Jim Crow [and you thought it was the 21st century]

The topic, obviously, is racism — the first three reads are about the Jena Six, and if you don’t know who they are, you should — find out below. The last piece is from our own Steve Bergstein, on Clarence Thomas and his attack on free speech. I include him because Thomas is, to me, a poster child for “confused psyche” … kind of like gay Republicans — what the HELL are they thinking??? When you get cozy with repression, is it just too comfy to reject? Bizarre behavior from this man of color … the one with the lifetime appointment.

Jim Crow — alive and well … and judicial inequities that still defy wisdom. The only change from the old-white-guy mentality of the 1950’s is the reported conversation, especially among Louisiana State students, included. There’s hope for tomorrow … if we can just hang on ’til it gets here.

Me’thinks the whole noose business qualifies as “hate crime” — but the conservatives don’t think it’s hate, they think it’s god-given exceptionalism — and nothing the Supreme Court has done in the last week has helped that one bit.

Jude

Injustice in Jena as Nooses Hang From the “White Tree”
Bill Quigley, t r u t h o u t | Report
Tuesday 03 July 2007

All white jury sitting before white judge agrees with white prosecutor and all white witnesses and convicts black youth in racially charged high school criminal case.

In a small, still mostly segregated, section of rural Louisiana, an all white jury heard a series of white witnesses called by a white prosecutor testify in a courtroom overseen by a white judge in a trial of a fight at the local high school where a white student who had been making racial taunts was hit by black students. The fight was the culmination of a series of racial incidents starting when whites responded to black students sitting under the “white tree” at their school by hanging three nooses from the tree. The white jury and white prosecutor and all white supporters of the white victim were all on one side of the courtroom. The black defendant, 17-year-old Mychal Bell, and his supporters were on the other. The jury quickly convicted Mychal Bell of two felonies - aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery. Bell, who was a 16-year-old sophomore football star at the time he was arrested, faces up to 22 years in prison. Five other black youths await similar trials on second-degree attempted murder and conspiracy charges.

Yes, you read that correctly. The rest of the story, which is being reported across the world in papers in China, France and England, is just as chilling.

The trouble started under “the white tree” in front of Jena High School. The “white tree” is where the white students, 80 percent of the student body, would always sit during school breaks.

In September 2006, a black student at Jena high school asked permission from school administrators to sit under the “white tree.” School officials advised them to sit wherever they wanted. They did. The next day, three nooses, in the school colors, were hanging from the “white tree.” The message was clear. “Those nooses meant the KKK, they meant ‘Niggers, we’re going to kill you, we’re going to hang you till you die,’” Casteptla Bailey, a mother of one of the students, told the London Observer.

The Jena high school principal found that three white students were responsible and recommended expulsion. The white superintendent of schools over-ruled the principal and gave the students a three-day suspension saying the nooses were just a youthful stunt. “Adolescents play pranks,” the superintendent told the Chicago Tribune, “I don’t think it was a threat against anybody.”

The African-American community was hurt and upset. “Hanging those nooses was a hate crime, plain and simple,” according to Tracy Bowens, a mother of students at Jena High.

But blacks in this area of Louisiana have little political power. The ten-person, all-male government of the parish has one African-American member. The nine-member, all-male school board has one African-American member. (A person called the local school board trying to find out the racial makeup of the school board, and was told there was one “colored” member of the board). There is one black police officer in Jena and two black public school teachers.

Jena, with a population of less than 3000, is the largest town in and parish (county) seat of LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. There are about 350 African-Americans in the town. LaSalle has a population of just over 14,000 people - 12 percent African-American.

This is solid Bush and David Duke Country - GWB won LaSalle Parish 4 to 1 in the last two elections; Duke carried a majority of the white vote when he ran for Governor of Louisiana. Families earn about 60 percent of the national average. The Census Bureau reports that less than 10 percent of the businesses in LaSalle Parish are black owned.

Jena is the site of the infamous Juvenile Correctional Center for Youth that was forced to close its doors in 2000, only two years after opening, due to widespread brutality and racism including the choking of juveniles by guards after a youth met with a lawyer. The US Department of Justice sued the private prison amid complaints that guards paid inmates to fight each other and laughed when teens tried to commit suicide.

Black students decided to resist and organized a sit-in under the “white tree” at the school to protest the light suspensions given to the noose-hanging white students.

The white district attorney then came to Jena High with law-enforcement officers to address a school assembly. According to testimony in a later motion in court, the DA reportedly threatened the black protesting students saying that if they didn’t stop making a fuss about this “innocent prank”, “I can be your best friend or your worst enemy. I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen.” The school was put on lockdown for the rest of the week.

Racial tensions remained high throughout the fall.

On the night of Thursday November 30, 2006, a still-unsolved fire burned down the main academic building of Jena High School.

On Friday night, December 1, a black student who showed up at a white party was beaten by whites. On Saturday, December 2, a young white man pulled out a shotgun in a confrontation with young black men at the Gotta Go convenience store outside Jena before the men wrestled it away from him. The black men who took the shotgun away were later arrested; no charges were filed against the white man.

On Monday, December 4, at Jena High, a white student - who allegedly had been making racial taunts, including calling African-American students “niggers” while supporting the students who hung the nooses and who beat up the black student at the off-campus party - was knocked down, punched and kicked by black students. The white victim was taken to the hospital treated and released. He attended a social function that evening.

Six black Jena students were arrested and charged with second-degree attempted murder. All six were expelled from school.

The six charged were: 17-year-old Robert Bailey Junior whose bail was set at $138,000; 17-year-old Theo Shaw - bail $130,000; 18-year-old Carwin Jones - bail $100,000; 17-year-old Bryant Purvis - bail $70,000; 16-year-old Mychal Bell, a sophomore in high school who was charged as an adult and for whom bail was set at $90,000; and a still unidentified minor.

Many of the young men, who came to be known as the Jena Six, stayed in jail for months. Few families could afford bond or private attorneys.

Mychal Bell remained in jail from December 2006 until his trial because his family was unable to post the $90,000 bond. Theo Shaw has also remained in jail. Several of the other defendants remained in jail for months until their families could raise sufficient money to put up bonds.

The Chicago Tribune wrote a powerful story headlined “Racial Demons Rear Heads.” The London Observer wrote: “Jena is gaining national notoriety as an example of the new ’stealth’ racism, showing how lightly sleep the demons of racial prejudice in America’s Deep South, even in the year that a black man, Barak Obama, is a serious candidate for the White House.” The British Broadcasting Company aired a TV special report titled “Race Hate in Louisiana 2007.”

The Jena Six and their families were put under substantial pressure to plead guilty. Mychal Bell was reported to have been leaning towards pleading guilty right up until his trial when he decided he would not plead guilty to a felony.

When it finally came, the trial of Mychal Bell was swift. Bell was represented by an appointed public defender.

On the morning of the trial, the DA reduced the charges from second-degree attempted murder to second-degree aggravated battery and conspiracy. Aggravated battery in Louisiana law demands the attack be with a dangerous weapon. The dangerous weapon? The prosecutor was allowed to argue to the jury that the tennis shoes worn by Bell could be considered a dangerous weapon used by “the gang of black boys” who beat the white victim.

Most shocking of all, when the pool of potential jurors was summoned, fifty people appeared - every single one white.

The LaSalle Parish clerk defended the all white group to the Alexandria Louisiana Town Talk newspaper saying that the jury pool was selected by computer. “The venire [panel of prospective jurors] is color-blind. The idea is for the list to truly reflect the racial makeup of the community, but the system does not take race into factor.” Officials said they had summoned 150 people, but these were the only people who showed up.

The all-white jury which was finally chosen included two people friendly with the district attorney, a relative of one of the witnesses and several others who were friends of prosecution witnesses.

Bell’s parents, Melissa Bell and Marcus Jones, were not even allowed to attend the trial despite their objections, because they were listed as potential witnesses. The white victim, though a witness, was allowed to stay in the courtroom. The parents, who had been widely quoted in the media as critics of the process, were also told they could no longer speak to the media as long as the trial was in session. Marcus Jones had told the media, “It’s all about those nooses” and declared the charges racially motivated.

Other supporters who planned a demonstration in support of Bell were ordered by the court not to do go near the courthouse or anywhere the judge would see them.

The prosecutor called 17 witnesses - 11 white students, three white teachers and two white nurses. Some said they saw Bell kick the victim, others said they did not see him do anything. The white victim testified that he did not know if Bell hit him or not.

The Chicago Tribune reported the public defender did not challenge the all-white jury pool, put on no evidence and called no witnesses. The public defender told the Alexandria Town Talk, after resting his case without calling any witnesses, he knew he would be second-guessed by many, but was confident that the jury would return a verdict of not guilty. “I don’t believe race is an issue in this trial. I think I have a fair and impartial jury”

The jury deliberated for less than three hours and found Mychal Bell guilty on the maximum possible charges of second-degree aggravated battery and conspiracy. He faces up to a maximum of 22 years in prison.

The public defender told the press afterwards, “I feel I put on the best defense that I could.” Responding to criticism of not putting on any witnesses, the attorney said “why open the door for further accusations? I did the best I could for my client, Mychal Bell.”

At a rally in front of the courthouse the next day, Alan Bean, a Texas minister and leader of the Friends of Justice, said: “I have seen a lot of trials in my time. And I have never seen a more distressing miscarriage of justice than what happened in LaSalle Parish yesterday.” Khadijah Rashad of Lafayette Louisiana described the trial as a “modern day lynching.”

Tory Pegram with the Louisiana ACLU has been working with the parents for months. “People know if they don’t demand equal treatment now, they will never get it. People’s jobs and livelihoods have been threatened for attending Jena Six Defense meetings, but people are willing to risk that. One person told me: ‘We have to convince more people to come rally with us … What’s the worst that could happen? They fire us from our jobs? We have the worst jobs in the town anyway. They burn a cross on our lawns or burn down my house? All of that has happened to us before. We have to keep speaking out to make sure it doesn’t happen to us again, or our children will never be safe.’”

Whites in the community were adamant that there is no racism. “We don’t have a problem,” according to one. Other locals told the media, “We all get along,” and “most blacks are happy with the way things are.” One person even said, “We don’t have many problems with our blacks.”

Melvin Worthington, the lone African-American school board member in LaSalle Parish, said it all could have been avoided. “There’s no doubt about it,” he told the Chicago Tribune, “whites and blacks are treated differently here. The white kids should have gotten more punishment for hanging those nooses. If they had, all the stuff that followed could have been avoided.”

Hebert McCoy, a relative of one of the youths who has been trying to raise money for bail and lawyers, challenged people everywhere at the end of the rally when he said: “You better get out of your houses. You better come out and defend your children - because they are incarcerating them by the thousands. Jena’s not the beginning, but Jena has crossed the line. Justice is not right when you put on the wrong charges and then convict. I believe in justice. I believe in the point of law. I believe in accepting the punishment if I’m guilty. If I’m guilty, convict me and punishment, but if I’m innocent, no justice.” The crowd joined with him and shouted, “No peace!”

What happened to the white guys? The white victim of the beating was later arrested for bringing a hunting rifle loaded with 13 bullets onto the high school campus and released on $5000 bond. The white man who beat up the black youth at the off-campus party was arrested and charged with simple battery. The white students who hung up the nooses in the “white tree” were never charged.

Since the arrests, a group of family members have been holding well-attended meetings, and have created a defense fund- The Jena Six Defense Committee. They have received support from the NAACP, the Louisiana ACLU and Friends of Justice. For more information: The Jena Six Defense Committee, PO Box 2798, Jena, LA 71342 jena6defense@gmail.com; Friends of Justice, 507 North Donley Avenue, Tulia, TX 79088 www.fojtulia.org; or the ACLU of Louisiana, PO Box 56157, New Orleans, LA 70156 www.laaclu.org or 417-350-0536.

What is next? The rest of the Jena Six await similar trials. Theodore Shaw is due to go on trial shortly. Mychal Bell is scheduled to be sentenced July 31. If he gets the maximum sentence he will not be out of prison until he is nearly 40. Meanwhile, the “white tree” outside Jena High sits quietly in the hot sun.

Racial demons rear heads
After months of unrest between blacks and whites in Louisiana town, some see racism and uneven justice
Howard Witt, Chicago Tribune
Published May 20, 2007

JENA, La. — The trouble in Jena started with the nooses. Then it rumbled along the town’s jagged racial fault lines. Finally, it exploded into months of violence between blacks and whites.

Now the 3,000 residents of this small lumber and oil town deep in the heart of central Louisiana are confronting Old South racial demons many thought had long ago been put to rest.

One morning last September, students arrived at the local high school to find three hangman’s nooses dangling from a tree in the courtyard.

The tree was on the side of the campus that, by long-standing tradition, had always been claimed by white students, who make up more than 80 percent of the 460 students. But a few of the school’s 85 black students had decided to challenge the accepted state of things and asked school administrators if they, too, could sit beneath the tree’s cooling shade.

“Sit wherever you want,” school officials told them. The next day, the nooses were hanging from the branches.

African-American students and their parents were outraged and intimidated by the display, which instantly summoned memories of the mob lynchings that once terrorized blacks across the American South. Three white students were quickly identified as being responsible, and the high school principal recommended that they be expelled.

“Hanging those nooses was a hate crime, plain and simple,” said Tracy Bowens, a black mother of two students at the high school who protested the incident at a school board meeting.

But Jena’s white school superintendent, Roy Breithaupt, ruled that the nooses were just a youthful stunt and suspended the students for three days, angering blacks who felt harsher punishments were justified.

“Adolescents play pranks,” said Breithaupt, the superintendent of the LaSalle Parish school system. “I don’t think it was a threat against anybody.”

Yet it was after the noose incident that the violent, racially charged events that are still convulsing Jena began.

First, a series of fights between black and white students erupted at the high school over the nooses. Then, in late November, unknown arsonists set fire to the central wing of the school, which still sits in ruins. Off campus, a white youth beat up a black student who showed up at an all-white party. A few days later, another young white man pulled a shotgun on three black students at a convenience store.

Finally, on Dec. 4, a group of black students at the high school allegedly jumped a white student on his way out of the gym, knocked him unconscious and kicked him after he hit the floor. The victim — allegedly targeted because he was a friend of the students who hung the nooses and had been taunting blacks — was not seriously injured and spent only a few hours in the hospital.

But the LaSalle Parish district attorney, Reed Walters, opted to charge six black students with attempted second-degree murder and other offenses, for which they could face a maximum of 100 years in prison if convicted. All six were expelled from school.

To the defendants, their families and civil rights groups that have examined the events, the attempted murder charges brought by a white prosecutor are excessive and part of a pattern of uneven justice in the town.

The critics note, for example, that the white youth who beat the black student at the party was charged only with simple battery, while the white man who pulled the shotgun at the convenience store wasn’t charged with any crime at all. But the three black youths in that incident were arrested and accused of aggravated battery and theft after they wrestled the weapon from the man — in self-defense, they said.

“There’s been obvious racial discrimination in this case,” said Joe Cook, executive director of the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, who described Jena as a “racial powder keg” primed to ignite. “It appears the black students were singled out and targeted in this case for some unusually harsh treatment.”

That’s how the mother of one of the defendants sees things as well.

“They are sending a message to the white kids, ‘You have committed this hate crime, you were taunting these black children, and we are going to allow you to continue doing what you are doing,’” said Caseptla Bailey, mother of Robert Bailey Jr.

Bailey, 17, is caught up in several of the Jena incidents, as both a victim and alleged perpetrator. He was the black student who was beaten at the party, and he was among the students arrested for allegedly grabbing the shotgun from the man at the convenience store. And he’s one of the six students charged with attempted murder for the Dec. 4 attack.

The district attorney declined repeated requests to be interviewed for this story. But other white leaders insist there are no racial tensions in the community, which is 85 percent white and 12 percent black.

“Jena is a place that’s moving in the right direction,” said Mayor Murphy McMillan. “Race is not a major local issue. It’s not a factor in the local people’s lives.”

Still others, however, acknowledge troubling racial undercurrents in a town where only 16 years ago white voters cast most of their ballots for David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader who ran unsuccessfully for Louisiana governor.

“I’ve lived here most of my life, and the one thing I can state with absolutely no fear of contradiction is that LaSalle Parish is awash in racism — true racism,” a white Pentecostal preacher, Eddie Thompson, wrote in an essay he posted on the Internet. “Here in the piney woods of central Louisiana … racism and bigotry are such a part of life that most of the citizens do not even recognize it.”

The lone black member of the school board agrees.

“There’s no doubt about it — whites and blacks are treated differently here,” said Melvin Worthington, who was the only school board member to vote against expelling the six black students charged in the beating case. “The white kids should have gotten more punishment for hanging those nooses. If they had, all the stuff that followed could have been avoided.”

And the troubles at the high school are not over yet.

On May 10, police arrested Justin Barker, 17, the white victim of the Dec. 4 beating. He was alleged to have a rifle loaded with 13 bullets stashed behind the seat of his pickup truck parked in the school lot. Barker told police he had forgotten it was there and had no intention of using it.

University students shocked, angered by events in Jena
Nicholas Persac, LSU Daily Reveille
6/28/07

As the trial of a black student accused of beating his white classmate is underway, University students expressed contempt for the circumstances surrounding the racially-charged events.

Mychal Bell is the first of six black students from Jena High School to go on trial for allegedly beating a white classmate after a semester of racial tensions stirred violence within the small community.

According to the Associated Press, controversy this past August arose at the start of the school year when a black student sat under a tree on school property that is considered by students as a white area to congregate. The next day three nooses hung from the same tree to intimidate the black students, reports said.

When the Jena High School principal recommended the white students responsible for the nooses be expelled, Jena’s school superintendent Roy Breithaupt reduced their punishment to a three-day suspension from school.

Breithaupt said he was dismissing their actions as a mere adolescent prank, angering much of the black community who felt harsher punishments were necessary, according to the AP.

Then in November, a young white man allegedly threatened three black students with a shotgun in a convenience store. The man who allegedly pulled the gun was not charged with any crime.

As racial tensions continued to mount, a black student was beaten by a white classmate for attending an all-white, off-campus party. The white attacker was charged with simple battery.

Finally in December a group of six black students allegedly jumped and beat a white student who was associated with the noose prank and had been jeering at the black students. The white student, although reportedly knocked unconscious, was seen in public later the same night.

All six black students were not only expelled from Jena High School, but also charged with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder, which combine to carry a maximum sentence of 80 years in prison if convicted.

LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters reduced Bell’s charges Monday to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery. The combined charges carry a sentence of up to 22 1/2 years in prison if convicted. It is unclear if prosecutors will reduce the charges of the remaining defendants.

Further compounding the racial difficulties of the case is the jury selection that took place earlier this week. According to the AP, because of the low number of blacks in Jena - about 350 out of 2,900 residents - the six-person jury is entirely made up of white adults. Blacks were not present in the jury pool. Blacks represent 12 percent of the population, and whites account for nearly 85 percent in Jena.

Katlin Crooks, geography junior and a 2005 graduate of Jena High School, said racial difficulties have always been present at the high school.

“There has always been a little tension between whites and blacks,” Crooks said. “We have [at Jena High School] what we call the square, which is basically a big grassy area in the middle of our school. It was always blacks on one side and whites on the other.”
Crooks said she thinks the reduced punishment did not fit the alleged crime.

“I think they should have been expelled,” Crooks said. “If I was black, I would really take that [display of nooses] to heart and I would want to make it a harsher punishment.”

Crooks said while she thinks the charges facing the black students are extreme, they must still suffer the consequences of their actions.

“The [attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder] charges went a little too far, but I think they do need to pay for their actions.”

As a Jena resident, Crooks said she feels the court’s findings will be fair and that the people of her hometown are more objective about the situation that it appears to people outside the town.

“I know a lot of articles I’ve read are making our town - the white community - seem really racist, and that’s not the case at all,” Crooks said. “A lot of people are for both sides. They know … [both sides] should be punished. It is not really that everybody is racist, but there are some [people] that are. A lot of people [here] see both sides of the story. A lot of people are neutral, and a lot of people [here] want to see this thing come to a rest.”

Crooks acknowledged her hometown has its problems.

“I don’t want to say that everybody is a racist, but there are a few [people] that would be, especially in our older white community than in us younger kids,” she said. “I guess it’s because of the way they were brought up.”

Derrick Petit, political science and history senior and member of the University’s Black Student Union, said expelling the students in question would have sent a stronger message of not tolerating racial discrimination at Jena High School.

“If they had been expelled, other students would see how serious it is,” Petit said. “By seeing the superintendent on their side, the superintendent became [the students'] ally, making no limit on what they can do. The superintendent should be investigated for his actions.”

Petit said the original punishment of the students who hung the nooses may have prevented the instances of physical violence.

“If the expulsion and punishment would have been upheld, the black students would have felt equal to the white students, and I believe it wouldn’t have gotten to this point,” Petit said.

According to Westley Bayas, political science senior and a member of the Black Student Union, the school failed to meet the needs of black students by reducing the students’ punishments.

“It’s important for the school to make all students - regardless of race - feel comfortable,” Bayas said. “And in allowing such actions to be punished so weakly, the school failed to do this for black students.”

University students said they were confused and appalled by the inconsistency of the charges.

“It’s ridiculous that we still have that kind of discrimination in government and society,” said Kelly Guilbau, psychology junior. “[Both the black and white students] beat up another kid and that’s all it comes down to. I mean, the color of skin has nothing to do with how hard you hit someone.”

Joe Brown, civil engineering sophomore, was upset after learning of the noose display.

“It’s one thing for freedom of speech,” Brown said, “But to demonstrate that, it’s out of order.”

Brown said he believes if the two instances are indeed found to be similar, the punishments should be comparable.

“They should [get] the same punishment,” Brown said. “I would have made them work together, to do some kind of community service where they were forced to cooperate with each other. Separation makes them still hateful towards each other, where if they’re forced to come together, then it should work out.”

Brown said he hopes the students will be able to seek trial in a more just courtroom.

“I just hope they can at least appeal to a more fair court,” Brown said.

Nyk Robberson, political science sophomore, said he also thinks the all-white jury will unfairly sentence the black students.

“The area is 85 percent white, so, you know, there’s no need to even infer what’s going to happen,” Robberson said. “In the black community, what is [seen as] right is going to be seen as unjust in the white community.”

Logan Duplechin, kinesiology senior, said he thinks discrimination on both sides exists in the case.

“Regardless if it’s black or white,” Duplechin said, “I think it’s really unfortunate that discrimination on any side has to play a part.”

Ronald Bell, mechanical engineering freshman, said the black students will mostly likely be found guilty, in part because of jury selection.

“They pretty much don’t have a chance,” Ronald Bell said. “It doesn’t look good for them.”

He said the controversial actions surrounding the case push civil rights and diversity acceptance movements backwards.

“Hopefully the people of the community come to their senses and realize how this is completely opposite [of the] direction of where we’re trying to go in this world and this is backtracking,” Ronald Bell said. “We need to try to move forward, and they need to get their acts together.”

Muzzling the students
Steve Bergstein, PsychSound
6/30/07

The best way to describe what it’s like to be a Supreme Court Justice is that a Supreme Court Justice can do whatever he damned well pleases, except that he must do it by the end of June, when the Court has to finish its work for the year and everyone runs off to their summer homes, teaches at fancy law schools or writes their memoirs.

It’s well-known that Clarence Thomas is writing his memoirs and that a publishing house has given him a huge advance. As a general rule, you don’t give Supreme Court Justices a lot of money for their memoirs, because they do not become best-sellers and most people reading them are lawyers and academics, not enough to justify a huge advance since, let’s face it, when it comes to selling books, the Supreme Court is not John Grisham.

But Clarence Thomas is different. Back in 1991, when Thurgood Marshall retired from the Supreme Court after 24 years of service, the first President Bush announced that Clarence Thomas would be appointed to replace him. This shocked everyone. Marshall was a civil rights legend, whose lawyering helpend end racial discrimination in the public schools. Marshall was already worthy of a portrait on Mount Rushmore by the time he became a Supreme Court Justice in 1967, but almost no one knew who Clarence Thomas was in 1991, when he stood next to George H.W. Bush on that summer day in Kennebunkport, Maine, looking a little frazzled when Bush told the world that Thomas was the most qualified person for the Supreme Court.

Everyone acknowledges that this announcement — that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person for the Court — was not true. It was the byproduct of a Washington D.C. culture where politicians say whatever comes to mind and overstate their case for seemingly no reason at all. What bothered everyone in this instance, though, was that Thomas was replacing Marshall, the legend. It also bothered everyone that (1) Thomas was only 43 years old; (2) Thomas appeared to be extremely conservative, having worked in the Reagan administration for eight years and (3) had no clear vision about the Constitution. For a lifetime appointment on a Court that interprets the true meaning of the Constitution for posterity, nominating a guy like this is like agreeing to marry someone on a blind date.

Then things got more interesting. After Thomas appeared before the U.S. Senate to answer questions about his constitutional philosophy (and gave the usual conservative responses without revealing much of anything about his views on the law), a lawyer who used to work for Thomas came forward and announced that Thomas had sexually harassed her and made her life miserable. Anita Hill testified about this as the nation watched in astonishment. Nothing like this had ever happened before. Most of us hadn’t even heard of sexual harassment, but Hill’s testimony seemed to provide a good primer on the subject. When she finished her testimony, Thomas got back before the Senate and proclaimed that this was a “high tech lynching” and that the sexual harassment charge was full of lies.

Nobody knew what to do. It was a classic “he said she said” scenario. Do you believe Anita, or do you believe Clarence? Someone was lying. In the end, the U.S. Senate gave Clarence Thomas the benefit of the doubt and confirmed his nomination by a vote of 52-48.

You can imagine the conversation at the publishing house when Thomas was given the huge advance for his autobiography. Clarence Thomas probably told the men with the money that he would talk about his impoverished childhood, his conservative bootstrap-philosophy, his provocative views on what ails America and a few choice anecdotes about his flirt with radical black separatism as a college student in the late 1960’s. And the men with the money probably said, “That’s fine Clarence, but you’d better say something about Anita Hill and sexual harassment.” This is because sex sells and in many ways, that dispute over whether Clarence sexually harassed Anita triggered the culture wars that remain with us today.

As we speak, Thomas is probably drafting his autobiography. The lazy days of summer may be upon us, but not for Clarence. He’s got to finish that book. I wouldn’t mind reading about Anita Hill and untangling his explanation of those events. From what I have read about Clarence Thomas over the years, he remains bitter about the confirmation battle and still holds grudges about how Democrats and liberals tried to destroy him with these sexual harassment charges out of left field. But I also wouldn’t mind reading about a trait that makes him unique among the more than 100 people who have served on the Supreme Court: almost total disregard for case precedent and his single-minded determination to re-write legal theories in the most provocative and remarkable way possible. The may not be as exciting as sexual harassment, but it’s a little more important.

This week, the Supreme Court decided a case brought by a high school student against his former school district which punished him for posting a large banner that read, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” The Court ruled against the student, finding a way to fit the case into existing precedent which generally gives students the right to express themselves at school so long as their behavior does not disrupt the school or interfere with the educational mission. I have written about the case here and here, but, in summary, the Court said that the banner was perceived as pro-drug and therefore inconsistent with the school’s mission.

This was not good enough for Clarence Thomas. He is known for staking out his own claim in Supreme Court decisions. He will agree with the end result of a Court ruling so long as it cuts against the claims of a civil rights plaintiff, but then he will write up an opinion of his own suggesting the wholesale reconsideration of decades of case precedent. His formula for this is as follows: if the framers of the Constitution in 1787 did not recognize certain freedoms, then they could not have envisioned the Constitution as embracing those freedoms. This is called “originalism” or “original intent” legal reasoning.

Conservatives like originalism because it remains the most simplistic way of solving otherwise complicated legal problems. Prisoners are complaining about their conditions of confinement? Can’t sue under the Constitution’s “Cruel and Inhuman Punishment” clause because prisoners in the 18th Century were treated like animals! Want to challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty? Sorry, the framers of the Constitution had the death penalty for all sorts of crimes. See? Originalism is easy.

Few judges and scholars believe in originalism, though. There has to be some consideration of the modern world in reading and interpreting the Constitution. Times are changing, and so is the Constitution, even if it has been amended 27 times. For this reason, even conservative judges reject originalism as a means to interpret the Constitution. Not Clarence Thomas. In the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, he wrote a particularly astonishing opinion (which no one else on the Court signed onto) stating that students in public schools should not have any free speech rights whatsoever, because that’s the way that it was in 18th and 19th Century America.

Here were Thomas’s main points (word for word):

1. During the colonial era, private schools and tutors offered the only educational opportunities for children, and teachers managed classrooms with an iron hand. Early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas. Teachers instilled these values not only by presenting ideas but also through strict discipline. Schools punished students for behavior the school considered disrespectful or wrong. Rules of etiquette were enforced, and courteous behavior was demanded. To meet their educational objectives, schools required absolute obedience.

2. In light of the history of American public education, it cannot seriously be suggested that the First Amendment “freedom of speech” encompasses a student’s right to speak in public schools. Early public schools gave total control to teachers, who expected obedience and respect from students. And courts routinely deferred to schools’ authority to make rules and to discipline students for violating those rules.

3. “Once a society that generally respected the authority of teachers, deferred to their judgment, and trusted them to act in the best interest of school children, we now accept defiance, disrespect, and disorder as daily occurrences in many of our public schools.” We need look no further than this case for an example: Frederick asserts a constitutional right to utter at a school event what is either “[g]ibberish,” or an open call to use illegal drugs. To elevate such impertinence to the status of constitutional protection would be farcical and would indeed be to “surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.”

So, in Clarence Thomas’s world, students were seen and not heard in the 1800’s, and that’s the way it should be now under the First Amendment. If the framers of the Constitution did not view student speech rights as a legitimate constitutional issue, then the current Supreme Court shouldn’t, either. Students should sit in hermetically sealed rooms with strict teachers slapping students on the knuckles with their rules, learning reading, writing and ‘rithmetic, and God help any student who expresses and opinion or speaks up for any reason.

No one else on the Supreme Court agrees with Clarence Thomas’s views on this. Thank God. I have never seen this kind of analysis in a Supreme Court opinion: wipe out all free speech rights for a class of citizens? What kind of rigid mind would endorse this view of the First Amendment? How are students going to view the world when their grade school experience consisted of sitting quietly without a peep?

I’ll say this: when the world opens up Thomas’s autobiography and flips straight to the chapter on Anita Hill and sexual harassment, I’m going to look elsewhere in the book for any kind of justification for this tortured and oppressive legal reasoning, and why, exactly, he did not tell the American public back during his confirmation hearings that he saw that world this way.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. out land cash hard money loancatholic loan homeconstruction virginia loan bank centralmalaysia loans cgcloans charterloan bank chase home equitybank chase manhattan loans autoloaning sudent chase private Map

2 comments July 3rd, 2007

Above the Law — the Emperor has spoken

“But given the fact that the judge has set up a process for appeal and given the way that the President has handled this for the past year or so, he’s not going to intervene.”
~ White House spokesperson Dana Perino, 6/5/07

VERSUS

“I respect the jury’s verdict. 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 thirty months in prison.”
~ President Bush, 7/3/07

Libby’s pardon is not the most dreadful thing Dubby has done in seven years, far from it — but it IS among the most obviously self-serving, defining his partisanship and disdain for the American public and the rule of law. George Walker Bush has performed majik — he has done what I thought impossible … made an overt and personal judgment that has occulted the thunder of Dick Cheney, if only for a bit, and given us a true reflection of the self-absorbed and classist narcissism that defines him. The man who made fun of Karla Fay Tucker begging for her life, the man who killed more prisoners in a year than any other US governor, has “saved” poor Scooter because he’s such a fine man? In a pigs ass! This was less a “compassionate” decision than a major circle-the-wagons, take-care-of-our-own, Cover Yer Ass.

Mrs. Libby had indicated that she knew where the bodies were buried and she was ready to spill, so this will effectively shut her up. The White House must know how popular they’re going to be — they shut off the comment line on their phones last night. As reported over at The Next Hurrah, Libby now retains his Fifth Amendment Rights … so he got his payoff, the Faithful will rush to gather funds to pay his quarter mil fine, and Cheney and Rove will enjoy their firewall.

Adding insult to injury, CNN seemed to wallow in rightwing opinion … and since Fox is my only option, I was caught in the cross-hairs yesterday. Thank God/dess for the web. Then, since they are doing a four-day special with the Limbaugh-wannabe, pugnacious Glenn Beck [who makes me gag,] I had to wait for a tepid Anderson Cooper before I got anything close to “mainstream.”

Mainstream, though you wouldn’t know it by the news, is aware they just got the finger from the Executive — and the Dubby may not know it yet, but I think he just lost any last smidgen of goodwill left for him in this nation … and that’s a non-partisan opinion. Only a handful wanted this man sprung — the base, 21 percent according to a Gallup poll in March. The rest of us respect the rule of law … and that’s good, because apparently it only applies to US.

Does George know he just declared war on all of us? Just dotted the “i” in cronyism, elitism, fascism? Just defined his remaining months in office? This works both ways — has he decided his numbers are so low it doesn’t matter how much he screws the pooch, is he prepared to spend those long months defended himself from public derision? For those few who still thought that poor old George was being manipulated by everyone around him, this should make it clear enough that he acts rashly and thoughtlessly all by himself. I think Dubby finally found the WMD, strapped to his chest and ready to blow.

Joe Biden [below] invites us all to flood the White House with calls — some say that won’t matter a whit. Perhaps not, but if you do that … and I encourage you to … do it for yourself , do it because you’re pissed, do it as a sign of self-respect in a nation whose government does NOT respect you, do it because NOT commenting on this elitist, self-serving manipulation of privilege will make you feel even MORE helpless in the face of its continuance. I say if you don’t call, you don’t have a right to whine about what comes next, don’t have the fire in your belly to endure the next leg of this assault on liberty, because if Bush gets away with this, unscathed, his people will be encouraged that we don’t give a rap what they do next; Bill Maher suggests that we may not even notice. But I’m not that cynical … I agree with Brzezinski, the public has had its political awakening, and even if they don’t know who Libby is, they will FEEL the weight of this commutation and its resulting ripple in the whole — FEEL the impact of Neptune dissolving the old systems including the judicial and executive. FEEL the tightening of tyranny and the loosening of liberty.

And what do the neoCons think?

“It became an issue of character and courage, really,” said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who had argued in his magazine that if Mr. Bush was not going to pardon Mr. Libby, at least he should commute his sentence. “I certainly think Bush did the right thing and I think he did something important for his presidency. I think conservatives would have lost respect for Bush if he had not commuted Libby’s sentence.”

Yes, exactly — an issue of character. The same kind of split in intellectual understanding [and true compassion] that has separated the two parties, the two America’s, the two tax schedules, the two legal systems. The difference between the fat cats and high rollers who enjoy the Robber Baron years, the Enron years, and the rest of us who are victimized and made desperate by them. Think Katrina. Think. Period.

This is a major whopping big collection of reads and links from the Lefty candidates, the pundits and the bloggers … and there will be more … because the Devil’s in the details, and Libby was one of those little loose ends that George tucked in while not noticing that the whole of the fabric was rotted. Me, I felt this one in my body, even though I knew it was coming — like a blogger below, who registered “alarm and disgust.” I wade through vile political crap on a daily basis, but it usually doesn’t effect my gut … this one did, big time; from my experience, that’s an indicator of a tipping point. The astrology of moment, and the transits coming on like a freight train [7/17] certainly creates just the frame-work for such an event.

I’m putting a FireDogLake piece at the bottom with suggestions on how to proceed from here — go there and read everything; lawyers Jane Hamshir and Christy Hardin Smith gave us moment-by-moment on Scooters trial and they’re all patriots over there, real ones.

Had enough yet????? Make the call! And get ready to rumble!

Jude

Statement by the President
AP

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Monday, July 2, 2007; 5:53 PM

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak.

Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime:

Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case. Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. 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 thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Libby commutation: Washington responds
Democrats in Washington were quick to react to the Libby commutation Monday.
CNN
July 2, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Following are reactions to President Bush’s announcement Monday that he has commuted the sentence of former vice presidential chief of staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby:

Melanie Sloan, legal counsel to Joe and Valerie Wilson

“First, President Bush said any person who leaked would no longer work in his administration. Nonetheless, Scooter Libby didn’t leave office until he was indicted and Karl Rove works in the White House even today. More recently, the vice president ignored an executive order protecting classified information, claiming he isn’t really part of the executive branch. Clearly, this is anadministration that believes leaking classified information for political ends is justified and that the law is what applies to other people.”

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and presidential candidate

“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York

“As Independence Day nears, we are reminded that one of the principles our forefathers fought for was equal justice under the law. This commutation completely tramples on that principle.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada

“The President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence is disgraceful. Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter ofnational security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California

“The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people. The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.”

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and presidential candidate

“Last week Vice President Cheney asserted that he was beyond the reach of the law. Today, President Bush demonstrated the lengths he would go to, ensuring that even aides to Dick Cheney are beyond the judgment of the law. It is time for the American people to be heard — I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

Former Sen. John Edwards, presidential candidate

“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush’s America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.”

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, presidential candidate

“It’s a sad day when the President commutes the sentence of a public official who deliberately and blatantly betrayed the public trust and obstructed an important federal investigation,” said Governor Richardson. “This administration clearly believes its officials are above the law, from ignoring FISA laws when eavesdropping on US citizens, to the abuse of classified material, to ignoring the Geneva Conventions and international law with secret prisons and torturing prisoners.

There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration’s disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking.

Will the President also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?”

Editorials Hit Libby’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
E&P Staff
July 03, 2007 7:30 PM ET

NEW YORK - The bloggers, politicians, and TV pundits weighed in quickly Monday after President Bush took the surprisingly sudden step of commuting Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s 30-month prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case. Now newspaper editorials are appearing, and nearly all of them have condemned the Bush act.

First up, The New York Times and The Washington Post, which had viewed the case quite differently, each ripped the Bush move.

From the Times’ Tuesday editorial: “Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk …

“Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush’s contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were ‘harsh punishment’ enough for Mr. Libby.

“Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.”

The Post, which had often mocked the court case, declares today: “We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did — to probation and a large fine — is not defensible. … Mr. Bush, while claiming to ‘respect the jury’s verdict,’ failed to explain why he moved from ‘excessive’ to zero.

“It’s true that the felony conviction that remains in place, the $250,000 fine and the reputational damage are far from trivial. But so is lying to a grand jury. To commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense.”

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: “President Bush’s commutation of a pal’s prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system. It’s the latest sign of the huge repairs to American concepts of the rule of law that await the next president.”

The Denver Post found that “such big-footing of other branches of government is not unprecedented with this administration. The president’s abuse of signing statements show his disrespect for Congress’ power to make law. His insistence that terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay be denied Habeas Corpus rights mocks legal tradition. It’s a shame that his actions in the Libby affair will add to that list. Libby should be held accountable for his crimes.”

San Francisco Chronicle: “In commuting the sentence of former White House aide Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, President Bush sent the message that perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of the president of the United States are not serious crimes.”

But The Wall Street Journal sees it differently: “By failing to issue a full pardon, Mr. Bush is evading responsibility for the role his administration played in letting the Plame affair build into fiasco and, ultimately, this personal tragedy. … Mr. Libby deserved better from the President whose policies he tried to defend when others were running for cover. The consequences for the reputation of his Administration will also be long-lasting.”

New York Post: “If Bush thinks such parsing will spare him the political backlash an outright pardon would produce, he’s wrong. The jackals are tearing at his heels this morning — and for doing only half the necessary job. Bush knows a pardon is warranted. He should grant it.”

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s editorial declares that “mostly this commutation fails on the most basic premise. There was no miscarriage of justice in Libby’s conviction or his sentence. The trial amply demonstrated that he stonewalled. Like President Clinton’s 11th-hour pardons of an ill-deserving few, this commutation is a travesty.”

New York’s Daily News: “However misbegotten was the probe by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the fact is that Libby did commit a federal crime and the fact is also that he was convicted in a court of law. Thankfully, Bush did not pardon Libby outright, but time in the slammer was in order. Sixty days, say, wouldn’t have hurt the justice system a bit.”

Chicago Tribune believes that “in nixing the prison term, Bush sent a terrible message to citizens and to government officials who are expected to serve the public with integrity. The way for a president to discourage the breaking of federal laws is by letting fairly rendered consequences play out, however uncomfortably for everyone involved. The message to a Scooter Libby ought to be the same as it is for other convicts: You do the crime, you do the time.”

The Arizona Republic: “We thought Scooter Libby was going through the criminal justice system. Just like anyone else. Then, President Bush whipped out a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is the wrong game to play on a very public stage.”

San Jose Mercury News: “Other presidents have doled out pardons and the like, usually on the way out of office. It’s never pretty. But few have placed themselves above the law as Bush, Cheney and friends repeatedly have done by trampling civil liberties and denying due process. Chalk up another point for freedom. Scooter’s, at least.”

The Sacramento Bee: President Bush, a recent story in the Washington Post tells us, is obsessed with the question of how history will view him. He has done himself no favors on that count by commuting the prison term of I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby.”

The Dallas Morning News: “Perhaps the president felt he had nothing left to lose, given his unpopularity. But considering how much trouble the White House faces in regard to congressional subpoenas, the last thing this president needed was to further antagonize Capitol Hill regarding abuse of executive power.”

The Rocky Mountain News, in Denver, in the most bizarre comment, accepts the “compassion” argument and just wishes Bush had waited a little bit so his move could not be wrongly “perceived”: “Bush’s statement exudes compassion, and it carefully gives credit to those who criticize prison time for Libby as well as to those who defend it. But the president should have restrained his compassion — and delayed his commutation — for at least a few more months, lest he be perceived as subverting justice, too.”

Old Boss. New Boss. (Worse than My Lai edition)
Rick Perlstein, Tom Paine
July 2, 2007

Big Con readers may have noticed that, having just finished a very long manuscript on the backlash against liberalism and the left between the years 1965 to 1972, I tend to see the world through Nixon-colored glasses. And already in the last 24 hours I’ve compared an apparent military coverup of what might be a civian massacre in Iraq to the sort of thing we saw after the My Lai Massacre.

I’m about to bring up My Lai again - and the subject is Scooter Libby. Let me know if you think I’m out of bounds.

Here’s Bush:

”I respect the jury’s verdict. 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 thirty months in prison.”

What Scooter Libby is guilty of is nothing like Lieut. William Calley’s conviction for murdering scores of innocents. (You might argue that Libby’s underlying offense - assisting in the outing a CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East - was potentially far, far worse - though our final evidence for that question would have to be a mushroom cloud.) But what George W. Bush has just done is a lot like what Richard Nixon did when he Calley was convicted in March of 1971. He effectively, if not technically, commuted his sentence - reducing it from life at hard labor to house arrest at his Fort Benning quarters.

Bush now says: “Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.” But he has no business (even if he has, strictly speaking, the Constitutional right) evaluating the case. Unless he holds our American system of justice sacred.

He doesn’t.

In 1971, Defense Secretary Melvin Laird privately complained, “Intervention in the Calley case repudiates the military justice system.” Publicly, the case’s prosecutor, Captain Aubrey Daniel, wrote the President, “The greatest tragedy of all will be if political expedience dictates the compromise of such a fundamental moral principle as the inherent unlawfulness of the murder of innocent persons.” William Greider, who had covered the trial in the Washington Post, wondered: “Should [the White House] open the doors at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and release all the other soldiers convicted of the same offense as Calley?”

Should the White House now open the doors of the prisons to the many, many other Americans serving terms as severe as Libby’s was supposed to be for perjury and obstruction of justice, in investigations that impinged in no way whatsoever, as Libby’s did, on the government’s ongoing ability to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

I don’t see how the President can argue otherwise.

It’s Presidential justice: like that of a king. Or a dictator. Maybe GWB was bucked up by his visit from Vladamir Putin, the former KGB chief. He decides who gets to go to jail, who goes free and who doesn’t; he also gets to make up every rule as he goes along - “I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted,” he also said in his statement. “But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.”

Well, he’s reacted. And America has just been profoundly diminished. The greatest tragedy of all: political expedience dictates has compromised of such a fundamental moral principle not merely that no American is above the law, but that the national security of the United States trumps crony politics. Worse than crony politics, actually, and worse than My Lai: obstruction of justice. Does anyone believe this isn’t meant to keep Scooter from squealing against higher-ups?

UPDATE:

Our president in 1999:

“I don’t believe my role [as governor] is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.”

The Answers Bush Has Been Looking For
Jane Smiley, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

Recently, according to the Washington Post, Bush has been inviting various thinkers to the White House. He asks them a few questions (always about himself, of course, as befits a narcissist). Here they are, with my answers (just to relieve the White House of the obligation to invite me).

Free to you, Mr. President:

“What is the nature of good and evil in the post-Sept. 11 world?”

Simply asking this question shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. The ‘post-Sept. 11 world’ doesn’t exist. Good and evil are false categories. Try law-abiding vs. criminal. In that context, it is absolutely wrong to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence and hold random men in Gitmo for the rest of their lives, torturing and destroying them.

“What lessons does history have for a president facing the turmoil I’m facing?”

Try listening to people who disagree with you, rather than those who suck up to you. Did you read any of the bloggers or journalists who considered Libby’s sentence just? Or did you just read the National Review?

“How will history judge what we’ve done?”

As a big genocidal crime (invading Iraq) surrounded by lots of little crimes (commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence).

“Why does the rest of the world seem to hate America?”

Because your administration bullies everyone, and you and Cheney are the chief bullies, but you have absolutely no understanding of this, and so you do the same stupid and crazy sorts of things over and over again, such as commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence.

“Or is it just me they hate?”

Not just you, Cheney, too.

George Bush — an Unsatisfying Dictator
Hilary Rosen, HuffPo
July 3, 2007

The outrage isn’t the pardon (which is what we should call it), it’s that this is the final piece of evidence that President Bush has written off the American people. Yet again despite overwhelming polls that showed the American people did not want the president to free Scooter Libby, he commuted his sentence. The President is operating like a dictator with 18 months to live. He said recently that history will judge him — that he won’t be judged until after he’s dead. In effect he’s saying he’s accepted that this generation of Americans have rejected him. And he’s telling the American people he won’t listen — we can’t judge him because he won’t let us.

I find it ironic — no, it is too serious, so I find it frightening that Scooter Libby’s cause became the cause celebre of conservatives. We went through the entire saga of impeaching President Clinton for lying in testimony while watching the conservatives act like the crowds screaming for blood at the Roman Coliseum. Yet, now Scooter Libby, the convicted felon, is their cause.

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and a leading advocate of pardoning Libby in today’s Washington Post, described yesterday as “a very good moment” for the president. “By acting here, he is showing to conservatives the kind of leadership that made conservatives loyal to Bush once and could make them loyal once more,” Kristol said.

At least when the conservatives are advocating to take away women’s rights or prevent gay people from getting married or even occasionally worrying about third world poverty and disease, it has been out of principle. Now their cause is to free convicted criminals. The Scooter Libby case is only about power. Their power. And they want to President to bow to it. But he is really much too busy exercising his abuse of power independently.

So the conservatives in his party who laud this action and then complain about the very same dictatorial behavior when he doesn’t listen to them on issues like Immigration, Iraq, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, etc. — well they get what they deserve. As for the rest of us, we’ll have to wait 100 years to judge.

George W. Bush is One Tough Hombre
Paul Begala, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

Tough enough to execute Karla Fay Tucker — and then laugh about it. Tough enough to sign a death warrant for a man whose lawyer slept through the trial — and then snicker when asked about it in a debate. Even tough enough to execute a great-grandmother who murdered her husband — after he abused her. A friend of mine at the time asked Bush to commute her sentence, telling him, “Betty Lou ain’t a threat to no one she ain’t married to.”
No dice.

Mr. Bush is tough enough to invade a country that was no risk to America, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and shedding precious American blood in the process. Tough enough to sanction torture. Tough enough to order an American citizen arrested and held without trial.

But if you’re rich and right-wing and Republican, George is a real softie. As George W. Bush demonstrated in giving Scooter Libby a Get Out of Jail Free Card, he is only compassionate to conservatives.

What does it say about America in the age of Bush when Judith Miller spends more time in jail over the Valerie Plame smear than Scooter Libby?

One thing it says is that Mr. Bush and his partner in crime, Dick Cheney, believe they are above the law. The commutation of Libby confirms the belief that Mr. Libby lied to the FBI, perjured himself to the grand jury, and obstructed a federal criminal investigation in order to cover up the role Bush and Cheney played in smearing Joe Wilson and ruining the career of his CIA operative wife.

The arrogance of the act is astounding. In commuting Libby’s sentence, Mr. Bush did not follow his own Justice Department’s guidelines, which do not recommend commutations unless the convict has begun serving his or her sentence, and has dropped or exhausted all appeals. Of course, Mr. Bush is free to disregard those guidelines, as President Clinton did when he pardoned Marc Rich. The Rich pardon was wrong, in my opinion. But Marc Rich was a fugitive financier; Clinton did not benefit at all from Rich’s crimes. Scooter Libby is a Bush-Cheney operative who may well have been doing Bush and Cheney’s bidding when he obstructed the investigation into how and Valerie and Joe Wilson were smeared. (By the way, like many Democrats I spoke out publicly against the Rich pardon — which Scooter Libby helped to arrange. Let’s see how many Republicans have the character to speak out against this injustice.)

It’s interesting that we still have the capacity to be shocked by the extra-legal acts of this crowd. They came to power by stealing an election, by staging a near-riot to stop the counting of ballots in Miami, and by virtue of a Supreme Court edict that has joined Dred Scott in the judicial hall of shame. From that day to this Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have held the rule of law in contempt.

And we still have 567 days to go.

What If Libby Was Black Or Mentally Retarded?
Bob Cesca, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

Scooter Libby’s sentence was “excessive,” President Bush said.

In other words, two-and-a-half years in jail for perjury is just way, way over the line in a case which involved the undermining of our national security; exposing a CIA agent’s cover; and potentially damaging this agent’s covert operation to track unaccounted-for nuclear material (loose nukes) — all orchestrated by the vice president and Libby to sucker punch Ambassador Joe Wilson.

So the president all but pardoned Libby by commuting his prison sentence.

The Republican-American pundits and bloggers are, of course, applauding this action by the president for some reason, which is weird since the same set of googly-eyed Cotton Mathers wanted President Clinton at least impeached and, at most, castrated after he was caught lying to a grand jury about oral sex.

However, in the case of Scooter Libby, justice is simply too unfair and mean. To wit, I give you these remarks from Michelle Malkin’s freshly minted comments section:

We need to support the President on this one. He did the right thing in the face of the stiff political winds. This witchhunt against Libby was wrong from the beginning. I only hope that the President pardons him later on. The libs are going to be spitting up their lattes up on this one.

This is a brilliant decision. This means that Libby can still appeal, and that the injustice done by the lower court can still be righted. A full pardon would have taken that away, from what I understand.

It was the LEAST Bush could do for Libby - and I do mean THE LEAST! he whole trial was a fiasco and Fitty should have been on trial by now for abuse of power Nifong-style.

Good decision. I always looked at the whole thing as a sham anyway. Too bad he is still strapped with the fines.

Yeah. Poor Scooter.

But let’s get back to “excessive.” That’s a strong word considering President Bush’s war for reelection and profit has killed anywhere from 30,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians and 3,600 American soldiers. That’s excessive. It’s also a strong word for a man who four years ago today baited the Iraqi insurgents to attack our soldiers by taunting them with “bring ‘em on” — the most irresponsible statement any president has uttered since President Grover Cleveland streaked pantless across the White House roof while shouting, “Bring on a New Jersey Turnpike rest area named after me! Let it thus betoken my legacy, and so too the Roy Rogers fixins’ bar contained therein. Oyez! Huzzah! And other joyous old-timey skidoo!”

What’s excessive? President Bush, who suddenly hates excessive punishments, once refused to commute the death sentence of a 33-year-old mentally retarded black man with an IQ of around 60 and the functional skills of a 7-year-old boy.

10 years ago last May, President Bush and Alberto Gonzales received a request for clemency on the day Terry Washington was to be executed for killing a college student in 1987. President Bush skimmed Gonzales’ incomplete summary and denied clemency.

Terry Washington was dead before the sun went down.

Regarding the record 152 executions during his two terms as governor, Bush “wrote” in his autobiography, A Charge To Keep, “I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own.” He went on to write, “You know what’s interesting? I once swallowed a coin.” I just made up that second quote, but I like to imagine that he’s the kind of guy who has accidentally swallowed a coin or two.

The truth is that commuting Libby’s prison term had nothing to do with any sudden outbreak of Bushie sympathy or humanity. After all, this is the same man who literally smiles from ear-to-Vulcanish-ear when talking about warfare and ordering more soldiers into combat in Iraq.

No, the president’s decision had everything to do with: 1) a likely deal between the vice president and Libby’s attorneys in which Libby promised to keep the scuttlebutt away from Vice President Cheney in exchange for the VPOTUS promising to see what he could do about the sentence; and 2) Scooter Libby isn’t poor, black or retarded.

That’s it.

If Scooter Libby had been some unfortunate nobody who was either black or poor or retarded or WHOOPS!, all three, the president would’ve merely skimmed the Gonzo Notes and remarked, “He’s a retarded and his first name is ‘I. Lewis Scooter’? Deny. ACK! I swallowed another coin.”

Sadly and seriously, in the president’s universe — shared by his thinning brigade of dittoheads (see above blog comments) — the excessive punishments are reserved exclusively for people like Terry Washington: a man who lacked the ability to control his actions and communicate at a normal level; a man who was unable to comprehend what was going on around him. In other words, a man who was clearly more competent than the president.

Libby Walks, Justice Denied?
Matt Cooper, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

If you’ve got an issue with President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, I suppose you should take it up with the founders. The sainted drafters of the Constitution gave the president absolute discretion in these matters and Bush has excercised that discretion, behind the skirt taills of a press statement. No Rose Garden ceremony, no public embrace of the convicted felon. Just a pre-holiday dump.

It’s hard to see the great miscarriage of justice that Bush needed to correct. Leave aside the war, the disparagement of Joe Wilson’s wife, even the CIA’s recently released chronology of her employment that made it clear that Valerie Plame was covert, had traveled abroad and fell under the purview of the Intelligence Identities Act, the suspected violation of which started this whole thing.

White collar criminals are prosecuted every day for misstatements that juries consider lies. Ask Martha Stewart. Scooter Libby was indicted by a Bush-appointed prosecutor who was given his authority by the Bush Justice Department and then a Bush-appointed judge presided while a jury of his peers convicted him on four of five counts. One of those counts involved his conversation with me. The count on which he was found not guilty involved me, too. The appelate court, loaded with such noted liberals as Reagan appointee David Sentelle, denied his appeals. Where is the miscarriage of justice that required a president, notoriously stingy with pardons, to swoop in? Is it because no underlying crime had been proven to be committed? Hmmm. None of Libby’s champions seemed to mind, back in the 90s, that Bill Clinton was impeached and nearly expelled from office for alleged perjury stemming from an investigation in which no underlying crime was found. But back then Bill Kristol and others were not calling for mercy.

By all accounts, Scooter Libby is a lovely man. We have some friends in common and I believe them when they speak to his sweetness and character. Had he shown contrition and admitted that he’d made up a whopper about learning of Valerie Plame’s identity from Tim Russert there’d be a greater case for a pardon. Instead, Libby went to court with the most bizarre of defenses: everyone else has a lousy memory; if my memory is bad, it’s because I’m so busy and, oh, yes, I was sacrificed for Karl Rove. None of that makes sense given the panoply of witnesses–most of them Bush appointees, some Cheney confidantes–who provided the bulk of the case. Where, then, is the miscarriage?

I suspect Bush knows this, too. Why not just pardon the guy? Why leave him with the stigmata of a convicted felon and a $250,000 fine to add to his legal bills–even if they are taken care of by the generosity of so many of his friends. (By the way, can the Scooter defense fund now release the names of donors?) If Bush had the courage of his convictions, he would have been like Jack Nicholson in a A Few Good Men and admitted that he thought Wilson was a jerk and that he believed what happened afterwards was right. Instead, Bush vowed to take action against the leakers. Now with Rove’s security clearance renewed in the White House and Libby’s sentence commuted, we know what he meant.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Bush
Jeralyn Merritt, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

President Bush’s commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence is simply stunning, both in its hypocrisy and its arrogance.

His spokespersons had assured the public he would not interfere in the judicial process until the appeals court had decided the merits of his appeal.

“Scooter Libby still has the right to appeal, and therefore the president will continue not to intervene in the judicial process,” said White House spokeswoman Dana M. Perino. “The president feels terribly for Scooter, his wife and their young children, and all that they’re going through.”

Here’s Tony Snow, asked about a pardon at his press briefing yesterday: “What the President has said is ‘Let the legal process work itself out.’ We’re just not engaging in that right now.”

Yet, hours after the D.C. Court of Appeals denied an appeal bond for Libby, the President acted, not by granting Libby a pardon, but by commuting his jail sentence.

His stated reason for the commutation reeks of disingenuity.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. 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 thirty months in prison.

Bush didn’t just reduce Libby’s prison term to a lesser amount that was not, in his view, excessive. He eliminated it altogether.

While the Probation Report itself is not public, my review of the pleadings referencing it and the sentencing hearing transcript in the case indicates the Probation Department didn’t recommend that Libby spend no time in jail. It found his sentencing guideline range to be 15 to 21 months (instead of 30 to 37 months) and it found the presence of factors that warranted the Judge considering departing below the guidelines. It stated that if the Judge agreed those factors were present and warranted a lesser sentence, the final sentencing range could (not should) drop to a level allowing for either a split sentence of prison and home detention or straight probation.

Judge Walton, in sentencing Libby, carefully considered the grounds for departure before concluding they didn’t negate the need for a prison sentence. He’s the Judge, that’s his call. His decision was subject to review by the Court of Appeals. Bush’s decision to short-circuit the process rendered both the Judge’s sentencing decision and appellate review of it meaningless.

What changed between the time Dana Perrino and Tony Snow made their pronouncements and today? It wasn’t Scooter’s sentence. It was only that the Court of Appeals decided Libby would have to serve it before the legal process finished playing out.

At the same time Bush has his Attorney General calling upon Congress to make every federal crime subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, thereby preventing judges from imposing an individually tailored sentence based on their view of the offender’s character and mitigating factors, he has no qualms making an exception for a single member of his Administration.

He proposed Sentencing Reform Act will:

* Restore the binding nature of the guidelines by making the bottom of the guideline range for each offense a minimum sentence that must be imposed when the elements of the offense are proven;

Hypocrisy, thy name is Bush.

Bush’s arrogance is apparent from the extent to which Scooter’s clemency decision departs from Justice Department guidelines on pardons and clemency.

Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.

Patrick Fitzgerald, in a carefully worded statement (pdf), disputes that Libby’s sentence was excessive. Was he consulted on the commutation? He should have been. The DOJ Manual provides:

The Pardon Attorney routinely requests the United States Attorney in the district of conviction to provide comments and recommendations on clemency cases….The views of the United States Attorney are given considerable weight in determining what recommendations the Department should make to the President.

….The Pardon Attorney also routinely requests the United States Attorney to solicit the views and recommendation of the sentencing judge.

It’s all part of a well-delineated process.

The Pardon Attorney, under the direction of the Deputy Attorney General, receives and reviews all petitions for executive clemency (which includes pardon after completion of sentence, commutation of sentence, remission of fine and reprieve), initiates and directs the necessary investigations, and prepares a report and recommendation for submission to the President in every case.

If the requisite investigation was conducted with a chance for the prosecutor and judge to weigh in, followed by a report and recommendation, the process took some time. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Inquiring minds want to know, was protocol and Justice Department policy followed or did Bush unilaterally make this decision, perhaps with his beleagured Attorney General or the Vice President, without moving through the proper channels?

Does anyone doubt that Dick Cheney, whose fingerprints were all over the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity, called in a chit to spare Libby?

Finally, amidst all the protests and cheers that Scooter Libby dodged the warden with a get of out jail free card, will anyone remember, as Bob Dylan might say, that the Vice President of the United States didn’t have to stand naked?

Commuter-in-Chief
Marty Kaplan, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

My, what a clever boy he thought he would be. He wouldn’t pardon Libby: oh no, that would be repeating Gerry Ford’s Nixon mistake, and who’d want to risk that? Nah, he’d commute the sentence, that’s the ticket. The base would cheer, the libs would scream (don’t they always?), and the media would praise him as prudent, as searching for common ground, putting our long national nightmare behind us the right way, not the wimp way.

But I think most Americans will see this move for what it actually is: jury nullification, cronyism, Cheney puppeteering. It’s a signal to all future witnesses, in Congress and in court, to take the Fifth, bide their time, and hold out for a presidential rescue.

Yes, what Bush did is within his power. But is there anyone in the world besides Tucker Carlson’s father who believes that W is intellectually, morally or legally qualified to parse the niceties of federal sentencing guidelines and come up with a more appropriate punishment than the trial judge?

America is not just a nation of laws. It is a nation of trust. You can’t govern unless you have the trust of the people. If before today he retained an ounce of that trust, George W. Bush no longer does. If it weren’t so tragic, it would be laughable.

The only good that will come of it is the necessity now for every Republican running for President to put out a statement praising Bush’s Solomonic decision… though maybe Ron Paul will say that in this case, it would have been better to slice the baby through the middle with a scimitar.

Bush the Compassionate
Andrew Gumbel, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

Some of us aren’t quite as smart as the marketing gurus and razor-brained apparatchiks responsible for George W. Bush’s political successes. So forgive me if it’s taken me, what, seven years to fully understand what they mean when they call him a “compassionate conservative”.

Now, though, I get it. The man may have happily consigned 155 prisoners to the death chamber when he was governor of Texas. He may have sent more than 3000 US soldiers (and counting) to their doom in Iraq without ever making clear why he sent them in the first place. He may have widened the income gap, deepened the budget deficit, slashed funding for social programs, bombed several hundred thousand innocent civilians around the world to smithereens and whipped up a global tsunami of anti-American hatred.

But, but, but…. he clearly couldn’t stomach the idea of Scooter Libby spending even a single day behind bars. Poor Scooter Libby, a poet trapped in a Republican corporate lawyer’s body who only ever wanted to write novels and watch the aspens turn in the Colorado autumn.

So Bush, like the mensch he is, did something about it and commuted his sentence before it even began. Without a moment’s hesitation. Fearlessly. Bravely. Boldly. In the face of hostility from an uncomprehending public.

Now that’s what I call compassion.

Scooter’s Free; In my Heart, I Know How it Went Down
Thomas de Zengotita, HuffPo
July 2, 2007

Scooter’s one of us. He’s a good man.

That’s the priority moral category in the Bush universe. To riff on a line first coined by good old Leona Helmsley (remember her?) — jail is for little people.

There was no way Scooter was going to jail. And he knew it all along. Just recall the expression on his face as he got in and out of those limos at the courthouse curb over the last months. He wasn’t happy, but he wasn’t scared. He trusted in the legendary loyalty of the Bush royal family. And he was right to.

At a crucial point in the process, somewhere-somehow, there came a moment. Some trusted emissary laid the hand of gratitude upon Scooter’s sagging shoulder and said: we have to let this play out for a while, but know this — you will not go to jail. You will be taken care of. Your family too.

You don’t really, in your wildest imagination, think that ole’ Scooter is going to be digging into his own personal wallet for that $250,000 fine, do you? You don’t think that, just because he’s losing his law license, he’s going to be driving a cab for a living from now on, do you?

Plus don’t forget this: royal courts are complicated places. Subtle. Much is understood that is not said. Who knows what Scooter might have told the American People if they had let him face the legal music like the little people do?

People Like Us Don’t Go to Prison, Scooter. Have a Nice Summer
Scott Shrake, HuffPo
July 3, 2007

The day after Scooter Libby was convicted in March, I was at my gym in the morning, and there were a couple of middle-aged white guys in the locker room, and one said loudly, “Man, Scooter got hosed!” I got the feeling, maybe because this is Washington, that the guy knew him. Looking back, it was a hint of what would ultimately happen.

My first big brush with history in D.C., the day I attended Scooter’s sentencing, has been evacuated of meaning, made into a mockery of the justice system by President Bush. I feel personally invested in this whole thing, because I was there watching Libby get his sentence, and my gut reaction to Bush’s commuting of it yesterday is one of alarm and disgust.

Some readers misunderstood me when I said in my post that I was surprised at the length of the sentence. It wasn’t because I didn’t think he deserved it — it was because I did. I was shocked that someone (Judge Walton) had pierced the Teflon of this administration like that.

There seems to be no limit to what this administration will do in its own interests and against the interests of the citizens of the United States. Just ask the jurors in the case United States v. I. Lewis Libby what they think right now.

Chris Matthews seemed quite sympathetic to the Scootmeister when he phoned in to his own show tonight from his July vacation. Aw, come on, he was saying, hasn’t Scooter paid enough? I mean, he’s been embarrassed! Disbarred! Isn’t inconvenience enough punishment? Meanwhile the guests from the Right on the show (with David Shuster guest-hosting) were trying to retry Libby and find him innocent after the fact. Matthews, in his usual strangely fascinating mixed verdict, included the proviso that this is basically a bunch of bullshit on the part of Bush, an outrage, BUT: [sigh of relief] people like us don’t go to jail, you know? (Pay no attention to Martha Stewart over there. Or Judith Miller. Or the Watergate guys.)

Curly Sue star Fred Thompson has come out with a statement: “This will allow a good American… to resume his life.” A “convicted felon” kind of good American? And one who helped bring us this super-popular, super-short Iraq war/occupation?

Tonight you’ve got prominent Democrats telling people not to be complacent about this, to resist the temptation to just roll your eyes, and instead to “flood the White House” with protest messages. Well, that won’t help. The deed is done. There’s only one message, and it’s to get in the voting booth and GET RID of the party that gave us this travesty, every chance you get.

Lots of smarter people than I am are tearing Bush’s decision apart on all kinds of solid legal and political grounds tonight. My only contribution to the discussion is to point out what this really says about President Bush, the blue-blooded draft-dodger-in-chief in a crowd full of warmongering draft dodgers. This favor to Scooter comes from an emotional place in Bush, I surmise. He obviously didn’t calculate the political price for this decision, because it will definitely not sit well with the voters in 2008 (but, I mean, throw it on the pile!).

No, he commuted the sentence because people like the “hawk” George Walker Bush DO NOT go to the battlefield or jail or anyplace where you have to depend on your strength and grit and wits to survive. They also don’t sweat, they glisten. And they aren’t truly answerable for their misdeeds. Embarrassment is enough punishment, thank you very much, and there’s plenty of that to go around.

Bush Commutes Libby’s Jail Sentence
by David Corn

Bush Assaults Rule of Law to Save Libby
Ari Melber, HuffPo

What The Plame Affair Tells Us About Bush’s Character
Jesse Larner, HuffPo

Jail the Messenger, Free the Leaker
Craig Crawford, HuffPo

Real Shamnesty, Scooter Walks
Karen Russell, HuffPo

And Now For Some Action… Christy Hardin Smith, FireDogLake

Note: open the link to read this in its original — it includes MANY links and a Youtube.

So, you can sit around grousing and moaning until the cows come home, wallowing in your misery and cursing the heavens about George Bush. Or…you can do something about him and his corrupt Grand Ole Imperial Party.

I’ll take fighting back for $1000, Alex.

Here are a few ideas of things that you can do this week to help to restore the rule of law and to get the point across that Republicans cannot be trusted to run the corner Quickie Mart, let alone to uphold and faithfully execute the laws and to respect the Constitution.

This is only a start, so if folks have more ideas, please share them in the comments below. I’ll be damned if I’m going to roll over or let them benefit from this elitist manipulation of our nation’s judicial system — in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, “of course, you know, this means war.” Here are a few good places to start:

– Rep. John Conyers and the House Judiciary Committee will be holding hearings on the commutation beginning next week. If you have questions that you would like to see asked, put them in the comments and I’ll see what I can do to get them into the hands of folks who may ask them.

– It’s the Fourth of July holiday week, and Congress is out of session. That means that your elected representatives will be all over the place in their home districts doing public appearances. You, their constituent, should show up and talk directly with them — face to face — about how you feel. About the disrespect of the rule of law. About the Republican party placing itself ahead of the rest of America. About the lack of any accountability.

Reader *xyz has put together some good talking points for this sort of conversation or phone call:

1. Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence was nothing less than obstruction of justice.

2. Congressman ____ should please stand up for the rule of law and make a public statement denouncing Bush’s action as obstruction of justice.

3. Congressman ____ must push for a full Congressional investigation of this travesty and must move forward with impeachment immediately if the administration fails to cooperate with the investigation.

The President has obstructed justice into an investigation of his own administration, and a cloud remains over Vice President Dick Cheney — still — with regard to his role in the betrayal of Valerie Plame Wilson and the rest of the CIA operatives working for Brewster Jennings. They and the rest of America deserve better than this, and the restoration of the rule of law is a good place to start. What does your elected representative plan to do about this? We want action, not just lip service.

– Better yet, take a video camera with you and ask polite questions for them to answer. And get their answers on film. And then send the clip to us — put it up on YouTube — send it to Amato at C&L. Whatever. Just get them on the record: Do you support the rule of law or the Republican party? And what are you going to do about it? (See Spazeboy’s great tutorial on videoblogging for the masses for some tips on doing just that.)

– Write a letter to the editor about the Bush Administration and the Republican party’s elitist tendencies and their imperial “we don’t have to follow the laws that the rest of you do” attitude. Keep them short and to the point, use facts, and make it a little pithy. Add in a quote from a Founding Father for extra letter points. Send these to your local paper — they have a lot more impact that way.

– Call your legislator’s offices and ask for them to work to restore the rule of law. Habeas restoration is a good first step — but we have a lot of work to do and it cannot wait for the end of the Bush Administration. (Ari Melber has a good article on this in The Nation.)

– Let’s come up with a new nickname for the GOP. Personally, I’m leaning toward “The Double Standard Party” — but I’m not wedded to it. I do think that “Crooks and Liars” is perfect, but Amato is already using it.

– Contact news media personalities who are inaccurately reporting the news on the Libby commutation — and correct them. Here’s a quick primer:

- Richard Armitage: leaked to Bob Novak

- Scooter Libby: leaked to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller, lied to federal agents and under oath to a grand jury on multiple occasions to cover his tracks and to prevent Dick Cheney from being charged with ordering him to leak in the first place.

- Karl Rove: leaked to Matt Cooper and Robert Novak.

See how easy it is to understand that more than one person can commit acts of treason?

(For the truly dimwitted, Juan Cole put together a tutorial with pictures that may help you.) And now that George Bush has decided that the criminal case is at an end, that dodge of not answering questions about the investigation and the actions of his employees is no longer existant. Bring on the sunshine, members of the media and the Congress — because a lot of people have a lot of answering to do. Including this: why was Karl Rove’s security clearance renewed when he admitted to violating the terms of his SF-312 agreement — because anyone else in Rove’s situation woud have had their clearance yanked immediately. Yet another edition of the rules don’t apply if you are a Republican.

– Donate money to a worthy Democratic candidate. (We have some great ones on the Blue America page if you are interested.)

– Call your elected representatives and the White House and register your disgust. Thanks to barbara for the following numbers:

White House Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461
U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

Listing of U.S. Senators with phone numbers
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Listing of U.S. House members
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Try using some talking points from Kung Fu Monkey. Also, consider sending them a postcard — it only costs you 26 cents and goes through without having to wait for anthrax screening. Make your point on a call, and use the postcard as an exclamation point.

“So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.”
~ Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
receipt accurate credit card time onfor bad loans agricultural creditcards credit free 15 interest monthsservice adoption accreditationunions credit angeles s los americaarizona tax credits 2007 investmentfederal 2007 credit energy taxcredit repair a1 Map

Add comment July 3rd, 2007