Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence 1574
An anonymous reader notes that President Bush has decided to commute Scooter Libby's sentence after numerous appeals failed. Libby was convicted in March of obstruction of justice in connection with the Valerie Plame affair. The President's action spares Libby from 30 months behind bars."
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there any stipulations regarding the Presidential use of power at all?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, since President Bush doesn't seem to follow much for precedent in other areas, it comes as no surprise he commuted the sentence.
Personally, I don't care about Libby. I'm more concerned that he has weakened the force that testifying to Congress should hold. Testifying to Congress should be a big deal. Obstructing them should be a big deal. He not only lied to Congress, he lied to the country our Congressmen represent.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which one? Saudi Arabia?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
1. There could have been more than one leaker.
2. Plame was indeed covert. Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Libby was convicted, argued that he had a good case for an appeal and got turned down flat ( by rather conservative judge ). So he was headed to jail. Period.
Bush didn't say "Oh he's not guilty so I'm gonna let him go". Bush effectively said, "Yeah, he's guilty and Dick doesn't give a rats ass". He tried to split some hairs to not piss off the law-and-order republicans but just ended up doing something stupid (as usual).
sigh
You're very Wrong. Plame was covert. It's provable (Score:5, Informative)
The portion of the act grabbed onto by many right-wing radio talk show hosts in the past few years has been the extra-US service portion. It states that in order to qualify as covert, an agent has to have served outside the US in the 5 years previous to the outing.
Well, news flash, Plame did serve overseas in the 5 years prior to her outing. She traveled overseas at the specific behest of the CIA many, many times during the 5 years prior to her outing. Sometimes she even traveled under an assumed name.
"The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."
Plame was not only covert at the time of her outing, by working overseas for the CIA whilst under cover, she was most definitely covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Libby's lies prevented any IIPA prosecutions (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, never...
The real reason Libby was prosecuted is lost on many of the administration's defenders. Many have deluded themselves into believing that Libby's prosecution was some sort of political witch hunt.
This would have to be the first political witch-hunt in history where a Republican politico was prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor, sentenced and jailed by a Republican Judge, and refused bail by an appelate court, the majority of whom were Republicans.
Libby's prosecution wasn't a witch-hunt. Libby was prosecuted because he blocked Fitzgerald's investigation. Libby lied and stone-walled, preventing Fitzgerald from ever getting to the bottom of why Plame was outed.
The "why" is very important. This is because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act only allows prosecution of those who knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Fitzgerald had to prove they knew, but he couldn't reach that level of proof without honest testimony from those involved.
But because Libby lied to the grand jury and FBI, because Karl Rove stone-walled and nearly found himself similarly prosecuted for perjury, Fitzgerald was unable to get enough proof to prosecute any IIPA violations.
Libby's lies probably saved some in the administration from prosecution under the IIPA. That is why Libby was prosecuted for perjury and why no one has been (or probably ever will be) charged for outing Plame under the IIPA.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
"The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment."
Seem pretty clear to me. Unless you know better than the CIA...?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Plame was covert under the terms of the IIPA, which is no surprise, considering the terms are actually broader than the CIA's own terms for covert status.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it's questionable whether they could impeach Cheney. The Consitution outlines the procedure for impeachment of the President (presided by the Chief Justice) and everyone else (presided by the Vice-President) so that means Cheney will preside over his own impeachment hearing. And as for impeaching Bush, an escape maneuver was already perfected by Nixon and Ford.
Personally, I'm hoping that a person will be elected in 2008 that will actually carry out a major house cleaning and reform policy. We've been screwed by the current administration and previous administrations because of a lack of accountability and transparency. Whether Democrat or Republican, this clean up needs to happen in a big way.
While I'd like to see a number of members of the current administration serve time, nothing will change without real reform rather than just idle talk.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
I just want to get this out there, and your post is as good as any to reply to.
In the 60s, you had people running all over the place screaming about war and civil rights as loudly as they could. They were hippies, they were activists, they were protesters, they were idealists, and they were absolutely committed to their beliefs. So I want to state for the record the official reason why I, and perhaps other members of my generation, do not follow this example: It's not worth my fucking time. 3000+ civilians dead, 3000+ soldiers dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, a government more transparently incompetent than ever before, Newspeak permeating through life as we know it (well, more so a few years ago than now), perpetual war that by definition cannot end ("War on Terror"), unregulated and uncontrollable executive privileges, domesting spying, and election fraud. It seems like never before has it all been so obvious, that never before has a problem or trap been more evident, yet 2004 showed me how fucking powerless we are to do anything about it. So you know what, I don't care that Bush pardoned/commuted/excused/whatever his buddy, I don't care what his administration does anymore, and I don't care that the world's going to Hell in a handbasket; I'm done caring. I'm going to spend my effort worrying about matters with a much greater (importance) * (ability to make a difference) product. Enjoy the scenery in Hell, because I'm keeping my fucking eyes closed.
The world is watching America.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've apparently not been paying attention to the news for the last 7 years. Let me introduce you to 21st century American Politics- when the question isn't "is this politician corrupt?" but rather "who has purchased this politician?", because the assumption is EVERY politician is corrupt.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The act itself indicates that the individual being pardoned has either already been convicted by a jury or that his conviction is a forgone conclusion.
The recompense is that it is all public.
We all know that Libby lied to a grand jury;
that he did it to obstruct the investigation of a felony;
that he worked in the white house at the time;
that he was convicted;
that that the supreme court recently upheld a harsher punishment for the same crime;
that his appeal was not heard;
And finally, that the president, knowing all this, chose to commute his sentence.
We are to review the president's actions.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess as far as (A) goes, there's a small chance he wasn't lying if he didn't ask Cheney (or Cheney lied to Bush) but (B) is just another promise that he's failed to keep.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
It also makes a mockery of Bush's promise to punish the guilty. Letting a guy obstruct justice is not "finding the leak" as he promissed.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
~S
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so absurd. When two adults mutually consent to one giving the other a blowjob then it's not sexual harassment.
It would have been sexual harassment if there was some coercion involved but there wasn't, and to suggest that there was is just ridiculous. Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant, on more than one occasion, and she's said so herself.
But, sure, defend this morally corrupt Bush administration by continually trying to distract the attention away from the issues of the day. I wonder when you'll recognise which President has truly let down his nation.
Having received a few blow jobs in my life ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd have to say that there is a noticeable difference between the two acts.
Perjuring yourself over a consensual blow job is a crime.
Perjuring yourself to cover "outing" a CIA agent if MOTHER-FUCKING TREASON.
Re:Having received a few blow jobs in my life ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason why Bush commuted (Score:4, Funny)
And Libby didn't want to go to any prison.
Prison rape is NOT funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I simply don't understand why this is a humouous meme in our culture.
To the right, one would think that gay male rape would be regarded as a sin and a gross violation of manhood.
To the left, one would think that prison abuse happening on a widespread scale should be something that a civil society should abhor.
To the notion of American individual rights, one would think that being sentenced to rape is a cruel and unusual punishment.
As is, it is treated flippantly.
Shame on any of you who think this is funny. Prison rape is NOT a fucking joke! It is a disgusting violation of human rights and the persistant and wicked idea that it's either funny or representative of justice that someone be sentenced to RAPE is the primary reason why it continues.
If you think my condemnation of you rape advocates is unfair, then I would like either a "liberal" or a "conservative" to make a strong, compelling case why any crime which merits prison time be "rape by default". Please tell me how exactly that represents "justice" to you.
Re:Prison rape is NOT funny (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prison rape is NOT funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Rape obviously cannot be condoned by society, and yet the idea of a person we hate being violated so intimately is something the public loves with a fetish. It directs attention away from the otherwise sanitized, taxpayer-funded reality of prison, and gives people a more concrete idea of prison than orange jumpsuits and the image of a barred door slamming shut.
People may hate rape on several levels, but the idea of rape as a form of punishment is still alive and well, even if our society cannot openly condone it. Blame the savageness of humanity if you will, but humor is just a weak mask for the truth.
Re:Prison rape is NOT funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is do you find more offensive, people cracking jokes who's punchlines are considered funny BECAUSE the statement is so offensive, or people just not talking about the problem at all?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh well. To further clarify, the pardon basically gives back any rights that were lost as a result of the conviction. It looks like courts have ruled that it carries with it an assumption of guilt and the record continues to exist, but no confession needs to be made. What's interesting about the whole situation is how many decisions on the topic were rendered relatively recently after the initial precedents were set a long time ago. It looks like Iran-Contra served to clarify a few things. Older decisions said basically that the crime magically went away, but that has gone by the wayside and now you're guilty in the eyes of the law, but just not punishable.
The next interesting question is, if you're technically guilty but not really because you were pardoned, what implications does it have in issues where your status as a criminal might not have legal implications but definitely has practical ones (e.g. getting a security clearance)? Not surprisingly, it looks like there are a lot of interesting legal opinions on this one. It looks like the prevailing wisdom is, "You got caught being bad and everybody knows it. Suck it up."
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Article 2 Section 3 (Score:4, Informative)
There is no constitutional requirement for the state of the union to be a speech.
From Article 2 Section 3
Sounds to me like the president has the power to convene Congress for the purpose of giving a speech. George Washington thought so too; the timing & manner of delivering the State of the Union dates back to the Washington administration.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
That if it's a serious enough crime to impeach a couple Presidents, then it's a serious enough crime for Libby to do his time.
Either that, or we all owe Clinton and Nixon an apology, because it turns out perjury and obstruction of justice aren't important.
Re:Huh? (stop calling it a pardon) (Score:5, Informative)
In point of fact, Bill Clinton was not convicted of the same crime. The reason being that he technically did not perjure himself. Yes, there was a "lie of omission", but that is not perjury. So really there's no decriminalization due to Clinton since there wasn't an actual crime.
(The bar association has ethics rules that DO ban "lies of omission". Hence Clinton's disbarrment)
Many out outraged over this because the people campaigning for and cheering Libby's pardon were the same people who were claiming perjury and obstruction of justice were serious enough to impeach Clinton, when he hadn't been charged with either crime. Now that a "loyal Bushie" has been convicted of these crimes, it's no big deal.
Re:Huh? (stop calling it a pardon) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
"The public" being most of the rest of the human race. So when this little piece of shit starts a war by lying to the electorate and kills ~300,000 civilians, shreds the constitution, and presides over the most breathtakingly incompetent and corrupt administration in recent history, he's just doing what he thinks is right? And that makes it OK, and you love him? And the fact that this little shithead didn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni until this year doesn't bother you? Incredible.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that we helped him get the chemical weapons [counterpunch.org] in the first place and then provided intelligence to him when he tested his chemical weapons on the Kurds. Also keep in mind that these weapons have a short shelf life. The stuff we finally found had already degraded into useless bombs [findarticles.com].
Every president before him tried diplomacy, and every president before him was summarily ignored. While it's not our job to be the world police I think it would be far more regrettable in the long run to stand by and do nothing. I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.
This isn't entirely true. We helped keep Saddam in power. The Reagan administration helped Saddam with WMD and intelligence [gwu.edu]. Not only that but we lied about our intelligence in the lead up to war. It's interesting that the very reasons Bush Sr. gave for not marching into Baghdad have come to pass [globalpolicy.org].
This war was never about getting rid of a Tyrant. He was our guy until he over reached and the Saudis, our allies who supply oil and terrorists, freaked out over the invasion of Kuwait and insisted we do something about him.
Hell, we even gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait [informatio...house.info]. So why should the international community help us clean up a mess of our own making [globalpolicy.org]?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Attila generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the local people were going to receive it, which was why the Huns loved him.
Genghis Khan generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the local people were going to receive it, which was why the Mongols loved him.
Stalin generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the people were going to receive it, which was why the Communist Party of the Soviet Union loved him.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
From your post, it appears you're a bit lacking in the subject matter.
You're forgetting that the defense plays a very large role in picking the jury. The jurors were approved by Libby's defense team, and they would not have approved a jury of all crazy liberals.
No, Libby was going to prison because his ass covering broke the law. There's tons of political types who manage to cover asses without obstructing justice. For example, Karl Rove went back to the grand jury, and changed his testimony enough to avoid a perjury charge.
Wouldn't a much more apt comparison be the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Back then perjury and obstruction of justice are such serious crimes that the President must be impeached even if he was never charged with either crime. Now you're claiming that those serious crimes are just minor political ass-covering. So, either Libby's crimes are a big deal, or you owe Bill an apology.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Yo Igor! You know Ms. Plame is an undercover CIA agent? Oh yes, she is...."
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
(IANA Constitutional scholar)
There's nothing in the Constitution that says a president can not pardon himself. The only thing he can not do is use a pardon to avoid impeachment. (See Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution)
AFAIK, a pardon can be worded as "I pardon [name] for any crime he has committed between [date] and [date]"
As for your pardons-with-no-names example, that's not kosher. The President has to specify who he is giving the pardon to. In addition, those "blank" pardons would be useless after the end of Ryan's term, since he's no longer President. While President, he can issue pardons on a case-by-case basis so the "blank" ones are unnecessary. In clandestine situations, there's no reason that a pardon could not be classified.
No. The President's pardon powers are absolute. Abuses like the Libby case and the Mark Rich case may fuel efforts for a Constitutional amendment limiting pardons, or allowing them to be overturned. I'd imagine an amendment that lets a massive super-majority of Congress (like 75%) override a pardon might not be a bad idea.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is definitely an abuse of power on the part of this President (surprise!) as his administration has a vested interest in seeing that Libby doesn't spend time in Prison. I suspect a full pardon will be handed out on January 20th, 2009. This is about absolving anyone in this administration of any accountability.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does Richard Armitage leaking a covert CIA operative's identity to Robert Novak in July 2003 exculpate Scooter Libby from leaking the same operative's identity to Judith Miller on June 23, 2003? [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever a former covert agent's identity becomes public knowledge, every foreign intelligence agency worth its salt starts to tear through every record of everything that person has ever done, chasing down every possible lead and contact they can find. If, for example, they figure out that other people worked for the front company that the agent in question worked for, they know that those other people are agents. They know that any people those agents had contact with in foreign countries may have been agents or collaborators. Lather, rinse, repeat. These people don't work in isolation, and there's a lot of potentially valuable intelligence to be found once you know the identity of a former agent. That's why the CIA thinks long and hard before giving former covert agents permission to come out, and it's why wankers like Robert Novak don't generally have access to the names of even former agents. It's also why the CIA still considered her undercover and her affiliation with the organization was classified until some people who clearly weren't authorized to do so outed her.
The idea that this was no big deal is, put simply, garbage. There are times when our government can be overly anal about keeping information secret. This was not one of them. There's no disputing the fact that significant classified information was leaked.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks to our friends at Wikipedia "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3]"
Sounds like the Bush administration to me.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
What do "the Democrats" have to do with it (outside of commenting to the media)?
The last paragraph in the article mentions the judge in Libby's case:
A White House official notified the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the ''overwhelming'' evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. A courthouse spokesman said Walton would not comment.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Walton, the judge who ordered immediate prison, was appointed to the bench by Bush himself during his first term. If memory serves, two of the three appeals court judges were also Republican appointees, one considered the most conservative judge sitting on that circuit.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Ford pardoned Nixon for one reason only, to move the country forward. And it did that nicely. We had the potential of having a viciously divided country way back then but it didn't happen until Clinton was in the tail end of office and Bush took over. I'm not even going to get into why I think that is, but Ford pardoned Nixon to move the country past the point it was at. Simple as that.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Heaven forbid we hold federal officials accountable to the faithful pursuit of justice and to uphold the Constitution and rule of law to which they have sworn an oath!
Lying to federal investigators? Conspiring to mislead the american people? My God, people! If we don't allow the administration to lie, to obstruct justice, and to mislead the american people, how on earth will they stay in power?
An Utter Farce... (Score:5, Insightful)
... and perfectly legal, in this case.
Still, I guess it just goes to show that now, perjury is OK!
I must also strongly agree with Joe Wilson: "Scooter Libby is a traitor." [cnn.com] I certainly hope that those responsible for the egregious breach of national security are convicted as such.
Bush is a coward (Score:4, Insightful)
Good News, Everybody! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good News, Everybody! (Score:5, Informative)
As for the fine, that's nothing Scooter Libby's defense fund won't easily take care of. And he'll likely have no trouble getting work because of those self-same contributors to his defense fund. As for the felony conviction, we'll see--he could still get pardoned eventually!
So I don't see anything fair about this, especially coming from a President who has used these same powers so little up until now, and still finds the time to rail against "activist judges". Well now you know what an "activist President" looks like.
For shame (Score:4, Insightful)
Outing an active agent is an act of treason which, if I recall correctly, is still punishable by death in the US. Whether Libby, Rove, or Cheney did it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.
This so-called administration has broken, no--pulverized--their oaths of office.
Re:For shame (Score:5, Informative)
Murder related to the smuggling of aliens. (8 U.S.C. 1342)
Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 32-34)
Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting. (18 U.S.C. 36)
Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation. (18 U.S.C. 37)
Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials. (18 U.S.C. 115(b)(3)[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )
Civil rights offenses resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 245, 247)
Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice. (18 U.S.C. 351 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] )
Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce. (18 U.S.C. 844(d), (f), (i))
Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. (18 U.S.C 930)
Murder committed in a Federal Government facility. (18 U.S.C. 924(i))
Genocide. (18 U.S.C. 1091)
First-degree murder. (18 U.S.C. 1111)
Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official. (18 U.S.C. 1114)
Murder of a foreign official. (18 U.S.C. 1116)
Murder by a Federal prisoner. (18 U.S.C. 1118)
Murder of a U.S. national in a foreign country. (18 U.S.C. 1119)
Murder by an escaped Federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment. (18 U.S.C. 1120)
Murder of a State or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a Federal investigation; murder of a State correctional officer. (18 U.S.C. 1121)
Murder during a kidnaping. (18 U.S.C. 1201)
Murder during a hostage-taking. (18 U.S.C. 1203)
Murder of a court officer or juror. (18 U.S.C. 1503)
Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant. (18 U.S.C. 1512)
Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim or informant. (18 U.S.C. 1513)
Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 1716)
Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President. (18 U.S.C. 1751 [by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111])
Murder for hire. (18 U.S.C. 1958)
Murder involved in a racketeering offense. (18 U.S.C. 1959)
Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death. (18 U.S.C. 1992)
Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnaping. (18 U.S.C. 2113)
Murder related to a carjacking. (18 U.S.C. 2119)
Murder related to rape or child molestation. (18 U.S.C. 2245)
Murder related to sexual exploitation of children. (18 U.S.C. 2251)
Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation. (18 U.S.C. 2280)
Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform. (18 U.S.C. 2281)
Terrorist murder of a U.S. national in another country. (18 U.S.C. 2332)
Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction. (18 U.S.C. 2332a)
Murder involving torture. (18 U.S.C. 2340)
Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer. (21 U.S.C. 848(e))
Death resulting from aircraft hijacking. (49 U.S.C. 1472-1473)
Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)
Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))
I give up (Score:3, Insightful)
While JFK and those before him were not perfect men, at least they tried to uphold the principals of this nation for the greater good of all Americans.
With this administration so blatent with it's lies and contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution and with FOX pundits who often say they wish they could imprison or even kill Democrats or "lefties", I am convinced this nation is under the control of anarchists who wish to push this nation to civil war. And it's not Repubilicans vs Democrat... because the Democrats are hardly a better choice, but a division vbetween those who believe in the Constitution and individual rights, and those who want a Statist system where there is no longer any accountability.
And I hope they keep pushing. Because I'm begining to believe that the time for the ballor box is nearing it's end and all we'll be left with is teh ammo box for casting our votes. The people will only be able to abide by so many offenses. If this blatent lawlessness continues to prevail, the people will sooner or later stand up, and some of those people will be Generals and Admirals within our military.
Does this view sound extreme? Yes.
But I hardly think it's far fetched.
I'm sure there are a lot of people whose frustration is turning to anger and disgust.
Re:I give up (Score:5, Interesting)
Anarchists? If Bush and Co. were anarchists of the true definition of the word (i.e., people who want no government), we'd have balanced budgets, very little corruption, a massive reduction in the size of government, no war, etc. I don't think anarchist is the word that you are looking for. Quite the contrary, we're dealing with the near opposite of anarchism. (Disclaimer: I'm not an anarchist, but I am a strict constitutionalist who believe in limited government.)
Our nation for the past 75 years has been controlled by people who want to expand the power and influence of government at the expense of our liberties. Anything in the Constitution that limits the power of the federal government (e.g., the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) have been ignored consistently for the past 70 years. The federal government's growth has gone nearly unchecked since 1933. What we've been getting for decades is "government by the politicians, for the politicians."
I don't see any foreseeable change. All of the mainstream presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, are still interested in maintaining the status quo of expanding government. More laws, more spending, more taxes, or some permutation of the three. The best that we could do is vote for the people who best maintain our Constitution, and brace ourselves.
Re:I give up (Score:5, Insightful)
But he didn't live long enough for his chickens to come home to roost, and his successor, LBJ, found it politically expedient to give JFK the credit for his own accomplishments. Proof that in politics as in everything else, it's better to be lucky than smart.
Every era has had bad presidents. There was Herbert Hoover, of whom it was said, "It ain't what he don't know that scares me -- it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" There was U.S. Grant, who was the greatest military leader of his time -- and the worst head of state of all time. There was the long string of bozos who could have prevented the Civil War, but didn't see what the big deal over slavery was....
In that crowd, as in all things, Bush the Tiny just doesn't rate.
Timing is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Halliburton back scratching? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the most brazen abuse of presidential (Score:4, Interesting)
This absolutely reeks of conflict of interest. I am ashamed of my government.
Re:This is the most brazen abuse of presidential (Score:4, Insightful)
Marc Rich... (Score:5, Informative)
Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
k.
Ah! Brain soap! (Score:5, Funny)
JESUS!
I can't believe you just said that. And I can't believe I'm actually considering it. And I can't actually believe QUAYLE WOULD'VE BEEN BETTER!
I need to wash my brain.
Still gets the 5th (Score:4, Interesting)
Please think of the children, Mr. President. (Score:3, Insightful)
(I guess it just really goes to show that you can parade out this argument for any old thing.)
A Great Compromise by a Great President (Score:5, Funny)
Could it be that George W. Bush should be in the top 5 of America's greatest presidents?
THREE CHEERS FOR BUSH THE GREAT!
Re:A Great Compromise by a Great President (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that Bush would just barely make it into the top ten presidents of the past fifty years.
Re:A Great Compromise by a Great President (Score:4, Informative)
(wait for the meme!)
Worst President Ever!
No seriously. According to this [pollster.com], his approval rating trend is at 28.9%. Typically, you've got a +/- 5 point margin on these polls, if he pulls an especially low poll, it puts him damn close to Truman's record for the all time lowest approval rating ever achieved by a U.S. president of 22%. It'll become more likely for this to happen if he sinks any lower.
Above the law (as usual) (Score:5, Insightful)
And Bush commutes his measley 30 months in jail while still doing nothing for Ramos and Compean who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for DOING THEIR JOBS as border patrol agents.
What a crock justice is in the country. I have no respect for the law at all anymore.
signed;
A disgusted citizen of a corrupt nation.
Why did Bush reduce the jail term to ZERO? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Bush is citing the probation office's advice, what was that advice? How long was the lesser sentence? Zero, no jail time at all? If not, then why did Bush let Libby off scot free? What is the jail term Bush thinks is appropriate for perjury and objstruction of justice, and why was Libby not required to serve that term?
And why does Bush say "I respect the jury's verdict," when he patently does not respect the jury's verdict? What could possibly constitute more disrespect than setting the verdict aside?
Ironic quote (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, they sure will...
Expected, but not this way (Score:4, Interesting)
It was always expected. It may even have been justified (Scooter took one for the team, so the team is helping him out), but it was expected that such decisions would wait until after the election. Maybe he's hoping that people will forget about it by then, or that his approval is so low that it doesn't matter anymore.
2.5 years is not excessive (Score:5, Interesting)
A guy can get more time than that for personal marijuana possession. Which is worse, possessing some plant leaves, or conspiring to mislead the 280 million american citizens you are sworn to serve?
For me the really depressing part is that I have zero confidence that we will ever bring these criminals to justice. They're raping our economy, our brave soldiers, our rights, and our dignity, and it really seems there is not a thing we can do about it but grit our teeth and bare it out. This news just drives home that point.
IMHO, second to getting out of Iraq, my top priority as a voter for the next administration is to prosecute these criminals until they are old and infirm if that is what it takes. We must not let them retire to the easy life of private sector profiteering they think they have to look forward to, the life that Bush Sr. enjoys.
It is the duty of this generation to send a message down through history: fool us once, shame on us, fool us agai... you can't fool us again, because this nation will pursue you to the grave; the american people not rest until you and all your cronies are made to account for the wrongs you have committed against us and against the world in our name. Never Again.
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoth Keith Olbermann just now... (Score:5, Informative)
Tomorrow night on Countdown (8pm ET), Olbermann will call on Bush & Cheney to resign.
Driven to it? (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) How serious people think the crime is seems to be only dependant on what colour team they support: either (blue) "Complicit in the outing of a CIA operative - bordering on treason!" or (red) "No crime (she wasn't a covert operative), no harm (he had nothing to do with the news stories), no foul". Who is right? Who cares?
(2) accusations of potentially politically motivated judicial decisions: The penalty given, and the refusal to allow appeals before incarceration has been argued to be at least marginally unusual for this sort of case (IANAL, but I've occasionally glanced at Google News), like the blue team finding a chance to make the red team make themselves look bad by drawing commutation out of wildly unpopular red team president: maybe, maybe not, but in this climate, who is to say? (hint, if you support the red team, the judgement was wrong and politically motivated. If you support Blue team, it was just and right and appropriate to the seriousness of the crime - see (1))
(3) Shrill condemnation for a completely inevitable act by the red team: but, regardless of what team is in power, what do you expect? Either they honestly believe that the judgement was a miscarriage of justice (in which case, what else is the power to commute sentences supposed to be for) or he was actually up to no good, on orders from the government (in which case leaving the guy out to dry would go past the line of unethical). See (1) for a guide on how you should fall on this.
Is this fiasco really factor for anyone? Wouldn't it be better if we stuck to what is *really* bothering us? There is plenty there, and it actually matters!
And, to cellebrate... (Score:4, Funny)
Other travesties go unaddressed (Score:5, Insightful)
In the meantime, some kid in his 20s is rotting in a Georgia jail for having consensual sex when he was 17 and she was 15.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/ [cnn.com]
Obstruction of justice okay. Getting a blow job, no. Consistent with the Republican party's approach to Clinton I guess.
What I want to know is ... (Score:4, Funny)
Only people who have never been charged serve time (Score:4, Informative)
God bless America...
Our Government Working as Intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I see corruption like this I remind myself of our Founder's absolute GENIUS. The legislative branch creates independent prosecutor to investigate executive branch -> the people convict -> the judicial branch sentences -> the executive branch commutes -> the legislative branch goes nuts. It's a perfect series of checks and balances.
Meanwhile, we go about our lives content with the knowledge that our government is far too involved arguing about whether some exec in the Vice-President's office lied about an investigation in which a crime may or may not have actually been committed (no one was ever charged) to actually scheme up ways to consolidate power and threaten the Peoples' freedom. And in the end, no branch got too much say and it was the people who were required to actually convict the dude.
Thank you Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton. This was the true gift of our Founding Fathers; not a perfect government. They knew that men will never change.
On Harsh Sentencing (Score:5, Insightful)
He was an extremely high ranking government official who lied to the FBI to protect the guilty. When that sort of thing is treated lightly, it sends a clear message to the public that our government is about politics and power, not about justice.
FWIW, I also think Rep Jefferson (D-LA) should be put under the jail.
The reason is this: a fine to Scooter Libby means exactly nothing. The PNAC will pay it for him. Moreover, for every Jefferson or Libby that gets caught, fifty scurry free through the halls of DC. And furthermore, the stakes are enormous. Libby will have power beyond yours or my imagining for the rest of his life for what he did. The only way to disincentivize the behavior, when one in fifty get caught and the rewards are frankly beyond my comprehension, is to make the penalty leviathan.
Why do you suppose our politicians are so corrupt? Is it because they are bad people? No. It is because they are human and they are faced with enormous profit and zero downside. No one could be expected to maintain their moral integrity in the face of that. We have to help them stand their ground, by making corruption unthinkable.
The only other option is to let it keep happening, and watch our nation continue to erode.
News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
But what the hell is this story on the front page of Slashdot for?
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot turning into digg (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bush regime, no democracy, etc., etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
this has to be the worst excuse for accepting this kind of behavior that's ever been uttered
Re:Bush regime, no democracy, etc., etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Fact: Valerie Plame's identity and her "secret agent" status was leaked to several members of the media, who publshed this information.
Fact: Outting an undercover CIA agent is a federal crime - a breach of national security because it can seriously hamper the CIA's ability to operate abroad. This crime did, indisputably, take place. The reporters's didn't all suddenly get this information through divine revelation - it was given to them. This is the reason the special prosecutor investigation was initiated in the first place - to find out who leaked Plame's identity to the media.
All evidence collected thus far strongly points to the leak coming from inside the White House. Presumptive motive: to discredit Plame's husband, Wilson, who was publicly discrediting the false intelligence the Administration was using to push for the war in Iraq.
Prosecutor Fitzgerald was unable to pull together enough evidence to definitively charge any one person with revealing Plame's identity. This does not constitute the absence of a crime. The fact that her cover was blown to the media is the crime. The possibility that her career was destroyed as political retribution against her husband makes it a rather petty crime.
Libby was indicted and convicted of lying to a grand jury and obstructing the prosecutor's case. These are crimes - the President himself agreed to this in his statement this evening. He did not dispute the conviction itself. The President didn't go so far as to pardon Libby outright, because it is clear that Libby was guilty of these crimes. For the President to pardon Libby outright would, at this point, be tantamount to announcing that his administration was guilty of the original crime, except that no one would have to face any punishment for it.