Here there be monsters (socratic) wrote,
Here there be monsters
socratic

  • Mood:

Ludicrous logic and the lovers thereof

There's been a lot of talk recently about how silly it is to find someone guilty of obstruction of justice when the thing they are accused of covering up does not itself result in an indictment. This is a ridiculous assertion. Does nobody think, even for a moment, that the reason that the original charge didn't stick is that justice was, well, obstructed? To argue that you shouldn't charge someone for a coverup if that coverup is successful is the height of absurdity. It does nothing other than provide motivation for people to lie and hide the truth. The law is not a game that you should be able to win at by properly circumventing questioning. When people lie, shred documents, and hide evidence it's very hard to prove a crime took place. When you catch someone in the act of obstructing justice, most of the time it's a smoke=fire situation.

Some will bring up the cases where no crime was committed but there are other reasons to hide the truth from a prosecutor. The most famous example is probably Bill Clinton, who clearly did not commit a crime with regards to Monica Lewinsky, but lied about his involvement with her to avoid scandal (worked out great, didn't it?) Many, including myself, believe that the prosecutor asked questions designed to embarrass Mr. Clinton rather than get at any true criminal activity. In this sort of situation, then, is it acceptable to lie? Obviously not. If claiming prosecutorial bias were an adequate excuse for giving false information then everyone would make said claim (and many do.) You can't trust them when they say they did nothing illegal because if they had they would have covered it up. If you can't get someone for their crimes then it makes perfect sense to nail them for the cover up. That's WHY you can't get them for the crimes. The two things are not unconnected.

Did Scooter Libby commit a crime? I don't know. Did anyone else in the White House? I don't know. Do I trust them when they say they haven't? No. Is it possible that Plame's name was revealed by someone who didn't know she was undercover? Yes. Was it still an incredibly sleazy thing to do? Undoubtably.

Should someone go to jail for these actions? That will probably come out during the trial. Should Scooter Libby do time if it's found he obstructed justice?

Why the hell not?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 8 comments