Bush commutes Libby sentence

[Armin]

ok. So my second question is, if there are absolutely no consequences for breaking the rules why bother having them?

Thats a damn good question. Probably been asked a lot since the United Nations have been around.

But I think there *are* consequences for breaking the rules, just not immediate ones. The extremely bad image the United states are suffering from these days in many countries that used to be their most stalwart allies is one of them.

As long as the United Nations have no way to sanction a nation with veto rights, getting some "booo"s from the crowd is all that's gonna happen, though. B)

[Jester]

So my second question is, if there are absolutely no consequences for breaking the rules why bother having them?

The idea was that the nations of the world would enforce them, since nobody wanted another Hitler. Then, it turned out that the two most capable nations to do so hated each others' guts, and would only enforce what they wanted, vetoing everything else.

Then one of them collapsed, leaving only one. That one still only did what it wanted, vetoing everyone else. As Mr. Krauthammer said, the hegemon was sailing. And, apparently, cruising the oceans for oil-rich booty, a-la PNAC.

But someday, hopefully someday soon, the force will build for transforming the impotent-though-well-intentioned United Nations into a true international authority, and perhaps from there into a world government. Until then, the weapons get bigger, the tensions run as hot as ever, and we inch closer (in any of a dozen different ways) to a Carl Sagan-esque apocalyptic end to the world.

And no, I don't feel fine.

-Jester

[Delc]

As long as the United Nations have no way to sanction a nation with veto rights, getting some "booo"s from the crowd is all that's gonna happen, though. B)

UN sanctions don't seem to have a terribly good track record of keeping anyone else in line either (Darfur is a pretty glaring failure).

But someday, hopefully someday soon, the force will build for transforming the impotent-though-well-intentioned United Nations into a true international authority, and perhaps from there into a world government.

I don't think there is a single significant country in the world willing to give up enough sovereignty to the UN to actually give it that kind of power.

[Occhidiangela]

Thats a damn good question. Probably been asked a lot since the United Nations have been around.

But I think there *are* consequences for breaking the rules, just not immediate ones.

I'd suggest you all, in this conversation, get out of your heads the idea of the UN has "rules" and replace that with the term "guiding principles" and "declarations" since that is about as far as the Charter's language can be taken. The reason for th is is due to there being no higher authority that enforces them, on nations of the UN, other than the nations themselves.

Basically, you can view the UNSC as a lynch mob taking power into its own hands when it bloody well feels like it, and when it can unanimously agree to get out of its own/each other's way to do so.

The extremely bad image the United states are suffering from these days in many countries that used to be their most stalwart allies is one of them. As long as the United Nations have no way to sanction a nation with veto rights, getting some "booo"s from the crowd is all that's gonna happen, though. B)

Yes, on both counts. Those costs are in the long term, and ignored as "not my problem" by the Bushco. Those folks live in the Now, knowing they had at most 8 years to try their hands.

Occhi

[Jester]

I don't think there is a single significant country in the world willing to give up enough sovereignty to the UN to actually give it that kind of power.

Perhaps this is true, although I suspect that most countries will be convinced in time. Those likely to be holdouts are fairly predictable, and, sadly, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons: Russia, the US, Israel, China, along with various and sundry dictatorships.

I fear that a failure to develop a useful sense of ourselves as a species, or at least as a planet, will lead very quickly to our deaths as technology progresses. A species which cannot stop killing itself with increasingly powerful explosions is not a species with a long time to live.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

But someday, hopefully someday soon, the force will build for transforming the impotent-though-well-intentioned United Nations into a true international authority, and perhaps from there into a world government. And no, I don't feel fine.

-Jester

Not interested in the UED coming to life, thanks, Jester.

Occhi

[Jester]

Not interested in the UED coming to life, thanks, Jester.

Occhi

If people could be trusted, we would have no need for leaders.

If leaders could be trusted, we would have no need for nations.

If nations could be trusted, we would have no need world government.

But they can't.

Probably, our species can't be trusted with itself either, and we're pretty much on our way to extinction some time in the next couple thousand years. But I remain hopeful, if skeptical.

-Jester

[Swiss Mercenary]

Extinction? Unlikely. For all accounts, nuclear war wouldn't cause extinction. It'll be hell, but plenty of people will survive.

[Jester]

Extinction? Unlikely. For all accounts, nuclear war wouldn't cause extinction. It'll be hell, but plenty of people will survive.

The explosions will get bigger. Nuclear weapons are, very likely, only the beginning of what we're capable of. I have a huge amount of faith in science and technology to provide us with bigger and better tools. I have grave doubts about what we'll do with them.

But, really, is a near-extinction a heck of a lot better? I mean, I'll take it, but... yeesh.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Uh, no. The modern executive is much, much more powerful than its strictly prescribed constitutional limits. This has been true since WWII, and is only getting worse.

We agree on that. I feel that though all aspects of government have been rabidly legalistic in trying to massage the constitution or pass laws to garner themselves powers. The Presidents use/abuse of power is most visible, but how many unchallenged unconstitutional laws are on the books, and how many rulings by courts have been motivated by politics rather than justice.

This strikes me as profoundly lacking in perspective. Ted Kennedy has been a spent political force for 25 years. If you disagree with him (clearly you do) that's fine. But to assign him this kind of importance is simply bizarre.

He is the leader of the gang of Progressives who pander to those who want to feed at the governments trough. This group use laws to take money from people to redistribute to those they think need it. I think we agree that some social systems are useful for those who truly need them. Ted's group uses our money to garner their political power by giving it away to their voting blocks.

Not that I particularly supported him in this, but Clinton tried to put the screws on OBL.

Yes, after our embassies were bombed there was some clandestine attempts to find him, but nothing that would have tipped him off that the US was after him. My point was that the US helped the Afghans toss out the Soviets, and we helped(favored) the Muslims in the Balkans. The "beef" that the Islamic world has with the US is our support of Israel. It seems to me that Arafat had an opportunity to establish a Palestinian state, but instead abused his power and frittered away the best chance for peace there in our lifetime. But, I think the extremists have a twisted religious agenda, and their enemy is the entire non-Islamic and even Islamic states they deem to be corrupted. At least I think the way they attract followers is to twist the Islamic faith. My point here is that this "War" will not stop if we withdraw from Iraq, but will only move to a new battle field. Maybe not where you live, or maybe not where I live, but it will move to places where their insurgency techniques will be effective.

However, to me, the whole thing is beside the point. Step up international police and intelligence action. Revamp the intelligence community to better process the information they have. Be more vigilant in defending against terrorist attacks, especially creative, bold ones. You do not retreat. You advance in ways that actually help.

That would help. We could secure our borders in meaningful ways and stop frisking girl scouts in airports so that no one accuses you of profiling. But, we also have to fight the Islamic insurgencies that seek to create regions of chaos, Taliban like states, and try to instill civil wars.

Yes. The emphasis there being on "real". Meaning that anyone who believes in the things that he cut out of the bible (like, say, the miracles, and the divinity, and the virgin birth, etc...) is not one, or at least on shaky ground. He is saying that Christianity as it is was practiced then and is practiced now by George Bush and a hundred million Americans is, in the main, a fraud perpetrated by charlatans, although built on the sound principles of a moral philosopher. If we're down to saying that this makes Jefferson a Christian, then yes, I suppose I'm willing to settle. I would certainly still describe him as a Deist by religion, if a Christian in moral philosophy. But this is a very different Christianity indeed, and distinguished in the ways I have already outlined.

I think you misread Jefferson here. I think he wants people to approach the topic with an open mind, and apply the same free thinking and scholarship to the topic, rather than act as sheep doing and believing as they are told. This is something I too embrace. To dismiss or embrace such a fundamental belief system without scholarship is what he would deem a fraud. What he has said in his letters is that he is a *real* Christian because he lives his life according to the teachings of Jesus, as opposed to the frauds and charlatans of his day that were claiming to be *true Christians*, yet attacking his faith, and clearly not following the teachings of Jesus.

I'm having serious difficulty with how it is those sentences coexist side-by-side. One says that if the extremists want Jihad (no need for the conditional, they do) that America should bring it unto them in "great measure"? And more than they can stomach? You're going to make war until the *extremists*, the ones who believe in martyrdom, cry uncle? That's war forever, as far as I'm concerned. And if those wars are anything like the one you've been carrying out, it is not the extremists who suffer most from this "Jihad" you bring them in "great measure". It's the ordinary people of those countries.

Who is killing them? Do you have a breakdown of who has been killing whom in Iraq for the past 5 years?

And then, next sentence, you're saying we have to expose the warmongers on both sides. What? Didn't you just recommend a Jihad? How does that not make you a warmonger? Because you are willing to make peace, if only the crazies stop being crazy? That's never going to happen. Never. So, what you are suggesting, if I am reading you right, is perpetual war.

What I'm saying is that we should always endeavor to be peaceful and dedicate our lives to building, but when some group like these Islamic extremists brings the fight to us, then we should endeavor with great resolve to finish it. It is so much easier to destroy than create, as evidenced by the Twin Towers. To be passive in the face of a group bent on destruction is extremely foolish. While we run around trying to arrest, and put them on trial our societies will be crumbling down around us.

I implore the United States: do *not* play right into Osama Bin Laden's hands by alienating half the world. The extremists are looking for Jihad. It is precisely what they are trying to provoke. They believe (sound familiar?) that God wants this war. They want to be the heroes and martyrs of the great war against the infidel. Why on earth would you want to give it to them? Why not just let them languish in their dank caves, and work instead to cut off their resources, track them down, infiltrate their organizations?

Because they are not in their dank caves anymore. They are in London, Toronto, Detroit, Frankfurt, Milan, Bangkok, etc. etc. etc. -- all that is fed from the caves is the propaganda. For about $20 in materials I could make an IED. The secret of bomb making is to find a strong container, then pack it with the explosive power needed to destroy it. A high school level of chemistry is sufficient. How are you going to stop the money flow? A dedicated terrorist organization can blend with the populations (e.g. doctors in London) while earning the means to fund their bomb factory. I think the only way to stop it is to try to cut off the head of the snake, while also making it lethal to be a snake. I think then the snake will choose to change into a bunny. Or, we just sit by and watch them destroy each other like,

For those who are left in Iraq, life is now unbearable. Islamist militants who seek a theocratic state in Iraq see no place for the “non-believer” Mandaeans there, and thus have undertaken a process of ethnic cleansing. Militants demand that Mandaeans convert to Islam, or face violence and possible death. Mandaean women, accustomed to their religion’s traditional system of gender equality, are forced to wear veils and have been frequent targets of kidnapping and rape, after which they are often killed. Violence and threats are used to expel Mandaeans from communities.

[kandrathe]

"You know, this President Bush had commuted Scooter Libby because he felt that 30 months in jail for four felonies was way too harsh, so he reduced it a little back to nothing, zero. See, that's called the rich white guy reduction. See, that's 'cause his name's Scooter. There's not a lot of guys named Jamal gettin' that deal. Nah, Jamal is doin' 30 months for jaywalking." --Jay Leno

However, Scooter was convicted of not properly remembering a conversation he had with a reporter who never published her interview notes. Had he been convicted of outing Mrs. Wilson, then the sentence might have been just. Meanwhile, the guy (Dick Armitage working for Colin Powell) who admitted telling Mr. Novak about Mrs. Wilson (and Mr. Novak did publish the outing) is quietly enjoying his life and career.

[kandrathe]

If people could be trusted, we would have no need for leaders. If leaders could be trusted, we would have no need for nations. If nations could be trusted, we would have no need world government.

Even small tribes had leaders, and in fact, multiple leaders. They had a leader of the peaceful tribe, sometimes a leader for war, and leaders for their religion. It is the human condition that we form societies to simultaneously grasp for both freedoms and rules, and in order to insure them we choose leaders to help protect and enforce and also arbitrators of our internal conflicts.

[Thecla]

However, Scooter was convicted of not properly remembering a conversation he had with a reporter who never published her interview notes.

No, Libby was convicted of lying to a grand jury, making false statements to the FBI, and obstructing a probe into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. The things he lied about were central to what the FBI was investigating. It was stupid of Libby to commit perjury, but this was not a 'fishing' mission.

[kandrathe]

No, Libby was convicted of lying to a grand jury, making false statements to the FBI, and obstructing a probe into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. The things he lied about were central to what the FBI was investigating. It was stupid of Libby to commit perjury, but this was not a 'fishing' mission.

And, as it turns out, it is two reporters word versus his what is the truth. My comment was that all the others who lied to the grand jury, and the people who actually leaked her identity suffer no consequences. If we are going to start convicting politicians of lying, we will need to build some more prisons in the Virginia area. Also consider that the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity published by Novak went on for 3 years after the person responsible confessed to the act. Similar to all the past Special Prosecutors and Independent Counsels thus far, if you don't get the original target then you still need a pound of flesh to justify your existence. You're right though, if Scooter lied to the investigators and the grand jury it was wrong. However, he's not the only one who did in this case. Should we go get them all and imprison them?

Here is Don Imus's take on Tim Russert's veracity. Maybe we need more investigation into who are the bigger liars, reporters or politicians.

[Jester]

I think the only way to stop it is to try to cut off the head of the snake, while also making it lethal to be a snake. I think then the snake will choose to change into a bunny.

Perhaps this is at the core of it.

I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that you are going to subdue the extremists by force. You could kill the 100 most important terrorists in the world, and all that would do is promote the next 100. You cannot "cut off its head" so long as it retains the ability to grow new heads, and that is a matter of what people believe.

If you pursue this method, you will fight them forever. It is happening now, they grow in number as you diminish. As you say, easier to destroy than create, and you will end up being the destroyers until finally you are exhausted, and they will still hate you. What began as an irrational, fanatical minority would become the enraged majority, made hopeless and angry by ceaseless, senseless violence.

"Snakes" only become "bunnies" if they have an incentive to do so. Violence does not create that incentive. It removes it.

-Jester

[Thecla]

My comment was that all the others who lied to the grand jury, and the people who actually leaked her identity suffer no consequences.

No, your comment was that Jamal, oops I mean Libby, was convicted of forgotting what he said to some reporters (that was certainly his defense). Fitzgerald did not believe Libby had simply forgotten, and neither did the Jury (nor do I). But whatever my opinion, or your opinion, about the rights and wrongs of the case, there is no argument about what Libby was actually convicted for, and it wasn't for forgetting something he said to reporters.

Also consider that the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity published by Novak went on for 3 years after the person responsible confessed to the act. Similar to all the past Special Prosecutors and Independent Counsels thus far, if you don't get the original target then you still need a pound of flesh to justify your existence.

I certainly agree that, for example, the transmogrification of a case about a failed Arkansas real estate deal into a case about perjury concerning sex with an intern (a subject where it's not just politicians that lie; rock stars probably lie about it in the other direction) is an instance of a special prosecutor run amock.

But I just don't see that with the Libby case. The conviction stemed directly from the specific case: Fitzgerald investigated the CIA leak and Libby lied about his role in it. Should Fitzgerald have said one week in, or whatever it was: "Oh it was Armitage that did it first, so even if others might have benn involved I'll just close up shop"? Or should he have ignored Libby's perjury? (He gave an impassioned speech about the importance of getting truthful evidence at the press conference where he announced the indictment.) If Libby had told the truth, there likely wouldn't have an indictment and the case would've been closed. Or perhaps, with truthful testimony, Fitzgerald would have concluded that there was a violation of law and indicted Libby (or someone else) for revealing Plame's covert CIA status.

Scooter lied to the investigators and the grand jury it was wrong. However, he's not the only one who did in this case. Should we go get them all and imprison them?

Well, I suspect that if anyone else was close to being indicted, it was Karl Rove; but he (or his lawyer) came clean about his contacts just soon enough to avert that.

As far as the lack of indictments on the original charge of leaking Valerie Plame's identity goes, the standards for meeting that charge are pretty high; but how do you know if they've been met or not without an investigation? Probably in the UK, Armitage, Libby, Rove, Fleischer, Novak and maybe several others, would be in jail already for violations of the official secrets act (ike the two people who leaked a still secret document that apparently indicates Blair had to dissuade Bush from bombing Al Jazeera in Qatar). Fortunately, the US has much more robust protections of freedom of information than the UK, though an end result of the Fitzgerald prosecution may be to weaken them in some respects.

[kandrathe]

If you pursue this method, you will fight them forever. It is happening now, they grow in number as you diminish. As you say, easier to destroy than create, and you will end up being the destroyers until finally you are exhausted, and they will still hate you. What began as an irrational, fanatical minority would become the enraged majority, made hopeless and angry by ceaseless, senseless violence.

Actually, there is evidence to the contrary. I think if competent measures were made to prevent terrorists from having mobility and safe harbor, that the strategy of eliminating or neutralizing them would work. It worked for the British in Malaysia.

[kandrathe]

Well, I suspect that if anyone else was close to being indicted...

I'll be more direct. Russert was discovered to be lying on his affidavit to the grand jury, which is perjury, obstruction of justice, yada, yada, yada... Valerie Plame's story changed three different times as to who recommended her husband to do the work in Nigeria. This case was about finding someone who allegedly leaked the identity of a clandestine CIA operative, but it was the prosecutor Fitzgerald that was ordered by the judge to quit leaking court material to the press.

You refuse to acknowledge that the Plame investigation seems to have been a politically motivated attempt to discredit Rove, Cheney and the VP's office, when in fact the investigators knew before the investigation began that it was Richard Armitage (Powell's office in the State Dept) who confessed to be the leaker of Plame to Novak. No, this seems to me to have been a witch hunt, and they didn't stop until they found someone to burn. If Scooter lied, then he lied to his boss first, and then his friends, and then the grand jury. Why would he do that? Why would he maintain that he thought it was Russert who told him of Plame? And, what of the close relationship of Andrea Mitchell close friend (works for Russert at NBC news, wife of Alan Greenspan) to Colin Powell? Could it be that the biggest mouth in Washington (Armitage) was blabbing at one of the functions that Mitchell attended? I said before that Ms. Plame's identity was the worst kept secret in Washington. It seems a stretch to think that perhaps everyone knew at NBC news except Tim Russert, and granted to think that Scooter had to learn it from Russert is also a stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, if Scooter is a witch, there are many more that should burn with him. Looking at the Democrats however, I am astonished by their zealousness in suddenly embracing the rule of law. Funny how vehemently they argued the other side of the equation when it was Bill Clinton twisting in the wind under similar scrutiny or when he was pardoning his 1/2 brother Roger for selling cocaine. Even now, you are arguing that it's acceptable to commit perjury, or obstruct justice when it is merely a case about sexual harassment.

Oh, and by the way... The Jamal argument is fictitious. Show me some evidence that perpetrators in huge numbers are getting slapped with excessive jail time for non-violent offenses. I think it is quite the opposite (at least where I live). The incarceration rate where I live is like 0.17%. The only exception I've seen in excessive sentences is when laws are made to legislate sentencing guidelines, which then sometimes ensnare the wrong people (e.g. mandatory minimum, or 3 strikes laws).

[Jester]

Actually, there is evidence to the contrary. I think if competent measures were made to prevent terrorists from having mobility and safe harbor, that the strategy of eliminating or neutralizing them would work. It worked for the British in Malaysia.

I presume you are referring to the Malaysian Emergency?

Not equivalent. A handful of Chinese Communist rabble-rousers in a country full of Malays who could mostly care less is nothing like what the US are dealing with in Iraq. National sentiment was for the British, not against them. That this is definitely not true in Iraq is clearly evidenced by the composition of the Insurrection. You would not be seen as allies helping deal with a nuisance, but as colonialists and opressors come to fight Islam. (You yourself were perfectly happy embracing the idea of it being a 'Jihad', hardly an outlook that encourages local collaboration.)

Terrorists can be denied "mobility and safe harbor" if the population that would presumably harbour them supports you in this. The population in Iraq, overwhelmingly, no longer does, and really only ever did in Dick Cheney's fantasy world. If you expect a warmer reception in Iran, or Syria, or Lebanon, or anywhere in the Islamic world, I'm not quite sure why.

-Jester

[Thecla]

You refuse to acknowledge that the Plame investigation seems to have been a politically motivated attempt to discredit Rove, Cheney and the VP's office

That's because it wasn't. But I'll agree hypothetically with a couple of statements: If Libby had simply made an honest mistake, instead of deliberately and knowingly lieing to the Grand Jury, then the verdict would be a miscarriage of justice; and if other people had done the same thing, then they should've been prosectuted too. The prosecutor (who had no political bone to pick) clearly decided that neither of these circumstances applied, but you're welcome to hold your own opinion.

Even now, you are arguing that it's acceptable to commit perjury, or obstruct justice when it is merely a case about sexual harassment.

I said no such thing.

Oh, and by the way... The Jamal argument is fictitious. Show me some evidence that perpetrators in huge numbers are getting slapped with excessive jail time for non-violent offenses. I think it is quite the opposite (at least where I live). The incarceration rate where I live is like 0.17%. The only exception I've seen in excessive sentences is when laws are made to legislate sentencing guidelines, which then sometimes ensnare the wrong people (e.g. mandatory minimum, or 3 strikes laws).

Well, I think I'll avoid a general debate about the US justice system. :) But it is hard not to derive some satisfaction from the spectacle of a tough-on-crime president commuting a tough sentence the moment it's given to a member of his own administration.;)