The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Convicted Criminals and the Presidents Who Pardon Them
The Green Eyed Monster
i blame hip hopRegistered User regular
i blame hip hopRegistered User regular
I'm sorry, but I'm a little offended by this Washington Post headline:
"Bush Faces Libby Pardon Dilemma"
What exactly is the "dilemma" here? A man was convicted of a crime by the US courts of justice, why exactly should a President be allowed to just say "wait no -- that's my buddy, he can't be guilty."?
While this is the most immediate example, I was really just hoping to kind of talk about pardons in general. I understand oversight of the courts, placing the power in the hands of someone trusted to prevent against real miscarriages of justice, but in light of the fact that it's often just a tool used by the Old Boy's club to make sure one of their own doesn't actually face repercussion for their transgressions, what is this legal outlet really good for*?
So I was hoping in the first place we could talk about how people feel about Libby, and in the second hopefully discuss Presidential pardon and whether or not it's really a power we should be trusting to someone like George W. Bush (or any of his other predecessors).
*who is watching the watchmen, etc.
"Bush Faces Libby Pardon Dilemma"
Peter Baker wrote:The looming prospect of Libby turning in his dark business suit for a prison jumpsuit instantly rallied his supporters to lobby the White House for a pardon. National Review, the conservative magazine, posted an editorial on its Web site less than an hour after the sentence headlined, "Pardon Him." The magazine argued that Libby had been "found guilty of process crimes" when the special prosecutor never brought charges relating to the original leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's name, which spawned the case.
"He is a dedicated public servant caught in a crazy political fight that should have never happened, convicted of lying about a crime that the prosecutor can't even prove was committed," the magazine said of Libby. "President Bush has the power to end this ridiculous saga right now. He should do so."
The sentence could provoke discussion among Republican presidential candidates, who are scheduled to debate tonight in New Hampshire. One presumed candidate who will not be on stage, former Tennessee senator Fred D. Thompson, has become one of Libby's most prominent defenders and already has said he would pardon him immediately.
"This is a miscarriage of justice," Thompson said on "Fox News Sunday" in March.
What exactly is the "dilemma" here? A man was convicted of a crime by the US courts of justice, why exactly should a President be allowed to just say "wait no -- that's my buddy, he can't be guilty."?
While this is the most immediate example, I was really just hoping to kind of talk about pardons in general. I understand oversight of the courts, placing the power in the hands of someone trusted to prevent against real miscarriages of justice, but in light of the fact that it's often just a tool used by the Old Boy's club to make sure one of their own doesn't actually face repercussion for their transgressions, what is this legal outlet really good for*?
So I was hoping in the first place we could talk about how people feel about Libby, and in the second hopefully discuss Presidential pardon and whether or not it's really a power we should be trusting to someone like George W. Bush (or any of his other predecessors).
*who is watching the watchmen, etc.
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Posts
Libby should have been hanged untill he be dead, dead, dead.
Bush pardoning him would be as good as him saying he told Scooter to out Plume.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
I would not agree with a Bush pardon; the man broke the law and potentially put someone's life in danger. A pardon would be another slap in our face when it comes to how "They" get treated vs how we get treated.
You would have to question the validity of the presidential pardon if Libby was pardoned. It would obviously be Bush getting his buddy out of jail for doing something he asked him to do.
The Presidential Pardon can be useful, there are people in jail who they shouldn't waste taxpayer money on. My biggest problem was Tommy Chong being in a federal prison for selling drug parafenellia. Why the fuck is my tax money paying for Chong to be in prison for selling bongs? A presidential pardon would have made sense in that case.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
And there isn't anything anyone can do about it. I love how Republican's decry that he's comitted no crime. Our justice system saw it differently. He's the only one who got caught, there are others, but they were smart enough to cover their own assess.
I mean pardons for miscarriages of justice -- I get that. But pardons because you've decided, against the will of the nation's legal system, that you know right and wrong better? That just seems disgusting to me.
Expect more of the same I guess. Holy crap there's a lot.
Why? Constitution says so.
The Constitution also says we can change the Constitution. A law isn't its own justification.
Fun fact: In Massachusetts, at least, if a jury asks the judge if there is any possibility that the defendant will be released if they give life imprisonment (over the death penalty), the judge cannot tell them that the governor can commute the sentence. True story.
This is the context in which Libby was convicted. The parallels between this and Lewinskygate are pretty remarkable - in both cases someone wound up committing a crime by lying about something that was not actually a crime in order to save face. In both cases, the person doing the lying should've been held accountable for it. Clinton got away with it, for the most part. Libby shouldn't. Whether or not the investigation itself was a colossal waste of time has no bearing on whether or not you get to lie to officials and obstruct justice. It's not your decision to make.
Libby tried to be sneaky, and he failed. Sucks to be him, but he shouldn't be pardoned. This, of course, is assuming that he really is guilty, and that the court did its job - I haven't followed the case well enough to assert definitively that it did, so I'm just taking it on faith.
Given the bullshit nature of the investigation, I wouldn't lose any sleep if Libby got pardoned, just as I didn't lose any sleep when Clinton got off with a slap on the wrist for committing perjury about a hummer. But he shouldn't. He can serve his 30 months, and then go back to being ridiculously wealthy and powerful.
February 19, 1999
NAME -- SENTENCED -- OFFENSE
Henry Ossian Flipper -- 1891 -- Conduct unbecoming an officer
That's just an odd one, but damn, looking through that link I'm really wondering about Presidential pardon. How can each and every one of those be necessary and valid?
See, here's the thing. Her indentity was classified. If I were to reveal her covert nature, thus disclose an agents identity, I would be in jail, possibly charged with treason, which carries the death penalty at the moment. Don't believe me? Look up Adrich Ames, who sold agents out to the KGB. He's still alive because we we weren't at war.
Libby got off light, being who he is and who he worked for. If it was me or you, we'd be hanged.
At all.
Sir Phobos?
Given that it's not a crime unless the person releasing the information has direct, authorized access to the information and knows that the government is actively trying to conceal the information, or else releases the information with the specific intention of harming US surveillance operations, I'm pretty sure that you or I would not be charged with a crime. Also since, you know, Plame's outed status was not as a "covert agent" but as a "CIA analyst".
There was zero chance that anyone was ever going to be found guilty of a crime committed in the leaking of this information. Zero. Even if a crime was committed, it was virtually impossible to prove that it was committed. Pretty much everyone knew this. All the leaker had to say was, "Oh, I heard that Plame was an analyst through the grape vine. Nope, don't remember who I heard it from. They were trying to keep her identity secret? Nah, I had no idea. Guess they didn't do a very good job of it." Case over. And as it turns out, her identity was a pretty poorly-kept secret. That Wilson's wife worked with the CIA was pretty much common knowledge in certain circles. That she was once a covert-op may have been unknown, but that's not even what was leaked. She was named as an "agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." This is wonk-speak for "analyst", not "covert op".
The investigation was not designed to through evil-doers in prison for releasing the identity of an effectively retired operative. It was designed to either force people to air their dirty laundry, or charge them with obstruction of justice when they refused to air their dirty laundry. Mission accomplished.
This is not the case. Plame operated under NOC status, or Non-Offical Cover. It's the toughest kind of cover to create, because you create the appearance you have no affiliation with the government. Something you may not know, most convential spies have an affliation with their host government. For example, Intelligence analyst, officer clerk, or military attache', you can take any title you want, which is called Offical Cover. Yeah, you're still technically 'under cover', but everyone knows your boss is Uncle Sam, even if you answer to a different part of The Machine than what most people think you do. Ultimately, Valrie Plame was a national security asset operating covertly, until she was exposed. You can dispute it, but you'd be wrong.
Some could argue that her cover was blown the minute she married a high profile diplomat. I might agree to that - but she didn't stop working for the CIA, Bob Novak saw to it that she did.
Maybe it was a witch-hunt in the respects that no real damage was done. No one was killed, and it was a perfect opportunity to show who's hand got caught in the cookie jar. But as a security proffesional who is required to protect classified information, this strikes a little close to home to me. I know full well what happens to people who divulge classified information, or sell secrets. Not a day goes by I don't see Aldrich Ames, or Phil Hansen's mug on a wall on a poster, a stern warning to what could happen to you if you get the urge to squeal. I equate the Valarie Plame affair with the same thing that Ames or Hansen did, only the people who squealed were high profile politicans, and got away with it.
Libby was convicted of perjury. His recollection was different than the several witnesses called against him. Of course their recollection about what happened didn't even match each others, and in a few cases didn't even match their own notes. When he tried to call memory experts to testify if it's possible that they could have different recollections without lying, the judge denied him. At the point of the investigation where Libby made his statements that were used to convict him of perjury he already knew everything he needed to know about the statute and who Plame was and everything else. At that point he could have copped to writing her name on the side of a highway overpass, and so long as he didn't know she was undercover it wouldn't have violated the statute. Thing is he said what he remembered under oath, and that didn't jive with what other people remembered so they busted his head after knowing who the leaker was for a year.
Bill Clinton's perjury conviction was for lying and undermining several civil sexual harassment cases against him. There is no denying that he knowingly lied about having sex with them and he had to turn in his law license and pay a fine for it. The only way you could argue Clinton didn't lie would be if you said he had sex with so many women over the years that he forgot about those 6 in particular.
And Jeffe, if you don't think someone deserves to be convicted of something for the Bush administration lying to everyone about outing Plame... well, I won't say it. :P
I see no problem.
My moral scale tips differently depending on the credibility of the investigation.
Patrick Fitzgerald =/= Ken Starr.
And...?
You do someone else's dirty work guess what your hands get dirty too.
I don't think he actually does. He just describes the situation with dismissive adjectives.
Plamegate was always much more substantial than . . . what the hell was Ken Starr investigating? Whitewater was it? He certainly meandered around for years just kind of fishing for something. I'm not sure how that unsuccessful investigation of a real estate deal even related to Bill Clinton's penis or why he was questioned about it.
On the other hand, I am pretty clear on why Scooter Libby was questioned on the subject of mentioning Plame to the press.
I agree that Plamegate was more substantial than Blowjobgate, but I think it's pretty retarded to equate Novak, or whoever did the "leaking", with Aldrich Ames, as some have done. Plamegate should've had political fallout, not legal fallout, because it's unlikely that a crime was committed. People should not go to jail when no crimes are committed, regardless of how Than feels on the matter.
As I said, Libby committed a crime in trying to cover for the investigation, and so sure, he should go down for it. But that doesn't suddenly grant the investigation legitimacy, and that's why I'm sort of blase on the question of pardoning him. It's not like there was a horrible transgression of justice and someone needed to go to jail for it. It's the investigation itself that created the need for someone to go to jail.
As to the question of Clinton's wang, Starr was investigating a sexual harassment suit in addition to the Whitewater stuff. Starr was trying to establish a pattern of Clinton fooling around with chicks who weren't his wife to lend credence to the notion that he dropped trou in front of Paula Jones.
One could make an argument that engaging in distasteful, yet legal practices in order to pursue increased national security isn't as bad as engaging in distasteful, yet legal practices involving the relative locations of one's cock and another's coot.
I don't really get into that argument, though, because Clinton's poor choice of harlots doesn't figure into the thread topic.
And since when is it a Special Prosecutor's job to help someone's sexual harassment civil suit? That's fucking ridiculous.
In your defense, it's not like anyone else has ever lied about something that was perfectly legal to do. Nope, not ever. Clearly, deceit is proof of a crime.
One is a matter of personal privacy, the other is a matter of national privacy, and yes I think we should place more emphasis on maintaining national privacy as opposed to mandating that our public leaders kiss and tell.