Unless you count this weblog as your primary news source, you're undoubtably aware of the firestorm surrounding the news yesterday of the President's decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence. While we await news of a potential pardon for Libby, it's worth noting the highly-ironic nature of the latest of this administration's unprincipled actions. “Bush Seeks To Re-Impose Mandatory Minimums,” from The Associated Press on June 13:
At first, the President's opposition to United States v. Booker and his belief in the usefulness of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines would suggest support for Libby's imprisonment. After all, said guidelines recommend jail time for convictions comparable to those of perjury and obstruction of justice that Libby received. But in a continuing fashion, the President has demonstrated again his desire to remain immune from such legal “inconveniences” when he or his closest allies must face the consequences of their actions.
Continuing this vein of irony (nay, flip-floppery), one must only look to the man who decided Libby's verdict, Judge Reggie Walton. “Attorneys See Irony in Libby Case,” from The Associated Press earlier today:
Look near the bottom of the article and note that the average prison term for those sentenced to obstruction of justice last year was almost six years. Given the importance of the investigation that Libby obstructed, even the most severe sentence the prosecutors sought would barely total half of that. From such a tough-on-crime judge, Libby ought to have been thankful to get away with such a lenient sentence.
The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals.
At first, the President's opposition to United States v. Booker and his belief in the usefulness of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines would suggest support for Libby's imprisonment. After all, said guidelines recommend jail time for convictions comparable to those of perjury and obstruction of justice that Libby received. But in a continuing fashion, the President has demonstrated again his desire to remain immune from such legal “inconveniences” when he or his closest allies must face the consequences of their actions.
Continuing this vein of irony (nay, flip-floppery), one must only look to the man who decided Libby's verdict, Judge Reggie Walton. “Attorneys See Irony in Libby Case,” from The Associated Press earlier today:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences.
Look near the bottom of the article and note that the average prison term for those sentenced to obstruction of justice last year was almost six years. Given the importance of the investigation that Libby obstructed, even the most severe sentence the prosecutors sought would barely total half of that. From such a tough-on-crime judge, Libby ought to have been thankful to get away with such a lenient sentence.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home