing that states they must be charged with a crime during that time.
I wonder if you were so outraged at the left wing "logic" that Clinton used to pardon many criminals.
And when did Clinton commute the sentence for a member of his own administration who expressed no remorse for the crimes he committed?
It's beyond shameless and you are ignoring the fact that the outrage over what Bush has done is rather more widespread than The Osterley Times. Indeed, I note Bush didn't even make a public statement which implies that even he is embarrassed.
But you really will back anything that this regime does, Jason, so I'm not remotely surprised that an "independent" like yourself doesn't find it odd that Libby wasn't even sent to jail before Bush took this action.
If so, then you should know how long prisoners may be detained until released - until the end of the conflict.
That only applies during proper wars between states. Wars on drugs and terrorism don't count as it's not a war against a state. You should know that the vast majority of legal opinion is against the stance that you are arguing.
And when did Clinton commute the sentence for a member of his own administration who expressed no remorse for the crimes he committed?
LOL, like a criminal expressing remorse means anything. Libby continues to express his innocence, which is incompatible with expressing remorse. That said, I'm not sure what relevance there is regarding Clinton pardons where the person did or did not express remorse.
It's beyond shameless and you are ignoring the fact that the outrage over what Bush has done is rather more widespread than The Osterley Times.
What does that "fact" have to do with anything? Partisans are partisan regardless neither logic nor reason often enter the picture. Partisan outrage really doesn't mean much to me.
But you really will back anything that this regime does, Jason, so I'm not remotely surprised that an "independent" like yourself doesn't find it odd that Libby wasn't even sent to jail before Bush took this action.
What gives you the impression that I'm backing anything? Commenting on selective outrage certainly doesn't imply me backing anything. Why would I or anyone find it odd that a President exercises his Constitutional authority? I didn't find it odd when Clinton pardoned those he pardoned, so I'm certainly not going to get worked up when Bush commutes someone's sentence (and still doesn't pardon him). Personally I would have preferred he pardon the border patrol agents though.
That only applies during proper wars between states.
Huh? You seem to be letting your politics cloud your perceptions again. The fact is that these people were captured in combat zones during military action authorized by Congress. What that means is the legal frameworks I mentioned do apply. I might suggest that the Geneva Conventions might make a good read.
You should know that the vast majority of legal opinion is against the stance that you are arguing.
Really? What legal opinions state that enemy prisoners of war cannot be held until cessation of hostilities? As far as those who are not being treated as POWs, the legal framework is less certain. What is certain is that they are not afforded the same protections under the Geneva Conventions that are afforded to POWs, and that they are not subject to the US Constitution.
LOL, like a criminal expressing remorse means anything. Libby continues to express his innocence, which is incompatible with expressing remorse.
Are you deliberately missing the point? A President usually does not give a pardon until the judicial process is completed - in this case it was not as the appeal was still being considered - and it is usual that the person is in jail and has expressed remorse. That's before we get to the fact that Bush is, in effect, pardoning a member of his own administration after an investigation that Bush called for using a prosecutor that Bush picked. You can come up with no Clinton equivalent to that, can you?
The fact is that these people were captured in combat zones during military action authorized by Congress. What that means is the legal frameworks I mentioned do apply. I might suggest that the Geneva Conventions might make a good read.
Military action is not war. War exists between states, that's why this isn't a war and those rules don't apply. That's why Bush and Co are scurrying around trying to avoid having this matter settled by courts. Because they know they'll lose.
What legal opinions state that enemy prisoners of war cannot be held until cessation of hostilities?
It's not a proper war. It's a war against an idea, as never ending as the war against drugs. Those rules were never intended for that kind of war. How do we know when this war is over? Is there a moment when we plant a flag in Port Stanley and declare victory? No, therefore what you are saying is that you can hold people for decades if necesary without charge.
That was never the kind of "war" that those rules were designed for.
Military action is not war. War exists between states, that's why this isn't a war and those rules don't apply. That's why Bush and Co are scurrying around trying to avoid having this matter settled by courts. Because they know they'll lose.
As I said, call it what you want. For legal purposes, it is treated as a war in the US due to the congressional authorization. Further, when states are involved (such as Iraq and Afghanistan just to throw out a couple names), no "declaration" of war is necessary. The Geneva Conventions regulate the actions of those bound by who engage in armed conflict. International LOAC also apply in any armed conflict. When we commit our military forces to action, these laws and treaties are applicable.
As I said, call it what you want. For legal purposes, it is treated as a war in the US due to the congressional authorization.
It says a lot about your attitude to international law that you imagine US congressional authorization trumps international law itself.
And are you going to withdraw your claim that Bush's actions are in some way comparable to any pardon ever given by Clinton?
The reason people are outraged is that, by commuting the sentence of a member of his own administration, he is in effect saying that his administration is above the law. That's scandalous and dangerously reactionary.
Post a Comment