|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Justice for Scooter Libby? Philip V. Brennan I don't know whether Scooter Libby deliberately lied to a grand jury and the FBI, or was simply forgetful when he testified. The jury says he did and I am almost always fully supportive of the verdict of 12 men (and women) "good and true." To my mind, juries are the ultimate authority, their judgment superior to even that of judges, a concept frequently under attack and frequently concealed from jurors by the courts. In this case, however, I tend to wonder about the wisdom of the 11 men and women (one jury member was tossed off the panel during its deliberations) who found Mr. Libby guilty of four serious violations of the law, namely perjury and obstruction of justice. And the reason for my doubt was the bizarre behavior of this jury. Over a period of nearly 10 days, this jury widely seen as a thoughtful, well-educated group, continuously asked the judge questions that revealed a shocking ignorance of the most basic facts of the case and the rules of evidence. In one shocking incident, they actually asked his honor if Libby could be found guilty of lying to a journalist. Time after time during those 10 days they professed their confusion over the law and the facts of the case. They didn't even seem to understand the concept of reasonable doubt or what constituted that bedrock foundation of the judicial process. After a while, I began to wonder when they would ask the judge how to spell the words innocent or guilty. Story Continues Below
One of the foundations of our judicial system is the right of a defendant to be tried by a jury of his peers. This jury displayed absolutely no evidence of being anything even close to his equal. He was judged by a jury of what appears to have been well-educated legal dunces. Let's be clear about this: I don't know Mr. Libby, nor do I admire much about what I have heard about him, especially his covert role as part of a cabal that long agitated behind the scenes for the U.S. attack on Iraq for motives not associated with the stated reason for the invasion. I do not find him to be my cup of tea. Libby, however, was entitled to far better treatment than he received at the hands of a prosecutor whose own behavior was shocking. Consider that Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to determine if a specific law concerning the exposure of the identity of members of the intelligence community, in this case the CIA, was violated in the case of one Valerie Plame Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed to determine if that law was violated by the naming of Mrs. Wilson, and if it was, to identify the person who leaked her name to the media. In order to apply the law, Mr. Fitzgerald was required to show that Mrs. Wilson was covered under the law — that she was indeed a covert agent who had served abroad in the past five years as the law specifically required. And although he now maintains otherwise, because she was neither a covert agent nor had served abroad in the past five years the law had not been violated, and the need to carry the investigation further, eliminated. Moreover, if Mrs. Wilson had qualified for covert agent status, Mr. Fitzgerald was required to identify the individual who leaked her name to the media. For months afterward, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had not specifically found her to be covered under the law, continued to allegedly pursue the identity of the leaker, this allowing the names of men who he knew to be innocent to be bruited about in public as the guilty parties. This despite the fact that from the very beginning of his investigation he knew the identity of the leaker. In short, the investigation should have been closed and Mr. Fitzgerald should have gone back to Chicago. Instead he went forward, attempting to justify his existence as a special prosecutor by indicting somebody for something and poor Mr. Libby fell into his sights. Did Libby lie? I don't know. But the whole thing is a can of worms that should have been shut the minute its contents were obvious. Instead it took months upon months and consumed millions of our tax dollars and in the end netted exactly one questionable guilty verdict. Sending him to prison will serve no purpose other than to satisfy the Bush haters who are delighted by the verdict. In the meantime, Mr. Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former national security adviser, goes all but Scot free after committing serious felonies involving the national security of the United States. Bill Clinton pardoned a notorious fugitive — Marc Rich — who was wanted by the assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York for tax evasion, fraud, and "trading with the enemy" — in this case Iran, during the hostage crisis. If he could do that, then President Bush should be able to pardon a man who appears to have been unjustly convicted by an incompetent jury. Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor and publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He can be reached at pvb@pvbr.com. Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |