Runaway Train
I've often taken exception to columns written by Richard Cohen for the Washington Post. Today, however, he points out something that should make people think hard about what they're doing. It won't, of course, but he still tries.
With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker — Richard Armitage of the State Department — but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.
The upshot was a train wreck — mile after mile of shame, infamy, embarrassment and occasional farce, all of it described in the forthcoming "Off the Record," a vigorously written account of what went wrong, by Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s former editor in chief. The special counsel used the immense power of the government to jail Judith Miller and to compel other journalists, including Time's Matt Cooper, to suspend their various and sacred vows of silence just so they could, understandably, avoid jail. The press held itself up to mockery, wantonly promising confidentiality, anonymity — what's the diff, anyway? — and virtual life after death to anyone with a piece of gossip to peddle. Much heroic braying turned into cries for mercy as the government bore down. As any prosecutor knows — and Martha Stewart can attest — white-collar types tend to have a morbid fear of jail.
Cohen points out the hypocrisy here. The left, strident critic of government intrusion have cheered on the full power of the government being brought to bear on one person. They have watched gleefully as strong arm tactics were applied by a special prosecutor who knew who had actually made the leak - Richard Armitage. And with no underlying crime proven, at all, they cheer as a fairly obscure functionary is railroaded into Federal prison.
Accountability is one thing. By all means, let Congress investigate and conduct oversight hearings with relish and abandon. But a prosecution is a different matter. It entails the government at its most coercive — a power so immense and sometimes so secretive that it poses much more of a threat to civil liberties, including freedom of the press, than anything in the interstices of the scary Patriot Act. The mere arrival of a form letter from the IRS will give any sane person a touch of angina.
My opinion has always been that charges of this type are dangerous and wrong. If you think they are not, place yourself for a moment in the position of being sent to prison because a Federal official decides you have lied to him or her. Think hard about that. Because this is a horrible precedent. And precedents have a horrible way of boomeranging on those who cheer them on.
By Chris, Tuesday, 19 June , 2007 @ 8:28 am
Unfortunately, the ones who should be paying attention to this warning won’t be, because, since their motives are pure, they can never be wrong, therefore the government would never go after them.
Only conservatives lie, you know.
By Former Republican, Tuesday, 19 June , 2007 @ 10:04 am
Libby didn’t just lie to “a Federal official.” He lied to a grand jury. And it wasn’t just “a Federal official” who decided he lied. Twelve members of a jury agreed. Libby had high-priced lawyers and the full panoply of legal protection and got convicted because the jury was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he committed several crimes.
Perjury is a crime. You claim there was no underlying crime. Maybe so, maybe not. Fitzgerald says Libby frustrated the investigation. Suppose there was in fact no underlying crime. Is it okay to commit perjury in a civil suit, where there’s no underlying crime? Is it okay to commit perjury in testifying to Congress? My gosh, conservatives are supposed to believe in moral standards and the rule of law. The Ten Commandments say that lying is wrong, and perjury is a crime that goes straight to the core of the rule of law. It was wrong when Alger Hiss did it, it was wrong when Clinton did it, and it was wrong when Libby did it. I don’t believe in coddling criminals.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 19 June , 2007 @ 10:42 am
Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the leaker almost from the start. The rest was witch hunt. Do not scream about it being unfair when one of yours gets the same railroading - this precedent will lead to more political persecutions.
By Former Republican, Tuesday, 19 June , 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Your logic baffles me. Fitzgerald knew from the start that Armitage was a leaker, so he shouldn’t have kept looking for other leaks, maybe earlier ones, maybe by people who knew Valerie Plame was covert?
Suppose Armitage was the only leaker. Therefore it’s okay for Libby to commit perjury?
And Fitzgerald conducted a “political persecution”? I hadn’t realized he was a Democrat.
What makes you think I would object to prosecution for perjury of someone just because he shares my political opinions? I don’t think I would, especially if he got convicted.
What amuses me here is how so-called conservatives are such bleeding hearts about this particular criminal. If people break the law, they should suffer the consequences.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 19 June , 2007 @ 3:36 pm
The reason for the investigation was the leak by Armitage. You demanded - and got - your witch hunt. Now you can expect to deal with the exact same thing in the future. You demand fairness and no coddling of criminals. But the President of the United States was convicted of perjury.
And lost his license to practice law.
You think it’s right for Libby to go to jail for 30 months? For supposedly lying in an investigation that should have stopped at Armitage. Because Fitzgerald found the leaker that precipitated the investigation - and it should have stopped there. You’re convinced it was deeper than that, therefore witch hunting is a good thing.
I’m sure you’ll be quite supportive when it is one of yours being persecuted and imprisoned. Be careful what you wish for - you just made your own future beds. And you’ve made politics even worse than it ever was before. And you are too blinded by your lust for someone to hang to see that.
By Chris, Wednesday, 20 June , 2007 @ 11:53 am
Told you they weren’t listening. Missing the forest for the trees, I believe.