Breaking News: Scooter Libby gets two and a half years.

[Dartzap]

Just heard on the radio that he got a 30 month sentence.

[Dartzap]

Beeb

Jail sentence for ex-Cheney aide
A US judge has sentenced former key White House official Lewis Libby to 30 months in prison.

Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury in March over the investigation into the unmasking of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Libby was the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Nobody has ever been charged with the offence of leaking the name of Valerie Plame, whose husband had criticised the war in Iraq.

US District Judge Reggie B Walton said the evidence overwhelmingly proved Mr Libby's guilt.

"People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of [the] nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem," Judge Walton said in delivering the sentence.

Mr Libby is appealing the verdict.

It is not immediately clear if he will go to jail before the appeal process is finished.

There is also speculation that Mr Bush might pardon Mr Libby rather than have him go to prison.

[Vympel]

He better not be fucking pardoned. You've already got that idiot, Fred Thompson, making that argument.

[Stuart Mackey]

He better not be fucking pardoned. You've already got that idiot, Fred Thompson, making that argument.

I heard it on the radio this morning and the first thing that was mentioned was the odds of him getting a pardon. Kind of sad, is it not, that a legal system can find guilt and that can be overturned for no reason other than one mans whim.

[Glocksman]

He better not be fucking pardoned. You've already got that idiot, Fred Thompson, making that argument.

I heard it on the radio this morning and the first thing that was mentioned was the odds of him getting a pardon. Kind of sad, is it not, that a legal system can find guilt and that can be overturned for no reason other than one mans whim.

Actually it's not.
Despite the abuse of the system by past Presidents such as GWB's Dad in pardoning some of the Iran/Contra conspirators, Bill Clinton in pardoning Marc Rich and the New Square embezzlers, and Shrub's potential to do so if he pardons Libby, the concept is grounded in the fact that there are miscarriages of justice from time to time, and the Executive has been granted the power to right the wrong and/or expunge the record (thus restoring their full civil rights) of felons who have genuinely reformed.

You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Spyder]

Actually it's not.
Despite the abuse of the system by past Presidents such as GWB's Dad in pardoning some of the Iran/Contra conspirators, Bill Clinton in pardoning Marc Rich and the New Square embezzlers, and Shrub's potential to do so if he pardons Libby, the concept is grounded in the fact that there are miscarriages of justice from time to time, and the Executive has been granted the power to right the wrong and/or expunge the record (thus restoring their full civil rights) of felons who have genuinely reformed.

You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

And what qualifies the Executive to decide when a miscarriage of justice takes place?

[Glocksman]

Other than the power is explicitly granted to it in the constitution, not much.
You can make the case that a judicial panel is better qualified to hear such things, but given the process needed to amend the constitution to reassign that power, it's never going to happen.

As it is, the 'non-political' pardon applicants are vetted by a special section at the DOJ, who makes a recommendation on each case.
Usually the President follows that recommendation.

The problem is when the President uses the power for political ends, such as Clinton did with the New Square fraudsters and Marc Rich, and George HW Bush did with the Iran/Contra assholes.

As an aside, I read somewhere that GWB has been the stingiest President WRT pardons in the last 40 years.

[Stuart Mackey]

The problem is when the President uses the power for political ends, such as Clinton did with the New Square fraudsters and Marc Rich, and George HW Bush did with the Iran/Contra assholes.

Yeah, thats what I mean. Its a power that must exist, but its a power that I think should only be exercised when there is a provable misscarriage of justice. The NZ/British system has evolved that way at any rate.

[Spyder]

Other than the power is explicitly granted to it in the constitution,

which isn't a qualification at all

not much.

Then yes it is sad then isn't it.

You can make the case that a judicial panel is better qualified to hear such things, but given the process needed to amend the constitution to reassign that power, it's never going to happen.

The fact that the rest of your legislative processes are also broken is hardly an adequate excuse for the quality of this particular system.

As it is, the 'non-political' pardon applicants are vetted by a special section at the DOJ, who makes a recommendation on each case.
Usually the President follows that recommendation.

What a useless fucking system. The DOJ have no ability to produce pardons on their own so they pass the final decision to some arsehole who by your own admission isn't qualified to make the call.

The problem is when the President uses the power for political ends, such as Clinton did with the New Square fraudsters and Marc Rich, and George HW Bush did with the Iran/Contra assholes.

Because it's a stupid system.

As an aside, I read somewhere that GWB has been the stingiest President WRT pardons in the last 40 years.

I'm sure the 'non-political' pardon applicants are just thrilled.

[Vympel]

Isn't it the case that there are rules that would preclude Bush pardoning Libby so soon anyway, and in fact his term will have been long up before it can even be considered? Libby must first appeal, at least, I understand.

[Glocksman]

The fact that the rest of your legislative processes are also broken is hardly an adequate excuse for the quality of this particular system.

The fact that the amendment process makes it impossible to change without going through a long and convoluted procedure of getting supermajorities in each house of Congress and of the state legislatures to approve it isn't an excuse, it's an explanation of why it won't change.

As far as an excuse goes, I was defending the concept of pardons in general, not the US system in particular.
I apparently read more into Stuart's post than he intended to say.

[Uraniun235]

The fact that the rest of your legislative processes are also broken is hardly an adequate excuse for the quality of this particular system.

You realize that if constitutional amendments were much easier, there'd probably already be a federal ban on gay marriage by now?

I for one am glad it is difficult for the US federal government to change what it can and cannot do.

Isn't it the case that there are rules that would preclude Bush pardoning Libby so soon anyway, and in fact his term will have been long up before it can even be considered? Libby must first appeal, at least, I understand.

Pfft, Nixon got pardoned before he was even convicted.

[Spyder]

The fact that the rest of your legislative processes are also broken is hardly an adequate excuse for the quality of this particular system.

The fact that the amendment process makes it impossible to change without going through a long and convoluted procedure of getting supermajorities in each house of Congress and of the state legislatures to approve it isn't an excuse, it's an explanation of why it won't change.

As far as an excuse goes, I was defending the concept of pardons in general, not the US system in particular.
I apparently read more into Stuart's post than he intended to say.

Oh, fair enough then.

The fact that the rest of your legislative processes are also broken is hardly an adequate excuse for the quality of this particular system.

You realize that if constitutional amendments were much easier, there'd probably already be a federal ban on gay marriage by now?

I for one am glad it is difficult for the US federal government to change what it can and cannot do.

Fixing the amendment process isn't something you'd do in a vacuum. There's plenty of examples of European countries that amend their constitutional equivalents with gay abandon and somehow manage to avoid the decline into tyranny.

[Gil Hamilton]

It would be nice if the power of the President to grant pardons could be removed, since nowadays it only serves to make the President unaccountable and to allow him to cover his and his buddies asses, but it can't be changed really. It sucks, but it's yet one more way that the original intent of the Constitution has morphed into another way for the government to protect its own ass.

[CmdrWilkens]

As both a point and an aside together part of the reason for giving the power of pardon to the Executive is that the judicial branch has already been granted the chance to amend sentencing when the convicted comes before them while the legislative branch has no real reasonable argument for supervission. Given that the neccessity for a system of pardon's exist it would be logical to place that system within the hands of the executive. That said it would probably be better handled by a non-political panel (or bi-partisan at least in the US) convened under the executive but that's minutiae with no direct bearing as to the reason why the power of pardon should rest with the executive.

[metavac]

Isn't it the case that there are rules that would preclude Bush pardoning Libby so soon anyway, and in fact his term will have been long up before it can even be considered? Libby must first appeal, at least, I understand.

The Presidential power to pardon or commute is absolute. It can occur at any stage of a process of investigation, including before the elements of a crime have been established (i.e., prior to indictment). Here's some case law on the subject.

[Uraniun235]

The fact that the rest of your legislative processes are also broken is hardly an adequate excuse for the quality of this particular system.

You realize that if constitutional amendments were much easier, there'd probably already be a federal ban on gay marriage by now?

I for one am glad it is difficult for the US federal government to change what it can and cannot do.

Fixing the amendment process isn't something you'd do in a vacuum. There's plenty of examples of European countries that amend their constitutional equivalents with gay abandon and somehow manage to avoid the decline into tyranny.

In any form of human government, there has to be some body of people that is trusted with power.

In the US, who would you trust to responsibly alter the structure of the federal government? The people, who have in several states voted by referendum to ban gay marriage? Or the politicians, who seek to appease those very voters?

American society is sick. I don't think your European examples would apply here, or to any society which arguably can no longer be trusted to responsibly govern itself, although I'd be interested to hear otherwise.

[Stormbringer]

It would be nice if the power of the President to grant pardons could be removed, since nowadays it only serves to make the President unaccountable and to allow him to cover his and his buddies asses, but it can't be changed really.

A better way of handling it would really be to have a requirement for conformation of pardons by a second body or group. Yes, it will still allow some measure of abuse but it would hopefully cut down on the naked political ass-covering and outright corruption.

[Flagg]

Or you know, just not let him pardon members of the executive branch, period.

[Stormbringer]

Or you know, just not let him pardon members of the executive branch, period.

Quite frankly that's an idiotic way of approaching it. First of all it does nothing for situations like Pardon-gate where pardons were blatantly sold. Second, if a future President runs a dirty tricks group, they'll just set it up to avoid making them "executive branch."

If you want to reform the pardon system, it needs to be set up so a President can't just pardon whoever he wants with nothing anyone can do about it. Otherwise you're just asking for end runs around the rules.

[Elfdart]

Or you know, just not let him pardon members of the executive branch, period.

Quite frankly that's an idiotic way of approaching it. First of all it does nothing for situations like Pardon-gate where pardons were blatantly sold. Second, if a future President runs a dirty tricks group, they'll just set it up to avoid making them "executive branch."

If you want to reform the pardon system, it needs to be set up so a President can't just pardon whoever he wants with nothing anyone can do about it. Otherwise you're just asking for end runs around the rules.

Banning lame duck pardons of any kind would be nice start. Disallowing pardons for officeholders is another.