Two Systems of Justice
Recognize the above. Yes, it’s the entrance to the Supreme Court. We learn the pledge of allegiance in kindergarten and all have the words “liberty and justice for all” engraved in our minds.
We all know that there is very little justice in our country. Innocent people are sent to prison and even to death row and criminals guilty as hell go free. In less dramatic circumstances, all of us have felt the sting of incompetent and arrogant government that we pay for through the nose. We know the incredible corruption that is endemic in our government. We know that congressmen are paid off over and over again in the form of campaign contributions that buy both access and votes. Is it any wonder that the American public has little or no confidence in our government today.
Rarely, however, is it so blatant as today’s pardon – no pardon me, “commutation” – of Scooter Libby. The full pardon will come January 20, 2009, his last day in office. Scooter Libby was prosecuted by a Bush appointed US Attorney, convicted by a jury of his peers, sentenced by a conservative judge appointed by George Bush and whose appeal was denied by an appeals court the majority of which was appointed by Republican Presidents. He was sentenced under and within the guidelines that Congress passed. There was nothing “excessive” about his sentence. There has never been a pardon for someone convicted of obstruction of justice.
It is clear that there are two systems of justice. One for high ranking Republicans and one for the rest of us. It is notable that nearly every Republican vying for the Presidential nomination, including Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Tancredo, Romney and Brownback supported a pardon for Libby. Only Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia outright disagreed. With this endemic contempt for the law, is there any doubt that the next President is going to be a Democrat.
George Bush has been the meanest – in both senses of the term: vindictive and sparse – President in history with regard to pardons. I will remind you that he was the one who refused to commute the sentence of Karla Faye Tucker who accepted full responsibility for her crime, was a model prisoner, a devout Christian woman and who was in fact loved by her jailers. Even in the face of a Papal appeal for her life, he refused to commute her sentence to life in prison without parole. And this man masquerades as a Christian.
There are thousands of others who are serving and have served time for obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. Make no mistake – obstruction of justice is a very serious crime. It means you lied under oath. So what of them? It’s a blatant mockery of justice. Is there any other reason that the administration refuses to answer questions regarding the political removal of US Attorneys except without transcripts and without swearing to tell the truth. Obviously, they intend to lie. Mr. Fitzgerald, Scooter Libby’s prosecutor, better look for a new job because no doubt he is now on Gonzales’s list for termination.
Contrast this with Nancy Pelosi’s response to the indictment of Congressman Jefferson of “cold” cash fame. While she can’t remove him from office, she removed him from all committees and made him a outsider. He has no influence or power.
I call on our Congressman, who has been George Bush’s enabler all these years to finally call him to task. This is an insult to everyone of us and a cynical undermining of the rule of law. The clear message is: There are are two systems of justice – the imperfect one for all of us and the perfectly favorable one of high ranking friends of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Jeremy Barlow on 03 Jul 2007 at 8:49 am #
I worked in a court once as a defense attorney wherein I could safely tell any defendant charged with A) Assaulting a Police Officer, B) Perjury, C) Making a False Report, or D) Obstruction of Justice, all essentially crimes against the enforcement of the law, that if convicted they would recieve the maximum sentence. I have to say, even as a defense attorney, I found something very comforting in knowing what the sentence would be for any conviction, including a plea to a lesser included offense in those kinds of scenarios, because while I would work my butt off to help my clients avoid liability, those are the kinds of crimes that you can’t just let go. They are direct attacks on the administration of justice, and to not dole out the maximum punishment for convictions of such crimes is wrong.
Charlie Given on 25 Jul 2007 at 11:03 am #
Why should President Bush answer any questions on why the US Attorneys were fired? They serve at the will of the President and can be fired for any reason or even no reason. You get in a tither because 9 may have been fired for political reasons, yet when Clinton was elected he fired every one of the US Attorneys for political reasons (they were all republican hires) and hired his own. Not even a peep. Clinton commits perjury and viloates his oath of office by trying to deny a US citizen her right to petition the courts when she has been wronged, yet it’s OK because the lie was about sex. Libby is convicted of perjury during the investigation of a non-crime, when the identy of the leaker was already known, which was what the Independent Counsel was charged to find out.
Theophilus on 25 Jul 2007 at 12:16 pm #
In all due respect, I think you’ve got it wrong. The “non crime” that was being investigated was for revealing the identity of a CIA agent in 50 U.S.C. § 421, a felony punishable by up to ten years imprisonment. Libby lied to investigators during their inquiries. Lying to federal law enforcement officers is call obstruction of justice. So he committed a crime (lying) during the investigation of another crime (revealing a CIA agent).