Democracy and The Fall

I disagree! But then it wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with C.S.Lewis and the world hasn't fallen apart yet!

Can you believe he sets up a "strawman?"

"Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows"

The kind of democracy we have, and our forefathers deliberately crafted, was that no one person is to have "unchecked power over his fellows."

With the exception of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, all in power have checks and balances. We have to invest some power in the individual office to get something done. The less power the better! But unless we want to create some sort of direct voting online, or some way, each day for each political issue, to make a true democracy, we will have to have someone represent us and hope and pray (and watch them like a hawk!) that they do right by ALL of us.

I believe that humans do have the capacity, God given, to save ourselves, not in the sense that Jesus Christ saves us from a life of slavery to sin and eternal damnation, but from a life of pointlessness and boredom and drudgery and poverty and illness and ignorance and injustice. We can do better and progressive liberalism is when we do better, conservatism is when we do not!

Love
David

I have to agree with C.S. Lewis, "no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows". That's one of the great things about our constitution is it's system of checks and balances, to help prevent anyone from becoming a tyrant and running amok unchecked.

Unfortunately, we have drifted away from following this in recent years. We now have a "unitary executive" who just ignores laws he doesn't like and seeks to undermine the legislative branch and the system of separation of powers by issuing signing statements.

We need to get back to what our founding fathers had in mind. We have drifted far away from their ideas.

RESTORE THE REPUBLIC - RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT

David,

ChrisB is right. C.S. Lewis was agreeing with you.

JohnW,

Thank you for being skeptical and concerned about signing statements and other executive actions that could pose problems for the health of the republic.

The price of liberty is eternal vigliance.

Ludwig,

It's retarded to call people retarded. Oops, perhaps I should put that another way.

I mean you might attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. And I also mean, who died and made you Einstein :)

Joe,

There are good people and there are bad people.

Power tends to corrupt people, but not everyone is seduced by it. Think George Washington, or perhaps one of your favorite teachers or mentors.

The reason checks and balances are good is because they are a bulwark against the machinations of power-hungry individuals, and a bulwark against the feverish passions of powerful majorities.

If people were really as bad as you say you believe them to be, then the appropriate response would be "To h**l with it". We should just destroy the earth with nuclear bombs, a world-wide flood, or some other satisfying orgy of apocalyptic justice.

Of course, most people are not pure good or pure evil -- perhaps no one is. The vast majority of folks are basically pretty good and trying to muddle through life as best they know how.

And you know what: most people are successful at muddling through in a way than can proud of. They are worthy of a vibrant, responsive democracy that protects their rights and their welfare.

Happy Fourth of July!

We need to get back to what our founding fathers had in mind. We have drifted far away from their ideas.

Which founders, John? Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson? Pre-War of 1812 Madison or post-War of 1812 Madison. I am sure you've read the Federalist Papers, but have you read the Anti-Federalist Papers? Did you know there was such a thing? When you talk of "the founders", probably need to be more specific; some of our founders would probably approve of George Bush's stewardship of the Presidency; Hamilton for instance favored a strong executive. Are their views not valid?

Uncengr,

The Constitution along with the Declaration of Independence is are considered our nation's founding document's. When I refer to the
Founders, I refer to the authors of these documents. I don't need to be more specific, most people generally realize this. Also, there is no way these founding fathers would approve of the Bush administration-they would compare him to the original King George of England.

John

Matthew,

Thanks for asking about my favorite president. Eisenhower is my favorite President. One of the reasons is his military industrial complex speech in 1961. His first draft had the phrase military industrial congressional complex. Sadly, his advice was not heeded and our democracy is now at risk because of this.

Here is some of the speech which can be found at www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/speeches/eisenhower001.htm :

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Boonton,

If I disagree with you, it could be because I am in the throes of some nasty fallacy. But it could also be that I just disagree with you on the merits.

George Bush has been a great leader. Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid have been duplicitous scoundrels. I know you disagree, but fallacies don't actually enter into it, one way or the other.

John,

Yes, Ike was a great president. His military-industrial complex was and continues to be an important speech. World War II changed a lot of things in America, and you are absolutely right that we need to stay on top of what the elites are up to.

Thanks for reminding me of President Eisenhower and for pointing me to the Yale archive. Good stuff!

Boonton,

President Bush has led the country very ably through two invasions/change of regime in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He has been extremely successful in prosecuting the war on Islamist terror. He has also been successful in clamping down on the proliferation of WMD's around the globe.

He has presided over a remarkably robust economy despite the twin shocks of the dot-com bust and the 9-11 attacks. This has been due to his program of various tax cuts, his generally very steady hand over fiscal and regulatory policies, and his vigorous promotion of free trade.

He has done all this while being almost unbelievably ethical and honest.

Some of his initiatives have not born fruit, such as entitlement and immigration reform, but even there he has dramatically shifted the agenda and made it easier for future administations to make headway.

Perhaps Reid and Pelosi have great things in store for them too -- I certainly hope so -- but they have gotten off to a pathetic start.

He has done all this while being almost unbelievably ethical and honest.

Blahahahah, I hope you're paid for this. Seriously, I really hope someone is giving you something. I hate to see you do this for free.

Boonton, do you think you would last even 15 minutes as President?

It's our job to monitor and give feedback to our government officials, but we shouldn't pretend that just because they work for us, you or I would actually do a better job in their position.

That said, I think most people would do a better job than the average Congressman.

It's our job to monitor and give feedback to our government officials, but we shouldn't pretend that just because they work for us, you or I would actually do a better job in their position.

OK, how do we go from that to making a statement that Bush is not only 'ethical and honest' but unbelievably 'ethical and honest'? This statement made not a week after he ends up commutting Libby's sentence.

Symtheory,

Eisenhower was President and experienced military man (and a republican). I think there is merit to what he said. I take it you think he is all wrong?

Welfare for big business and war profiteering by the wealthy elite is OK with you? Welfare queens riding around in their big Cadilacs-that's the real source of government's spending problems, right?

Oops, that was addressed to Boonton.

Symtheory,

So, I take it you would not object to say, 1% of GDP or about 5 Billion dollars going to a Dept. of Peace?

In your mind war profiteering in Iraq is OK? Afterall, who cares if American's hard earned tax dollars are benefiting Cheney and his cronies. It's only going to amount to no more than say 1% of GDP, right?

John

Boonton,

As mean spirited as a certain ex-gov who was mocked the clemency requests of people on death row?

Yes, I'd say it's about the same level of mean-spiritedness.

There is a difference, though. The woman that President Bush was mocking probably deserved to be executed, whereas Scooter Libby probably doesn't deserve to go to prison.

He was sentenced to a relatively short prison sentence per the sentencing guidelines of the Bush administration.

I think you may be mistaken about that.

Andrew McCarthy is a conservative writer who used to be a federal prosecutor. Here is what he has to say about it: "the Corner" on National Review Online, 07/05 09:10 PM.

But let's say you are right and sentencing guidelines were properly followed (although they weren't). President Bush would still have a duty to intervene with either a commutation or a pardon for Libby if he, President Bush, were privy to sufficiently mitigating or exculpating information. It would be immoral for him not to intervene.

This one stunt alone crashes down your claim that Bush has been ethical and honest. This act was objectively dishonest and was almost certainly unethical. At best you can argue that it was cronyism, about protecting and favoring 'friends of George' but a lot of people are starting to suspect it was more about payoff. Either way not very ethical at all.

You are wrong. You are describing things as you see them in your own mind. If you look closely at what has actually happened, reality is a lot more nuanced.

Your scenarios of cronyism and/or a payoff are not strictly impossible, in a hypothetical sense, but neither are they supported by the facts.

Thousands of regular people are now serving time as their cases are appealed.

And thousands of "regular" people (Mr. Libby is not a "regular" person?) are in prison for crimes they didn't commit.

Does that mean the president or a governor should remain impassive when a miscarriage of justice is staring him in the face? Injustice for some dictates injustice for all?

As I said above, it would have been immoral for President Bush to stand by doing nothing if he knew that the execution of Mr. Libby's sentence was an injustice.

WEll now, if he is 'truly guilty' of perjury then his appeals will fail, won't they, and you'll be here advocating a pardon -- so how will that make it so that no one is above the law?

Because it is not illegal for the president to exercise his power of pardon.

The purpose of the pardon power is to allow the president discretion to rectify errors made by the criminal justice system. To say a pardon is inappropriate is merely to argue that the system did not err in this case. But if the system did err, then a pardon is part and parcel of the rule of law, and in fact strengthens the rule of law by making it more equitable.

Yes, I'd say it's about the same level of mean-spiritedness.

Too bad we can't ask the previous victim of this mean spiritness, he is dead.

There is a difference, though. The woman that President Bush was mocking probably deserved to be executed, whereas Scooter Libby probably doesn't deserve to go to prison.

Because he is an administration crony.

But let's say you are right and sentencing guidelines were properly followed (although they weren't). President Bush would still have a duty to intervene with either a commutation or a pardon for Libby if he, President Bush, were privy to sufficiently mitigating or exculpating information. It would be immoral for him not to intervene.

Why doing favors for your cronies is not only OK it's actually immoral not to do so!!

Your scenarios of cronyism and/or a payoff are not strictly impossible, in a hypothetical sense, but neither are they supported by the facts.

Yea, whatever, keep drinking the Kool-Aid, by now even most conservatives have begun to notice the punch doesn't quite taste right.

And thousands of "regular" people (Mr. Libby is not a "regular" person?) are in prison for crimes they didn't commit.

Who committed Mr Libby's crime then?

To say a pardon is inappropriate is merely to argue that the system did not err in this case. But if the system did err, then a pardon is part and parcel of the rule of law, and in fact strengthens the rule of law by making it more equitable.

More equitable because third rate cronies of the administration are now no longer 'regular people'?

So, I take it you would not object to say, 1% of GDP or about 5 Billion dollars going to a Dept. of Peace?

In your mind war profiteering in Iraq is OK? Afterall, who cares if American's hard earned tax dollars are benefiting Cheney and his cronies. It's only going to amount to no more than say 1% of GDP, right?

What? The State Department's budget of 9.5 billion is too much and you want to cut it in half? You are a tight-wad JawnW.

You should at least use the same definition of war-profiteering that the Congress-critters and the Department of Justice uses. Cheney and crew haven't been charged with that crime. Just because somebody you admire might have slung that slur doesn't make it true. I can't picture the Democrat crew of Congress-critters would hold off from introducing impeachment on that charge if it were true.

smmtheory,

What a minute, I think I got my numbers wrong. If Defense spending is 500 Billion dollars and that amount is 3% of GDP, then 1% of GDP is more like 166 Billion dollars. That's way way too much to spend on Peace. Maybe one tenth of a percent or .01% of GDP or around 16.6 Billion dollars would be more appropriate.

So, what do you say? 16.6 Billion dollars a year for a Dept. of Peace?

symtheory,

Obviously, miltary defense is important, but I think it is wise to pursue other ways to protect our interests. In other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Currently, I think our leader's approach to protecting our country is too skewed towards the military approach.

Regardless, of the percentage of GDP, I think in absolute terms (actual dollar amounts), we spend too much on defense. Our country spends approximately 50% of all the money spent on defense in the whole world. We have the power to destroy the world-is there any point in having the ability to destroy the world many times?

The idea for a Dept. of Peace orginated with George Washington. He felt our government should establish a Peace Academy, much like the military services academy. It would train students to become conflict specialists, to go to communities around our nation and the world to help ameliorate violence before it gets out of control

To the degree that conflict hurts those engaged in it, it would make sense that the market would provide for 'conflict specialists' who would hire themselves out to those who are having a dispute. And if you look you will already see that. Plenty of people pay lawyers, arbitrators, mediators, therapists, clergy etc. to essentially play this role. Granted they aren't usually close to armed conflict but they are engaging in situations that might degenerate to that level if their services were not already available in the market.

In theory if two countries were edging closer to war that would cost them $500M it would be perfectly sensible for them to hire a negotiator for a few million to help them come to an agreement. I think there's two reasons you don't see that happening:

1. Countries are not very rational and the closer you get to war the less likey people are to listen to reason so they would rather spend $500M on war than $5M on peace.

2. No one really knows how to resolve such conflicts so no one gets paid $5M to avoid the war because there's no one out there that really can...if someone says he knows how he is just a snake oil salesman.

I think a 'Dept. of Peace' would suffer from a lot of #2's. You'll get lots of 'students' who now have a vested interest in getting paychecks as 'peacemakers' but who aren't really good at making peace. A true peacemaker would probably be the type often described as an 'elder statesman' type...people like Jim Baker or Jimmy Carter who've built up a long career doing other things than studying at a 'Peace Academy'. These types aren't trading on their knowledge but on their networks of contacts they've built up through their careers as well as their status as minor celebrities in intellectual circles. That's not the sort of thing that can be taught at a 'Peace Academy'.

So Washington's idea sounded nice on paper but I think it should probably stay there.

Boonton,

I'm unaware of any facts in the public record you presented.

I mentioned and linked to a discussion of the federal sentencing guidelines for perjury.

Also, my whole interpretation of President Bush's tenure is based upon a close reading of facts from the public record, as I imagine your interpretation is similarly based. Which I why I don't try to characterize you as a partisan moron.

You praised the prosecutor for doing a 'good job' but then you question whether Libby was really guilty. A prosecutor, as I'm sure you're aware, is obligated not withdraw an indictment against a person he learns to be innocent. You wonder how we shoudl act if Libby turns out to be guilty or not guilty while ignoring the fact that he had a jury trial, was found guilty and lost one appeal so far. Thousands in such a situtation...with much worse lawyers than he had..have begun serving sentences.

A fair point.

However, once a prosecutor goes to trial, he is no longer an unbiased seeker of truth and investigator of criminality -- his role switches over decisively to that of advocate, as it should.

Once the game goes to trial, it is up to the judge and the jury to balance the competing claims of prosecution and defense. The prosecutor is now committed to prosecuting and securing a legal victory.

Trials are subject to all manner of pitfalls which can lead, and often do lead, to an unjust result. If that weren't the case, there would be no valid grounds for ever exercising the powers of commutation and pardon.

You've claimed Bush has been unbelievably ethical and honest. He has been neither and this sorry case illustrates the point.

I agree it's been a sorry case, but not for the reasons you do :)

If you are right about Mr. Libby's trial and punishment, then you are also right that the case illustrates your broader point about President Bush's ethics and honesty.

However, if I am right about the case, then I am also right that it illustrates my broader point about President Bush.

He has been unethical in clearly elevating granting special treatment to a member of his own inside beltway club. That's the best case scenero, if the sentence was commutted as a way to buy Libby's silence then the unethical nature of it is even worse.

That's the "best case scenario" that you can imagine. It's not the actual best-case scenario though.

John,

We are throwing away too much money on military options, there are other ways to protect our nations interests and hopefully our next president will have the ability to promote these alternatives.

War is such an incredible sink-hole of blood and treasure, and such a theater of absurd waste and tragedy, that I am forced to empathize with the point you are making.

I do not agree, in fact I emphatically disagree, with your point, though.

Planning for peace by disavowing war is doomed to failure. If you want peace, you have to be willing to fight for it.

If we spend/waste/invest a lot of treaure and a lot of our humanity in a grisly war with Islamist terrorists, it makes sense to keep close tabs on what we are doing and make sure we are not barking fatally up the wrong tree.

But we didn't choose to fight this war, it was forced upon us by our enemies. The only way to stop fighting it is to surrender.

Pacifism and appeasement have been tried throughout the millenia (for example, in the 1930's against Hitler). Sometimes it buys a little time in the short term, but unless that precious time is used to prepare to fight, it has always proved to be a losing strategy.

"This statement made not a week after he ends up commutting Libby's sentence."

Thats because Libbey did the right thing in exposing Democratic activists in the CIA who were putting narrow party politics before national security. That and the fact that the "trial" was a fraudulent Democrat hack job.

A true peacemaker would probably be the type often described as an 'elder statesman' type...people like Jim Baker or Jimmy Carter who've built up a long career doing other things than studying at a 'Peace Academy'. These types aren't trading on their knowledge but on their networks of contacts they've built up through their careers as well as their status as minor celebrities in intellectual circles.

You know, you really shouldn't even mention Jimmy Carter as an example of the term elder statesman. The two are mutually exclusive.

there are other ways to protect our nations interests and hopefully our next president will have the ability to promote these alternatives.

If we were talking about civilized people who didn't cook 11 year old boys to serve to the boy's parents, then perhaps I might be closer to agreeing with you.

They used their mind control rays to take over a Republican prosecutor

Some people call it blackmail.

Boonton,

[Matthew said:] "However, once a prosecutor goes to trial, he is no longer an unbiased seeker of truth and investigator of criminality -- his role switches over decisively to that of advocate, as it should."

Not quite true. Even once a trial begins a prosecutor is required to drop the charges if he comes to believe the defendant is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this manner the prosecutor has more responsibility than a defense attorney who is obligated to defend his client at all costs.

I agree with you.

However, the requirement to drop the charges is only a restriction on the prosecutor's role as advocate, not a repudiation of it. In other words, my description of the prosecutor as an advocate in trial litigation is actually quite true indeed.

Kind of amazing with a multi-million dollar defense fund, a Republican prosecutor and Republican appointed judges no one was able to notice these 'pitfalls' that might have biased the trial. In fact, notice how even now people who argue like this don't even bother telling us what exactly was wrong with Libby's trial? What was wrong with his jury?

Lots of people noticed things that were "wrong" with his trial, and "wrong" with his sentencing. That's exactly why his lawyers have been preparing an appeal, and why a dozen legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the judge.

I put the word "wrong" in quotes because these questions are a matter of debate and legal judgement. Obviously not everyone is going to agree that something is right or wrong.

And there doesn't have to be anything wrong with a jury for them to reach a wrong conclusion. They could have been swayed by improper rulings on a number of matters, for example rulings dealing with admissible evidence or closing instructions on how to apply the law.

Why are you so sure that a high-powered trial could never result in even a mild miscarriage of justice? Did you misplace your skepticism over the weekend?

Are we to seriously entertain the idea here that Bush did follow what he has stated to be his guidelines for considering pardon/commutation requests? Are we to seriously believe that Libby did not receive special treatment because he is a friend of the administration? Of the thousands of people sitting in Federal and state prisons Libby's case is the one that cries out for commutation?

President Bush doesn't need to follow guidelines when he has a personal interest and knowledge of a case. He doesn't need to sit in judgement on his own desire to review a case in order to determine whether or not he himself is gaming the system by bringing the matter to his own attention!

This has got to be one of the dopiest political arguments I have ever heard. I know I said I wasn't going to call your intelligence into question, but it's like you're daring me to do so.

John,

The current approach is skewed way too much towards dealing with the problem with brute military force. Other approaches should be tried.

A reasonable position.

I personally have no special military expertise to bring to bear on the question. But as far as I can tell, I believe that President Bush has got a very strong mix of measures going on, which is calibrated just right as to the level of military vs. non-military tactics.

The truth is, however, that only time will tell. And of course, it's also quite possible that President Bush is guilty of not mobilizing the country enough to pursue military means.

John,

When your policies create more terrorist than are killed or locked up, one logical option is to simply try to keep killing more.

That's why we need to keep close tabs on what we're doing, to make sure it's effective and not counterproductive.

So far, President Bush's strategy has produced two steadfast allies in the war on Islamist terror, Iraq and Afghanistan, where we used to have two enemy regimes. He gets very high marks from me so far.

The terrorists and the terrorist training camps were around long before George Bush became President Bush. The problem has been building for a good 30 or 40 years now, and it won't be solved in just 5 or 6 years, especially since we have eschewed the path of overwhelming, indiscriminate force.

Now I am quite sure we could force the Iraqis and Afghani's to accept a few bases in their countries for the next 50 years or so, but to call them "steadfast allies" is a stretch.

And if I understand you correctly, we should be using more military force in the region. After we go in a kick butt in Iran and make them our allies, which country do you think we should invade? Perhaps, we should occupy Israel and deal with those pesky arabs there....

Of course you see no evidence -- the whole Joe Wilson episode was an elaborate Republican plot to distract the Democrats...

errr excuse me, the status of Wilson's wife was leaked to the press. Bush himself said that the leak was wrong, that he wanted to fire whoever did it and that he wanted them prosecuted if they violated the law. In the investigation instigated by Bush using a prosecutor he picked and later stated did a good job, Libby lied under oath and was convicted for perjury.

What evidence is there that there was something wrong with the process? Your argument here seems to be sometimes bad things happen in trials therefore Bush was right to commute his sentence. Errr what was this bad thing? The only bad thing I've seen is an insider was convicted after due process of law...after receiving a trial with an all-star defense paid for by wealthy Republican friends. The commutation is a double exception. It's exceptional in one degree because the use of this power by a President is extraordinary. It is exceptional to another degree because the President categorically ignored what he has stated his standards for considering such requests. You've presented nothing to indicate that this was an extraordinary situtation and the obligation to do so is on defenders of this call (what few there are).

Your only real response to this so far is that the President has the Constitutional power to use his pardon power in an irrational, even corrupt manner. But no one is questioning Bush's Constitutional ability to grant a pardon or commutation, they are questioning his judgement. Sorry, "he's the decider" isn't much of an argument.

Iran, as you know, leans pro-American because most Iranians hate their tyrannical, anti-American government. It would be much better if we don't have to bomb Iran.

Nothing could benefit the enemies of pro-American Iranians more than US military action against Iran. Not only would they use the threat of outside aggression to consolidate their power at home (as Bush has tried here) but it would also allow them to nicely paint their political critics in Iran as traitors who are helping the enemy (in this case America).

But bombing Iran is much better than letting the crazy rulers of Iran get a nuclear bomb.

Not if the alternative is to solidify the crazies power AND let them get a nuclear bomb. The trick Isreal was able to pull of with Iraq decades ago ain't going to work again. The Iranians are smart enough to keep their program spread out to protect it from a bombing campaign.

In all reality North Korea is probaby more crazy and more dangerous with nuclear weapons than Iran....but this administration has basically surrendered on that front long ago.

Boonton,

I layed out my defense of the commutation in comment 29. I made reference to the federal sentencing guidelines for sentencing felony perjury and obstruction of justice convictions.

To my knowledge, you have yet to even answer my argument that the sentencing guidelines were improperly followed by the judge. If I am wrong, then please let me know where you have addressed this point.

errr excuse me, the status of Wilson's wife was leaked to the press. Bush himself said that the leak was wrong, that he wanted to fire whoever did it and that he wanted them prosecuted if they violated the law. In the investigation instigated by Bush using a prosecutor he picked and later stated did a good job, Libby lied under oath and was convicted for perjury.

Sweet Jeez Louise! What part of "blood-sucking alien conspiracy" don't you understand?

The fact that everything has been lain out so carefully just proves that our zombie overlords have put the fix in. The only reason I was able to pierce the veil of secrecy in the first place is because President "Bush" forgot to fire Richard Armitage like he promised.

I guess even evil geniuses have their off days...

John,

I have talked to a soldier, in person, who hates the war in Iraq and wants us to quit. He he was an intelligence analyst in a hot Sunni zone, and he told me stuff that turned my stomach.

So I am not unaware of the kind of objections that you raise and which are documented in the Nation article.

Nonetheless, my firm conviction is that it is not too late to correct the mistakes that we have made, and to do the right thing by Iraqis. In fact, I believe we have a solemn, profound duty to do exactly that.

Boonton,

Actually you just linked to an article that argued maybe he should have been sentenced to half of the time & perhaps if that argument was applied some other facts might have justified probation.

Yes, that's what I "actually" did. And you're just responding to it now.

[Judge Judy] answered very sensibly that there is a natural variation in the law. Indeed you can often point out sometimes people get the upper scale of the sentence while others get the lowest but that in itself is not unfairness. A risk of breaking the law is that you subject yourself to such variation that may end up playing in your favor or against it at the end of the day.

And that's why it made sense for President Bush to wait until Mr. Libby had a chance to appeal his sentence -- except that he was denied a chance to be released on bond pending appeal. Since he was being forced to go to prison despite the grounds he had for appealing the sentence, President Bush [as he is known on this planet :-) ] was put in a position where he had to do a pre-emptive strike.

Our biggest disagreement, Boonton, is that you are convinced that even if Mr. Libby's prison time was not appropriate, it was still wrong for President Bush to commute that part of his sentence.

If the judges sentence violated sentencing law it would have been a slam dunk appeal. It wasn't.

You say it wasn't a slam-dunk appeal. Why wasn't it?

And of course, slam-dunk has nothing to do with it, it's just a question of whether the appeal had merit or not. If the appeal had a 70% chance of being successful or a 95% chance is irrelevant.

Wow, you mean he behaved in a manner that was less than 'unbelievable honest'?

So it was dishonest of President Bush to show mercy to a political opponent? (Mr. Armitage was working at cross-purposes to President Bush's invasion of Iraq, with the apparent approval of his boss, Secretary Powell.)

If I decline to keep a promise to you on terms that are disadvantageous to myself (because keeping the promise turns out to be something I would like to do and something you don't want me to do), that makes me a promise-breaker? You are employing the logic of a five-year-old.

At least being disconnected from reality was part of [Baghdad Bob's] job description. What's your excuse?

If I can't get you to stop President "Bush" and his zombie minions, then I don't see the point in defending my own rationality. It's not about me, Boonton, it's about the planet!

Do exactly what for the Iraqis? Just suppose the Iraqis themselves want to fight a civil war and cannot agree to let their different religious and ethnic groups simply share power in a nice friendly way like we do in America or Europe?

If it were just about helping the Iraqis, then your let's-wash-our-hands-of-this-sectarian-madness approach would have some Machiavellian/Kissinger-ian logic to it.

Fortunately for the Iraqis, though, we have a big stake in the outcome, because we don't want Iraq to become an Iranian-satellite theocracy or a Taliban-style caliphate, or, thanks to a Shiite-Sunni partition, both at the same time.

If you don't understand why that is a compelling reason to stick it out, then perhaps I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

Boonton,

Yea, Bush had to make a pre-emptive strike against the legal system.

Yeah, exercising his constitutional authority is a pre-emptive strike against the legal system.

1. Libby's attempt to appeal his sentence failed.
2. Further appeals could have allowed Libby to have been released early or resulted in a reduced sentence if that was indeed proper.
3. For everyone else this is how the system works. Even for the small number of people applying for pardons or commutations (which Libby never did) this is how the system works.

Like I said, this is the biggest difference between you and me.

If I have the power to correct an injustice that I am personally aware of and involved in, I hope I would have the same willingness as President Bush to act. If you have such power, you would let the criminal justice system take away the liberty of a distinguished public servant, even if taking away his liberty were an unjust result.

I suppose we could start digging up the text of the decisions and start scouring them but the fact is the obligation remains on defenders of Bush's action to show why he "had" to make this exceptional move.

I've already accepted your challenge to defend the commutation. I've cited the federal guidelines, and linked to a very cogent summary of how the federal judge misapplied them.

Specifically, the judge sentenced Mr. Libby as if there had been an underlying crime that had been covered-up.

Now in your mind, there was such a crime. But legally speaking there was no such crime that was ever introduced into the trial or the sentencing proceedings. And if the alleged underlying crime was never introduced, then there is no legal basis for using it to apply the sentencing guidelines.

To use a crime that doesn't exist as the basis for sentencing would be like executing a man for a false alibi when it turned out that a murder victim was not actually dead, but just on vacation.

Show me where Bush said while the leak was wrong he was forgiving Armitage?

Showing mercy is not the same as forgiving.

President Bush showed mercy, not because he had forgiven Mr. Armitage, but because he judged it was in the best interests of the country not to indulge in a petty hit against one of his critics.

But I guess the criterion he should have used was whether or not Boonton could use his broken promise as a partisan talking point.

You haven't really explained [why we should stay in Iraq] to any of us.

Yeah, I know, I haven't explained anything. Oh well.

Anything else you'd like to discuss?

Certainly after all this huffing and puffing you're not going to fall back on an argument whose premise is that if his action was not directly Constitutional it is automatically good?

That's right, I'm not, and it's pretty lame that you imply that I'm doing so.

The commutation is good because it's correcting a miscarriage of justice.

You disagree that the sentence is a miscarriage of justice, and you also disagree that if it is a miscarriage of justice, that it should be corrected by the president. Our disagreement is pretty simple and straightforward, so I hope you understand it now.

Wow, what luck. Of the millions incarcerated by the legal system the one injustice that happens just by chance happened to Bush's buddy who was defended by a multi-million dollar legal dream team. What are the odds?

I've agreed with you several times in this comment thread that there are many thousands of injustices that come out of our criminal justice system.

And I've gone on to say several times that correcting one injustice is not prohibited just because you don't correct every injustice.

Here's an injustice that is screaming out for correction, but unfortunately the president has no power to do anything about it:

"Whatever Happened to Lynne Stewart?"
by Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com, July 12, 2007.

Boonton, despite our prolonged and at times circular disagreement, I respect your attitudes and your thinking. You are motivated by a commitment to justice and the rule of law. However, Scooter Libby was sentenced improperly, and neither justice nor the rule of law would have been served by allowing his sentence to stand.

Richard Armitage and Colin Powell are not critics of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, black is white, and white is black.

the sentence being unjust rests on a rather technical reading of Federal sentencing guidelines, and as we know, the last thing you want to do when you apply the law is to get all "technical" and stuff -- those "technicalities" are just so problematical sometimes.

But where's this 'personal knowledge' you allege Bush has that justifies the commutation? There's no 'personal knowledge' about this case, because as we all know, Scooter Libby just worked for Dick Cheney, and President Bush was way out of the loop as far as Dick Cheney was concerned. There is no way the president would know anything about either Scooter Libby or the circumstances of the case that would have any bearing on anything.

Now I never understood why Wilson's wife somehow undermined his story, especially since he denied that his wife had anything to do with his going to Niger. If he was lying about that, that really doesn't have anything to do with his credibility, because he didn't agree with Cheney or Bush.

So now where is this injustice? A magazine article? Why listen to a former federal prosecutor when you can read a comment in a comment thread by an anonymous expert instead?

You are aware if a judge violates the law and imposes a sentence less than what the law mandates the prosecution can appeal? Meanwhile, Lynne Stewart is appealing the very short sentence (shorter than Libby's!!) that she got for collaborating with Egyptian terrorists, and has yet to set foot in jail since her conviction, and is the toast of the town among her liberal friends.

So of course you are even more outraged at this fine example of misproportional punishment than you are at Libby's, right... [ sound of crickets chirping ]

Boonton,

Most of the points you raise are fair points.

I have admitted that the law is ambiguous, and that people will disagree on various details in good faith. I have yet to see you make a similar admission.

One thing President Bush does know is whether or not there was an underlying crime, because he was there at the scene of the alleged crime. For that reason alone, he has more insight into the case than the judge or the prosecutor could possibly have, an insight which has a direct bearing on how the federal sentencing guidelines should be interpreted.

But even if none of that were true, one thing you will probably never convince of, even if you wrote another 100 comments, is that Lynne Stewart should be free pending appeal while Scooter Libby should be imprisoned.

The Lynn case has nothing to do with the Libby case.

Of course it does.

A terrorist collaborator got sentenced to 29 months imprisonment, which was a violation of federal sentencing guidelines by close to an order of magnitude too little. While her appeal is pending, she does not have to serve out her sentence.

A distinguished public servant got foolishly snared in a fishing expedition, and was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. This was at least 12 months too long, and possibly 30 months too long, according to federal sentencing guidelines. And he was forced to report to prison pending appeal, until the president intervened and commuted the prison part of his sentence.

Justice is supposed to be proportional, the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Here, in the same country, in the same federal court system, is a glaring example of misproportionality. But when the president does something about it, you complain about it! And you don't give a flying f**k about Stewart, when she was passing messages along from the blind sheik to the bast**ds who machine gunned the temple in Luxor (and she said she would proudly do it again, for the love of Mike!).

If you thought Libby got away with murder, then you should be at least ten times as outraged about Stewart. There is something amiss in your programming, sir. Go get a patch, STAT.

I don't think Libby got away with murder, only perjury.

But my point is that you are hopping mad about it: It's a pre-emptive strike against the rule of law, IMPEACH BUSH, IMPALE CHENEY, etc. etc.

There is no ability for the system to correct Libby's case. If tomorrow it turns out that there's ample case law and precedent to establish the sentence was fitting and your National Review writer is full of hot air the issue is moot.

Why, did President Bush dissolve the Congress with a signing statement