I Beg Your Pardon - Is This Administration Above the Law?

Dan Froomkin noted in today's column that William Otis of the Federalist Society wrote, "To pardon Scooter Libby would not be consistent with the imperative that the mechanisms of law be able to demand, and receive, the truth. But to leave the sentence undisturbed would be an injustice to a person who, though guilty in this instance, is not what most people would, or should, think of as a criminal."

Perhaps Otis didn't finish his sentence. I'm sure he meant to add "the rich and members of the Republican White House." It's doubtful he thinks that it's OK to lie under oath for some middle income person being asked about something a friend of theirs might have done illegally. I also doubt he thinks it's OK for someone who is poor to lie to protect a friend who may have stolen for their family just to eat and stay alive another day. They would be OBVIOUS criminals to Mr. Otis. These are people he must feel need to understand that "the law is the law, and must be obeyed at any cost."

But someone who lies to federal prosecutors in order to circumvent the outing of a CIA agent's identity? Someone he might call treasonous were they a Democrat? No, this is someone he sees as misunderstood, and "not someone most" (rich, conservative, Republican - words he may have accidentally left out? ) "people would, or should think of as a criminal".

At least that is how it will read to every other American who sees that it's OK for folks from this administration to lie to the Justice Department under oath, to release the name of a covert CIA agent and declare they weren't covert, to fire federal prosectors without reason, and to do whatever it takes for themselves to stay in power, no matter what.

With this behavior rewarded; with any young person doubting that they can trust their government to support them should they choose a career in the CIA; or wondering if they might be sent - several times over - to a war declared by US, not started against us, if they enlist in the National Guard; and that their thought-to-be limited term can be extended to any length deemed necessary by a Presidency, is there any reason for any young person to rush to be part of service to their country?

Not if those they are expecting to protect will use any means against them while doing so, as it suits their purposes, or if they will forget them once they're wounded and no longer of use.

Pardoning Libby would send a message that would resonate with many generations to come in this country - the wrong one. That message would be that "this country is for the rich, and service is by those who aren't for those who are, and more, that the law only applies to those who aren't".