BCT Editorial – 7/5/07

This page was last updated on July 9, 2007.

Obvious and ominous; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 5, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The rule of law: the doctrine that arbitrary exercise of power is controlled by subordinating (governmental, military, economic, etc.) power to well-defined and impartial principles of law; spec. (Eng. Law) the concept that ordinary exercise of governmental power must conform to general principles as administered by the ordinary courts. (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

“The rule of law is one of the fundamental building blocks of our representative democracy. A shorthand way of expressing this is the phrase ‘no one is above the law.’

“The rule of man is the opposite of the rule of law. Basically, it means that those in power can make up the rules as they go along because the ruler is not bound by a constitution, laws or customs. A good way of summing this up is the phrase ‘might makes right.’”

[RWC] “The rule of man is the opposite of the rule of law?” Who writes laws, Martians?

“In a written statement released Monday evening, President Bush announced that he had, as expected, commuted the 30-month jail sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who was found guilty of lying under oath regarding the leaking of a CIA agent’s identity to the media.

“As president, Bush had the constitutional power to commute Libby’s sentence. However, what’s legal is not always what is right. In granting Libby a free pass to stay out of jail, Bush subverted the rule of law.”

[RWC] If that’s true, must that not always be the case? If so, why does Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grant the president this power?

“But what else is new. From Guantanamo Bay to illegal eavesdropping on American citizens, from ignoring international laws against torture to rejecting habeas corpus in American courts, this president and this administration have shown time and time again that they believe that they are above the law.”

[RWC] There are a lot of allegations here, but no presentation of fact or proof.

“The rule of man: ‘I respect the jury’s verdict,’ Bush said in a written statement about the commutation of Libby’s prison sentence. ‘But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison.’

“The rule of law: ‘In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws,’ Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote. ‘It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.’”

[RWC] To balance Mr. Fitzgerald’s comment, the editorial should have mentioned the sentence imposed by the judge exceeded that recommended by the Probation Office by nine to 15 months. Of course, editorials aren’t about presentation of fact.

Regarding the “experience federal judge” comment, does anyone doubt what the Times reaction would have been had Mr. Libby received a “slap on the wrist” sentence like that received by Sandy Berger (National Security Advisor for Bill Clinton) for stealing (and destroying) top-secret documents from the National Archives? FYI, according to my admittedly incomplete archives, the Times didn’t pen one editorial about Mr. Berger’s transgression.

“One final point: When President Bill Clinton was caught lying under oath about having oral sex with a female White House intern, many Republicans and conservatives used his lies to impeach him. It wasn’t the act, they said, it was the lie under oath.”

[RWC] Hmm, the “One final point” failed to note all the pardons given by Bill Clinton. Remember this when you read the “hypocrites” comment below.

Since the editorial compared the Libby and Clinton cases, let do it a little more in depth. Regarding the Lewinsky affair, that came about when the independent counsel learned Ms. Lewinsky planned to commit perjury in Jones v. Clinton. The background of the investigation is contained in the Independent Counsel’s report on the Lewinsky affair. Mr. Clinton’s punishment for perjury and obstruction of justice? A $25,000 fine and his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years, as if he ever planned to use it again, but neither jail time nor probation.

In Mr. Libby’s case, he was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in an investigation for which there was no underlying crime. See my critique of “The Libby outrage” for more details.

“Yet when Libby is found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, many of the same people who attacked Clinton are defending the former aide. Apparently lying under oath is no longer a big deal.”

[RWC] Actually, if Mr. Libby lied, he should be punished. To pretend, however, that the Clinton and Libby cases are remotely similar is BS. If the Times is going to argue the cases are comparable, it should also argue Mr. Libby’s sentence should have been similar to Bill Clinton’s. The editorial doesn’t do that, however. Even with the jail time commuted, Mr. Libby’s sentence is far more severe than Bill Clinton’s for allegedly committing the same crimes.

“The rule of law or the rule of man? With these hypocrites, the answer is obvious - and ominous.”

[RWC] The rule of law is the rule of man. As I asked above, who writes the laws?

Regarding hypocrites, apparently you’re a hypocrite only if you attacked Bill Clinton but defend Mr. Libby. There’s no mention of hypocrisy regarding people who defended Mr. Clinton but attacked Mr. Libby. It couldn’t be that these people tend to be Democrats and liberals/progressives/socialists, could it? Nah, no chance. <g>