t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor
Wednesday 21 March 2007
On March 5th, 2007, I. Lewis Libby Jr., former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted of four felony counts. Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and committing perjury twice before the grand jury. The grand jury was investigating the leak of the identity of a CIA operative in the summer of 2003.
In order to ensure that individuals are not arbitrarily denied their civil rights and civil liberties, a number of protections were written into the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment (the due process clause) reads in part, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." This is the fundamental principle that the government cannot arbitrarily select which rights it will recognize when it prosecutes an individual. An individual must be afforded all of the protections under the law, and the court must follow all of the proper processes during prosecution.
The Sixth Amendment states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...." This guarantees that Americans will be judged by a jury of their peers.
Libby was afforded all of the constitutional protections possible. He was tried in a court of law, was provided "due process" and was tried by an impartial jury of his peers. As a result of this, he was found guilty. Now he faces up to twenty-five years in prison for his crimes. Had Libby simply told the truth in the beginning, this discussion would be moot. How can we ask a federal prosecutor to ignore obstructing justice and multiple lies to a grand jury?
As a result of this verdict, many Libby supporters are calling upon President Bush to pardon him. If a trial by jury was good enough for Thomas Jefferson, when he said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution," why have so many of the self- appointed standard bearers of democracy misplaced their copies of the Constitution in an attempt to circumvent the judicial process? With all of this being true, many of the self-anointed moral standard bearers of America have conveniently cast their Bibles aside in order to ignore the Eighth Commandment: "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" or "Thou Shall Not Tell a Lie. Who are they really trying to protect with this call for a pardon? What are they trying to hide?
In response to Libby's conviction, the editorial section in The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, National Review and conservative admirers and friends of Mr. Libby are all making this case. How can any one who claims to have one ounce of morality or ethics in their being actually defend this position? Let's examine some the justifications being given for pardoning Libby.
The Wall Street Journal states, "The time for a pardon is now ..." in order to put this matter to rest. William Kristol of The Weekly Standard feels that the charges were frivolous and writes, "... that the Scooter Libby perjury case should not have been brought in the first place." Well, fortunately for America, we don't prosecute by public consensus. A well-respected federal prosecutor saw enough evidence to bring a case to trial. Based upon the merits of the case and the evidence presented, a jury of his peers found I. Lewis Libby guilty. Kristol continues, "... It is also true that decisions by the trial judge made it difficult for Libby's team to put its best defense forward and that a DC jury was going to be tough for any Bush-Cheney official." Please bear in mind, the presiding judge in this case, Reggie B. Walton, is well-respected by his peers and has a spotless record as a jurist and as a human being. Judge Walton was nominated to the position in 2001 by President George W. Bush. He previously served as an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and 1991 to 2001, having been appointed to that position by Presidents Ronald Reagan in 1981 and George H. W. Bush in 1991. If his peers trust his decision-making ability along with three presidents, why can't you? Also, what is inherent in DC juries that would make it difficult for any Bush-Cheney official? Some of the jurors have stated clearly that they support a pardon but facts as presented in the case supported a guilty verdict.
Joseph Bottum of The Weekly Standard writes, "The case was a political trial from the beginning - and the opponents lined up in a properly political way." Sorry, the case was not a political trial. The media presentation of the issue may have been political, but when you read the transcripts of the proceedings, the law was followed and the jury properly performed its duties as called for by the rules of criminal procedure. Lest we forget, obstructing justice and giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation are crimes in this country. The GOP controlled the House, Senate, Executive Branch and the Department of Justice at the time that the investigation began. This is also the same GOP-controlled government that did away with the Special Prosecutor Law as soon as President George Bush (43) came into office.
Linda Chavez writes in The Post Chronicle, "Libby now faces up to 25 years in prison for lying to federal prosecutors and obstructing justice, but he was clearly a scapegoat for the man prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and at least some members of the jury wanted to put behind bars: Vice President Dick Cheney." Well, that's easy to fix, Libby should give us Vice President Dick Cheney. Deals are always cut, not pardons given, in pursuit of the "bigger fish." How is Libby a "scapegoat?" He lied! He was not framed; he lied! In a conspiracy, all co-conspirators are guilty, not just the one at the top. In a bank robbery, the driver of the getaway car is as guilty as the person who goes into the bank and steals the money (unless he/she turns on the others). Just because you call a grown man "Scooter" doesn't mean you should still treat him like a child.
When I. Lewis Libby assumed his position as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, he swore an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The leaking of the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame-Wilson (no matter who did it), put her life and the lives of those around her in great peril, ended her career with the CIA, and may have done damage to the security interests of the United States. Any attempt to cover that up is a crime. That was done by high-ranking members of the Bush administration for political gain and intimidation. If that had been done by an average citizen or some other foreign individual, it would have been viewed by President Bush as a terrorist act by an enemy combatant. Instead of a pardon, we would be hearing about how that individual was held incommunicado in a military brig for over two years or extraordinarily renditioned and flown to Syria against their will and tortured for a year. Isn't it ironic that the same administration that claims to be protecting America against terrorists leaks the identity of an undercover CIA agent as political retribution against her husband?
This administration has a history of sacrificing the political and military careers of individuals who sought to tell the truth, but whose truth was contrary to the administrations agenda. For example, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, and, lest we forget, eight former assistant US attorneys who may not have been prosecuting Democrats fast enough.
Libby appears to value the "blood oath" he swore to Vice President Cheney and President Bush more than his oath to the United States and the Americans to whom he was sworn to serve. This is not a government; the Bush administration is operating more like a South Central LA gang, "blood in, blood out," or the Mafia, "you never rat on the family."
President Bush and Vice President Cheney constantly remind us of the importance of "the message that we are sending abroad." Once again, the image of America lies in the balance. What message are we sending to our children? Obstructing justice, giving false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and committing perjury before a grand jury are honorable and acceptable if you do it to protect your friends and intimidate your political enemies?
The New York Times quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.): "Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct," and Senator Reid is correct. This is not a partisan issue; this is a democracy issue. It is time for all Americans of good conscience and morality to stand up, bring as much pressure as possible to bear, and let their elected representatives know that America belongs to "We The People." The pardon President Bush wants to grant Libby is not his to give.
--------
Dr. Wilmer Leon is producer/host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program, "On With Leon," on XM Satellite Radio Channel 169, producer/host of the television program, "Inside the Issues With Wilmer Leon," and a teaching associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, DC. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: wjl3us@yahoo.com. © 2007 InfoWave Communications, LLC.
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment