I am shocked that Alan Dershowitz is defending his, and my, fellow tribesman Scooter Libby. If anyone ever doubted that this war is a Commentary crowd production, just read the names of the people who called for a pardon.
It is revolting that a tiny coterie of people gives us all a bad name. Believe me, Dersho would throw Libby to the dogs where he deserves if he wasn't Jewish.

If the sentence was political, then why did Victor Rita get a similar sentence from another court?

If the commutation was not political but rather as Bush said, because the sentence was too harsh, then why didn't push simultaneously commute the sentence of say, anyone who is serving more than 3 years in jail for perjury?

Indeed, if Bush really believes the sentence was too severe, why isn't he calling on the Senate to change the sentencing guidelines?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Now people, you're getting all worked up for no reason.

You labor under the delusion that this is a democratic republic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Apathy, ignorance and just plain stupidity helped drive the nails into our nation's coffin and the Supreme Court nailed it shut by appointing Bush as King George back in 2000.

So, chill out. Relax and enjoy this pseudo-holiday.

Listen to some Turdy Keith, drink some Pudwizer and leer at your wife's cute looking cousin... man, she's got some legs.

When King George and President Cheney need your advice, they'll peel your lips off their crotch for a comment.

As several readers who commented on Dershowitz's brief pointed out, not only was the judge who sentenced Libby--and denied him bail pending appeal--a Republican nominee, but so were two of the three Appeals Court judges who sustained that decision.

I guess Dershowitz was talking about some other kind of politics.

Anyway, it looks like it's not only black defendents who get hosed in the courts. Even black judges can't get any respect from our justice system.

The most remarkable thing about Dershowitz's argument is how impenetrably stupid it is. I mean, seriously stupid, the kind of stupid that should get you thrown out of law school as a student.

Just consider this argument, for example:

Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal.

Now this is the core of his argument that the decision to incarcerate Libby immediate was "political." But, even assuming his basic premises, how is it "political" in any relevant sense for a judge to take into account that BUSH might pardon Libby if he didn't go to jail immediately, and wished to preclude that possibility, because he thought Libby should be made to endure some real punishment? All the judge need be seeking in such a case is to see to it that Libby would NOT get out of punishment by an expected move by Bush -- a move itself political of course.

Likewise, consider his claim that "...only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence." Who seriously argues that Bush doesn't have the Constitutional right to commute Libby's sentence? Of what conceivable importance is that fact? Isn't obvious to all but the most sorry of cretins that the issue is not whether Bush deviated from his Constitutional role, but rather whether what he did served, or perverted, justice?

Really, I think Dershowitz is just losing it. This is not the product of a fine mind or even a adequate mind. It is the product of a mind corrupted over many years by interests that have nothing to do with thinking or rationality or fairness.

It's hard not to see it as just a further reflection of the ugly, desperate need the man has to defend Israel and Israel's equally fanatical, wholly uncritical friends -- read Libby and Cheney -- against any and all opposition. I just don't know what else might incline someone like Dershowitz to present such absurd howlers as if they were respectable arguments. Maybe there's some other explanation, but I'd like to know what.

Nor should we forget that Dershowitz, aiming to deflect criticism of Israel for torturing its Palestinian prisoners, was among the very first to put us on the road to torture here at home. Los Angeles Times 11/08/2001

destor23 writes:[...]if Bush really believes the sentence was too severe, why isn't he calling on the Senate to change the sentencing guidelines?

He doesn't believe that the *sentencing guidelines* are too severe; he has just recently made sure that they got *more* severe, not less so. It's *this particular* sentence which, like a poisoned arrow, pierced his soft, soft heart and awoke his -- usually dormant -- compassion. Deadeye Dick must have reminded him that "quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi" (what becomes Jove, doesn't become an ox)

With those two felons at the WH, it's all "justice a la carte"

Judge Walton has a reputation of being just the kind of judge law and order Republicans claim they want. I guess they want him right up to the moment one of their own is charged with a crime. Then they want one of those mythical pansy ass liberal judges.

I used to have some respect for Dershowitz, but after reading what he wrote on this subject, I have to say he has sunk deep into the bowels of hackdom

Ron Byers

Judges should have to issue a "torture warrant" in each case. Thus we would not be winking an eye of quiet approval at torture while publicly condemning it.

Democracy requires accountability and transparency, especially when extraordinary steps are taken. Most important, it requires compliance with the rule of law. And such compliance is impossible when an extraordinary technique, such as torture, operates outside of the law.

If only Saddam could have had Dershoshitz as his attorney, the bad stuff can be done, legally!

I commented on HuffPo to the saintly Alan on his post there, remarking that he still seemed the contrarian's contrarian and had played the Devil's Advocate so often that he actually had become the Devil's Advocate

I'm not sure if I could tell the advocate from the advocate's boss if both of them were the two sole occupants of a room.

aMike

Truth and facts are in the eye of the powerful.

He personifies the toxic extremes of narcissism, arrogance and corruption.

If Scooter hadn't kept his mouth shut and lied when necessary to protect Cheney and Bush from being exposed as the source of and masterminds behind the Plame leak he wouldn't have had his sentence commuted. But he did keep his mouth shut and he did lie when necessary to protect the two criminals at the head of our government. This was a payoff for his silence and just as he is leaving office Bush will be moved to pardon Libby completely.

The people understand clearly what is going on here and that is the reason for the huge majority in opposition to the commutation. We need only keep reminding people that 1. the Republicans are corrupt to the core (as Joe Wilson so aptly put it) and 2, they are incompetent. That's the message the public needs to hear over and over and over until it is just an accepted fact. They are corrupt and incompetent. That pretty much explains everything since the stealing of the 2000 election regardless of what the issue or mishap or disaster may be.

I await Mr Oleeb's "explanation" for the fact that majority of those who voted in 2004 voted for the corrupt and incompetent Republicans.

I would suggest that the electorate bears a share of the blame for the last six years of corruption and stupidity.

sure and the sainted Vincent will be after lookin' down and weepin' to see what has become of Dersh....

"On July 4, 2007 - 12:48am oleeb said:

"If Scooter hadn't kept his mouth shut and lied when necessary to protect Cheney and Bush from being exposed as the source of and masterminds behind the Plame leak he wouldn't have had his sentence commuted. But he did keep his mouth shut and he did lie when necessary to protect the two criminals at the head of our government. This was a payoff for his silence and just as he is leaving office Bush will be moved to pardon Libby completely.

"The people understand clearly what is going on here and that is the reason for the huge majority in opposition to the commutation. We need only keep reminding people that 1. the Republicans are corrupt to the core (as Joe Wilson so aptly put it) and 2, they are incompetent. That's the message the public needs to hear over and over and over until it is just an accepted fact. They are corrupt and incompetent. That pretty much explains everything since the stealing of the 2000 election regardless of what the issue or mishap or disaster may be."

Corrupt, yes, incompetent no. Though they want the suckers to believe they are incompetent.

On July 3, 2007 - 9:19pm ronbyers said:
Isn't it entirely possible that Walton followed the law? The sentence was clearly within the guidelines. The Supreme Court in the case of Rita v. United States just examined and upheld the nearly identical sentence a pretty similar case of perjury and obstruction involving a model citizen with an extensive and honorable record of public service in the United States military. Rita got 33 months. Libby got 30. It seems that for George W. Bush and Alan Dershowitz all men might have been created equal but Scooter Libby is more equal that Victor Rita.

I have a hunch the President feels the same way about any of his or Dick's buds.

Ron Byers

It must be that Rita is neither white nor Israel-first Jewish.

Believe me, Dersho would throw Libby to the dogs where he deserves if he wasn't Jewish.

Hmn . Is it religion , or Iraq ? If you were
about to go to jail I doubt whether Dersh would have defended you .

Like many TPM readers including me and probably you Dersh wants to protect Israel
and its interest. Unlike me and probably you he does so in so unreasoning a manner as to achieve the opposite. Sort of like Wellington's comment about his troops " I don't know whether they frighten the enemy but by God they terrify me ".

Dershowitz' column was outrageous. If he wanted to argue that Democrats now braying for Libby to go to jail were the very ones who thought Bill Clinton should not be punished for pretty much the same crimes I could understand that. However, is cry of "political" for the trial and the appeals process is absurd.

Besides the political taking of sides after the trial there is one serious issue that Dershowitz might have addressed but ignored. The sentencing guidelines. The federal goverment,driven largely by "law and order" Republcians have made more crimes federal ones, have taken sentencing disgression away from judges and have extended the sentences under the guildelines. If Libby's punishment was excessive, and Dershowitz should know that courts find perjury and obstruction very serious crimes against the judicial system, then maybe the entire sentencing guidelines structure needs reform.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

cscs,

The same principle is at work with crying about Congressional obstruction, or the filibuster, or activist judges.

One would think that by now this principle would have become so obvious as to be the greatest joke of our young century.  So, what is taking the rest of us so long to get it?

But does Dershowitz see Libby as a modern day Leo Frank?

Evidence abounds that both in Florida and Ohio, votes were manipulated in favor of the Bush regime in 2004.  Has it escaped your notice that behind the Justice Department scandals is an attempt to get people into office who will invent "voter fraud" scams against Democrats before elections?  That seems to me to be the one thing they all have in common.

 Bush/Cheney are not garnering all this power for the Executive Branch so they can turn it over to a Democrat.  They have stolen TWO elections and are doing everything they can to fix the next one for themselves.  (I will go so far as to say they let us win the last one just to keep us quiet about the easily manipulated voting machines without paper trails.  2008 is the biggie -->  can anyone imagine another Alito?  Another Robertson?  They are at work to make sure it happens.)

That said, I agree with you that there certainly were too many people who actually voted for Bush believing he would keep us safe from terrorists (which he already didn't) and that the "death tax" actually applied to them!  ...And the most ironic of all; that voting for Publicans is pro-life!  Let's see; not even counting when he was governor of Texas, how many deaths (of actual, live people as opposed to 8-celled embryos) does Bush have under his belt?

Jan

If I had one question for Dershowitz about his post, it would be:

If this whole investigation and trial is political, when does someone connected to the Democratic Party get to weigh in on Libby's fate?

I mean, isn't there anyone else who feels a bit cheated that the GOP has got to play special prosecutor referral decider, special prosecutor, investigator, prosecutor, defence counsel, judge, appeal court judge, executioner and pardoner/commuter guy.

So far, to the extent this trial has been political, it's been all about the GOP. The only Dem who seems to have surfaced was James Carville... who signed off that Scooter should be spared horrible punishment because the children love him.

Seriously, if you're going to call this trial political, at least qualify it by saying it's been internal GOP politics.

A note to Dershowitz and to all of the emminent people who filed papers with the court trying to get a lighter sentence for Libby -- Judge Walton challenged you all to put forth the same efforts on the behalves of people who have been convicted of crimes and who aren't friends of powerful people in Washington, D.C. He challenged you to spend time trying to help people who are involved in criminal cases that don't make national news.

The judge considered your pleas and asked something more of you. Will you do rise to his challenge?

Because, honestly, if Dershowitz finds a case like Libby's that doesn't involve the notables of D.C. and he tries to intervene, then I've got no complaint with him.

I suspect, however, that he and his pals won't live up.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Clinton was subjected to a show trial, and he won.

So few presidents have been impeached and none for something so trivial.

But hey, let's go on claiming that an investigation into a decade's old real estate deal that turned into an investigation of a peron's sex life is the same thing as an investigation into why a covert CIA operative's identity was publically exposed.

Let's just pretend we have no understanding of either perspective or context.

And... let's forget that Clinton not only faced the impeachment proceedings but won.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Dershowitz is emblematic of the one great flaw in the Socratic method of teaching law: those without virtue, without a core moral compass, will say and do anything -- ethics, and even law, be damned -- to win. The goal is not justice; it is ego-centric: fame, and money.

Fitzgerald is emblematic of the value of such education -- when it doesn't negate moral compass.

Dershowizt is as much a bigot and whore as Bushit, et al; and the anti-Semites who support such as Bushit, et al.: he'll sell out his country -- again and again -- for fame and profit, even if that means defending and collaborating with anti-Semites.

And note that since that morally bankruptcy has become evident, Dershowitz is no longer bashed by Republicans as a "Liberal"? He's finally found acceptance -- with the collaborating anti-Semites and anti-American Israel-first bigots.

Toby Keith, country-western singer and foil to the Dixie Chicks. At one point Natalie Maines went around sporting a "FUTK" t-shirt.

Or was it "FYTK"?

Right, and by disqualifying as many probable Democratic voters as possible (as described in the testimoney of Monica Goodling where they sent letters to people thought to be Democrats, and if the letters came back undeliverable, the potential voter was disqualified).  They know, and will use every sneaky trick in the book to get the count close enough that the results can be flipped.

In Florida it was even worse; votes simply not counted.  People turned away because their names had been turned in as being felons (erroneously). 

The horrible thing is that we KNOW all of this, and yet we are going forward with the same machines; the same problems unsolved.  I'm beginning to think we should forget Scooter, and turn our attention to a fair election.  We have less than 18 months to put it into place.

Jan

But the vote count must be close enough for the scam to make the difference.

That's what Rove said.

The only thing they are truly competent at is scaring the shit out of the electorate at precisely the right time.

Exactly. (Oh, and covering up their crimes. The only thing a thief has to be good at is stealing.)

If anyone wants to say that Rich was unworthy of a pardon, I think that's a fair comment. But you don't and can't equate this with the Libby case.

It's a different kind of abuse. The Libby pardon involves issues of obstruction of justice and possible coverups of executive branch malfeasance. The Rich pardon was just a case of letting a major racketeer and global scumbag off the hook because he had the right connections and had bribed the right people.

Libby's personal crime, perjury, was much less serious than Rich's crimes, but it was the tip of an iceberg of worse executive branch crimes for which he took the fall and was then protected. Rich's crimes, though much worse, do not appear to have been connected in any way with any executive branch wrongdoing.

On the contrary, I thought most of the criticisms of Dershowitz's column on that blog (and the vast majority of the comments were critical at the time that I read them) were knowledgeable and well-reasoned. One, in fact, was by a former student of Dershowitz's, so I would think that person would certainly have some clue about both Dershowitz and the law.

Comments in support of Dershowitz seemed to run, as I recall, along the lines of "You tell 'em Alan! You da man!" Not exactly convincing argument.

In fact, even Dershowitz offered no real argument. He said the prosecutor and the jury and the judges all acted politically, and that the sentence was excessive, but he offered no reasons for coming to those conclusions. It was simply argument by assertion.

This thread is very depressing to me. Up until this moment, the only thing that came to mind when the name "SCOOTER" LIBBY was mentioned was CRIMINAL. And now you're telling me he's one of mine-- he's Jewish?? No way. Jewish men are not called SCOOTER. He's a self-loather, I bet!

Take me back to my innocence when all Scooter was was a criminal in our midst. Don't let him be a member of my people.

Please tell me he did not have a bar mitzvah. His poor parents. That's no man they called to the bima.

Damn it!

I don't think it is simply a matter of being "in the club". Even if Bush has some loyalty thing in his DNA, my sense is Cheney does not.

The theory that Bush and Cheney are following an optimal strategy of keeping Scooter from flipping whilst ensuring the case remains sub judice - thus allowing the Bushies "not to comment on an ongoing legal matter" - is more compelling to me. Fitzgerald has pretty much held the line that Libby is shielding his bosses, and the fact his defense team didn't call Cheney as a witness all but confirmed this. The commutation fits the same hypothesis.

The thing about "no underlying crime" is that, as well as being boilerplate rightwing rhetoric, it is annoyingly misleading shorthand for: the special prosecutor has been unable to determine if there was an underlying crime.

Perhaps the thing that annoys me more is reporters who editorialize this as a "complex case". It isn't. Scooter lied and obstructed justice, prevented Fitzgerald from investigating the Plame leak. He was found guilty. End of story. We can spend lots of time speculating why Libby lied, but the lying was a crime and anyone with the vaguest understanding of the criminal justice system understands that.

And obstruction of justice. Let's not forget that bit.

When I said Rich's personal crimes were worse, all I mean is that Rich probably would have gotten a lot more that 30 months, and would have received a stiffer fine. Libby is, as you say, a cog in a very rotten, even evil regime. But all he was convicted of was perjury.

When you are successful at hiding the bodies, all that is sometimes left is lesser charges.

The equivalence between Clinton's pardons and Bush's commutation of Libby (or whatever the hell it was) is purposely misleading as we all know but many of those clamoring now for justice in Plamegate that never had a chance might want to consider their own casual dismissal of a multiplicity of crimes by the Clintons.

If you want things clean, it is usually best to wash your hands. Even Pontius Pilate knew that.

Best, Terry

I don't buy this comparison either.

Clark's thing has been to ensure that even the worst villains on the planet get a fair trial. I think that's an honorable pursuit, fighting to ensure justice does not simply become a medium for vengeance.

I don't get Dershowitz. He may be an eminent legal scholar, but his vindictive streak is bizarre and thoroughly unpleasant.

"I don't get Dershowitz. He may be an eminent legal scholar, but his vindictive streak is bizarre and thoroughly unpleasant."

And unethical. But, then, Dershowitz isn't a scholar; he's a fame-hound who will without conscience join the extreme right-wing fringe in bashing the justice system -- the Canons prohibit bringing the justice system into "disrepute" by such means -- when the choice is between US and Israel gaining from such.

Hitler tortured Jews. Dershowitz is for torture because Jews are morally superior to Hitler.

For one, Rich didn't get a full pardon. And Clinton was disinclined to grant the (partial) pardon; he was persuaded to do so by the individuals at the DOJ.

Further, the lobbyist for the pardon of the "scumbag" Rich was "Scooter" Libby. And there is some evidence that Rich, when he committed the crime of doing business with Iran when it was illegal for US citizens to do so, was engaged also in helping Jews out of Iran, and espionage on behalf of (at least) Isreal.

Last but not least: as was repeatedly detailed at the time, and again now: an administration receives thousands of petitions for pardons every year. The president can't possilby read and research all of them, therefore there is a procedure, with guidelines, within the DOJ which deals with those petitions. Most are rejected outright. I.e., between lobbyist for pardon and president is the DOJ.

Only after that process are potentional pardons presented by the DOJ -- not thoe lobbyists therefor -- to the president.

Bushit, in this instance, no only didn't bother with that process, and didn't consult with the DOJ or anyone else outside his circle of co-conspirators, but also acted directly contrary to the position of "his" DOJ on the issue.

There was that unfortunate perjury, the only point of comparison with Libby. Unlike Libby's it was not charged, as it was deemed moot after the suit was thrown out, if I have my timeline right.

I was denying that there were multiple crimes by the Clintons. The arguable single crime was the uncharged but undisputed perjury. My hands don't feel dirty, but Bush's will never be clean.

Indeed. I believe that Ron Fournier of CNN addressed the hypocrisy on both sides quite well. I realize that I'm in the minority here, but I was fed up with Clinton by '96 (and voted for Dole) even though I did not want to see him impeached. That said, Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich is not very different from Bush's commuting of Libby's sentence. I think both acts were reprehensible.

When I was in law school Dershowitz was one of the greater defenders of both the First Admendments and indigent defendents. It is my understanding that is this still the focus of his activities, as well as defending Israel.

If you bothered to read my other post on this thread you would see that I think Dershowitz' piece on Libby was wrong at best and silly at worst. However, most of the attacks on Dershowitz on this thread are of the silly personal sort that add very little to any serious argment. There is also the alway popular hint on this site of anti-Semitism. (Perhaps I should disclose that Dershowitz' grandson is a classmate of my daughter.)

As for it being nice. I was trying to be ironic. The more I read this site the more it resembles the thinking of Bush. I am not even sure that the results desired are all those different thought they tend to resemble Buchanan's populism. Howerver, the parmount position of ideology and self-righteousness over fact, amaturism over expertise and the shrill personal attack rather than thoughtful argument are indistinguishable between the two sides. "It is nice" because it highlights a very serious delemn with our politics though it does rather fuel the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

D Greenbaum,
I don't understand how you think. The case for disappointment in Dersh is obvious. The commentary will range from the cartoon like outlandish to dry and tightly reasoned. This is the nature of the internet. Why disdain all TPMs commentators and the value of the site itself? It's not merited. You can't walk around the world and expect every one to have the same style and fashion sense.

Dershowitz is trading off his good name and legal reputation to lie in public for a political purpose; if some commentators want to say mean things about him for doing that, I think it is reasonable.

The amazing thing about this case is that the neocons once again have managed to provoke a "debate" over some very obvious truths -- turning a lying bureaucratic functionary like Scooter Libby into the new Captain Dreyfus sheerly through access to the elite media and the rote repetition of propaganda talking points.

One would have thought that after the Iraq fiasco their ability to manipulate the system would be somewhat lessened. But the gangrene has set in too deep, I guess.

Clinton's affair with Lewinsky was consensual, between two heterosexual adults, and was not illegal.

Is it then your belief that Clinton's sexual liaison with Lewinsky was a matter of overweening importance to the nation?

It is not mine.

I did consider asking to see the Harding Broom Closet when I was on a tour of the White House. That was also a matter of some little prurient interest but not of primary importance in the rampant corruption of the Harding Administration.

What is your fascination with Clinton and Lewinsky? Do you have the same problems as the like of Henry Hyde and other Republicans who were so scandalized for some indecipherable reason?

OJ Simpson was also rather thoroughly investigated and walked. He was later convicted in a civil trial with much the same evidence but a different jury.

Clinton also had problems with civil penalties.

The bill of particulars on Clinton is quite extensive but some folks can't keep their mind off his teenage paramour giving him oral sex. It is not overly edifying to me.

But whatever grabs you.

If anyone would like to dredge up Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey and, yes, even the old land scam, if you want to discuss the incredible propaganda machine built by Bill for cover, if you want to discuss Bill Clinton hitting an aspirin factory in The Sudan with a missile aimed at Congress, we could have a lengthy discussion.

Lewinsky seems of great interest to you but is not to me anymore than whoever Andrew Harding met in the White House Broom Closet to do whatever they did. I suspect they didn't hold hands but I don't know or care. That is your department.

Best, Terry

When I was in law school Dershowitz was one of the greater defenders of both the First Admendments and indigent defendents. It is my understanding that is this still the focus of his activities, as well as defending Israel.

This is no doubt true.  Dershowitz does continue to defend these classic liberal positions.  I think Dershowitz and Joe Lieberman demonstrate the great post-9/11 political reformation we have witnessed in which traditional liberal/conservative issues such as civil rights and treatment of the poor have been subsumed by the over-arching question: are you a neoconservative?  Both Dershowitz and Lieberman have answered so loudly in the affirmative that it has drowned out everything else they say or do.

I choose Lieberman here not because he is Jewish (I agree with your creeping anti-Semitism comment and don't want to contribute to it).  Rather, I bunch together Dershowitz and Lieberman because both continue to hold classical liberal positions on issues like civil rights and poverty while tilting hard to the right on foreign policy.  They are the quintisential "liberal neocons" - a political classification that didn't exist in any meaningful way prior to 9/11.  Indeed, both men have lost all credibility in liberal spheres because the arguments they make in furtherance of their neocon agenda are so rediculous and patently offensive on their face that they have become discredited figures in general.  It doesn't matter that Dershowitz defends the First Amendment and indigent defendants.  He has destroyed his credibility in other ways.  The same goes for Lieberman.

Take Lieberman's insistence that the surge is working or that Iran has declared war on the US through his dubious accusations (which we must respond to with bombs, he clearly implies). Or Dershowitz's impassioned defense of torture, which he continues to advance using the silliest "ticking bomb" hypotheticals imaginable.  These positions are so outrageous that both Lieberman and Dershowitz find their otherwise decent reputations overwhelmed.  They have become descredited figures, despite "all the good things" they have done.

As for the attacks on Dershowitz on this thread, I'm what somewhat sympathetic to your point.  Many are not substantive.  On the other hand, when someone of Dershowitz's intellect advances such transparent arguments in favor of a fellow neocon - for the sole, obvious purpose of justifying an unconscionable act of injustice by a corrupt and morally empty neoconservative president - it's hard not to react with scorn and derision.  As I noted above, Dershowitz's legal argument for freeing Libby is practically self-refuting...any first year law student can see through it.  The naked dishonesty of his article doesn't invite serious deliberation.  It invites just the kind of booing and hissing he has received.

Alan "Torture-warrant" Dershowitz is being political and ridiculous;
the judges were just.

Irwin Lewis Libby's sentence was not commuted it was eliminated. When I first heard the news, I looked for the reduced sentence.

The fine is a separate element and the probation can only exist as a continuance of time served.

The fix was in, apparently. I'm beyond frustrated, simply astonished at the brazenness, and heading towards despair.

It was all so predictable that even I predicted it. I don't see quite how anyone would not have expected it.

Decent folk, like yourself Tom, will always be capable of outrage and in that there is hope for tomorrow.

That is all we ever have.

Best, Terry

Considering everything else (which I am too tired to list), why are you astonished?  Although it is very sad that every single American isn't astonished and agrieved and furious and outraged, it is unfortunately true that most of us expected this.

Note:  I will admit that I expected a full pardon, but now I realize that a commutation was a carefully designed ploy; if Libby had a full pardon he would not be able to refuse to testify in the Plame civil lawsuit against him.  Because his pardon has not yet occurred, and his case is "on appeal," he can claim the 5th at the Plame trial.  Because he is currently (although temperarily as we all know) considered guilty, he cannot be compelled to testify in any other trial.

Yes,  the fix is in.  Just like in 2000, 2004, the Iraq War, Cheney's assault with a deadly weapon, etc, etc, etc....

Jan

Once I caught debate of sorts between Dershowitz and William Kunstler on Larry King Live during the OJ spectacular.

King asked Kunstler if he wouldn't have been delighted to be asked to defend OJ.

"I don't do spousal abuse cases," sniffed Kunstler. [The wording is from memoery.]

The look on Dershowitz's face was priceless.

In reality Dershowitz's statistical illiteracy that wife-beating was immaterial and even argued against murder of the wife because most wife beaters don't murder their wives topped the silliest of Johnnie Cochran's goofy claims. The very best Cochran could manage was a banana label on the sidewalk proving the murders were the work of South American drug lords.

I have always been awed that Dershowitz's nonsensical alliterations that are even worse than Cochran's nursery rhymes and undercut the basis of most defense cases still allowed him to be hailed by defense attorneys as a civil libertarian. Dershowitz as an appeals attorney rarely or never has to argue before a jury and a good thing it is for any client. It would be like having two prosecutors cooperating in doing the defendant in.

Best, Terry

Dershowitz, whose ego is larger than the Grand Canyon, can be infuriating, as can the sanctimonious Lieberman. However, as with the Rightwing "dittoheads" too much of the discussion here is personal. It was perfectly possible to see Dershowitz' defense of Bush's action without raising issue of his Jewishness, or any other personal issue. It was ridiculous to see an entire group of Republican law enforcement officials from Ashcroft to Judge Walton as out to get Libby or politicize the prosecution.

The law should not be used to punish Libby for Iraq but as Martha Stewart went to jail for the same offenses to ask serious questions about the "law and order" regime we have been on since Nixon. A country that has more people in jail than any other major nation ought to disucss sentencing guidelines and the what we do to not violent offenders, not the foolish.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Two nights ago a poll was released that showed 45% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached. 56% of Americans believe Cheney should be impeached. These are startling numbers, but as you are aware, the national media reflects none of this reality. The debate is whether Bush's pardon was politically appropriate or even wise. We know the reality of the situation. We can act. And the numbers support us. It's as simple as this. If everyone who felt that Bush and Cheney should be impeached called the White House, called Nancy Pelosi, called Harry Reid, called their congresspeople, the criminals would be gone.

If only ten percent of the people who felt that way called, the response would be the same.

It's as simple as that. If you act on your disgust, outrage, and indignation, change will happen. They will be gone. Democracy will be intact.

I encourage you to act.

Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965

Harry Reid: 202-224-3542

The White House: 202-456-1111

How to find your representatives.