Truth, Conservatism, God and American Justice

“If anyone was found to have broken the law, the person will be taken care of.” - President George W. Bush, Oct. 2003

Mr. Bush’s decision to commute “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence will undoubtedly spark a national debate about what justice in American really means in an era of high political polarization and when old laws seem unable to handle or no longer apply to new threats. Some argue that his decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence smacks in the face, of what we believe our justice system is about. “…to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men” said John Adams in 1780 and which has been widely used in a number of decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. This has widely been interpreted to mean that no person is above the law. Others argue that either Mr. Bush did not go far enough or that he took the appropriate action by sparing Mr. Libby of prison. Either way, an issue that the president wished to keep out of the spotlight, has now burst onto the scene and will likely become the topic of debate in Congress and between all of the candidates vying for the 2008 nomination.

What erupts from the matter of the People vs. Scooter Libby are two conflicts, one involving the role of our system of justice vis-à-vis the power of the presidency. The second which mixes politics and justice. The question central to latter conflict is does the president have right to supersede a verdict handed down by jury, and the federal sentencing guidelines passed by Congress and signed into law by a president. Fortunately, this conflict is more easily addressable than the second conflict.

One of the arguments that the Right makes is that the punishment handed down by Judge Walton, $250,000 in fines, probation and 30 months in prison is excessive and as a result, should receive some type of reprieve from the president. Without addressing the excessiveness of the punishment, I disagree with those on the Left (Sens. Joe Biden, Harry Reid) who say that the President should not have interceded on Mr. Libby’s behalf. Article II of the Constitution grants the president the right to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The Constitution, for better or worse only limits the president’s role to cases where he (or she) is not the subject of impeachment, not in cases for which the president has a vested interest in a positive outcome. Our system of justice provides for this avenue and without amending the Constitution, this avenue will continue to exist as it has for all reprieves and pardons, controversial or uncontroversial.

The second conflict that I see, and arguably the one of greater interest to those reading this commentary is the hypocrisy that I see in the Right. The other argument made by the Right in defense of Mr. Libby is that he is a loyal Republican and should be spared what they view as an excessive punishment handed down by an activist judiciary that is wildly spiraling out of control. I emphatically disagree with their assessment on this point and point to the hypocrisy that they view simply as being fair to one of their own. I would like to point out two glaring inconsistencies that I see in the Right’s argument:

(i) Any person being deposed by an officer of the court is sworn in under oath. That person takes an oath with his left hand perhaps on a bible, but his right hand is always pointed towards God. He vows to tell the truth and “nothing but the truth.” The last part of the oath is often times omitted, and without having personally witnessed the trial, I cannot say for sure if Mr. Libby swore an oath to God. However, even if he did not, it is widely presumed that all persons swearing an oath are swearing it to God and in Mr. Libby’s case, we can presume he did.

So where, might you ask, is the hypocrisy of the Right if Mr. Libby did not receive a presidential pardon, but instead his prison sentence was commuted? The answer to that doesn’t rest on the commutation, but rather the argument in favor of presidential reprieve. The Right has essentially said that it’s okay to lie to your Country, lie to the Courts and more importantly, it’s okay to lie to God if you’re a loyal Republican. As we’ll see in the second inconsistency, if you’re not a loyal Republican, you can essentially go “screw.” What the Right has demonstrated is that the truth doesn’t matter, God doesn’t matter and that the American Justice system doesn’t matter so long as your a loyal Republican.

(ii) The second glaring inconsistency that I see is how it became okay to seek a pardon for a person who lied about matters of national security. Although Mr. Libby may not have outed Ms. Plame, he is still accountable for his actions in attempting to cover up the leak by lying to investigators about his knowledge. As a result, Ms. Plame was at great personal risk and her career was finished long before its twilight. Regardless of whether you believe he was forgetful in his knowledge, he still didn’t tell the truth and should have requested time to look into his notes on the matter.

The hypocrisy of the Right is that they are willing to ignore one set of lies but not others. President Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He was subsequently impeached although thankfully spared conviction. In Mr. Libby’s case, the Right has argued, shouted for and actively pushed for a pardon for violating the same oath that President Clinton took. The Right has essentially applied a double-standard for people of their cloth. They’ve also laid the foundation for an argument far more dangerous to America’s security in that it’s permissible to lie about matters of national security when questioned under oath, but god help the person who lies about cheating on their spouse.

These are the two glaring hypocrisies that the Right has argued before the American public. If the sense of the public thus far has been indicative, it’s that Mr. Libby deserves the same fate that anyone else who lies under oath deserves. We apply punishments to those who deceive our system of justice because without such wrath, then there is no incentive for anyone to tell the truth. Without that incentive, our system of justice would be helpless in order to get to the truth.

As for the sentence that the president saw fit to commute, that is his prerogative, but his actions speak louder than the words he spoke when announcing it. In saying that he “respect[s] the jury’s verdict”, Mr. Bush has for the moment, left largely intact their decision, but snubbed the sentencing guidelines he himself approved when he commuted Mr. Libby’s prison sentence. He was also correct when he said that anyone found to have broken the law, will be taken care of. Obviously, it’s safe to conclude that Mr. Libby has been well taken care of by his friends, the Republican’s for which he is extremely loyal to.

Tony can be reached at TonyLnbv@Gmail.com

---

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.

Political Grind | Powered by WordPress | ElegantBlue is a custom theme by Nathan Rice