The D.C. gun case underlines some rather usual confusion on the true complexity of the securing our liberty. There often tends to be an individual based focus on rights (e.g., individual rights alone clearly what "the people" in the Second Amendment references) and/or the courts, the legislature apparently a corrupt body best left to things like tax policy. And, "the people" themselves as an organized entity that is in some fashion "well regulated" to promote public good? Well ...
As noted in a link yesterday, I share the sentiment of many others that the Internet provides a fundamentally important resource, a virtual public forum, where the public comes to discuss public affairs. The fact a plurality can be dismissive of such a concept only underlines some have a retrograde understanding of reality. A problem that might have to be addressed one day if the question of bloggers as member of the press or those who use the net to petition the government etc. comes to a head. Thus, it troubled me that a means to provide information on a matter of public importance was blocked (limited time led me not to check how to unblock it ... also a concern for my privacy if I had to ask the clerk).
Of course, blogging provides a good means for the public to be informed of current events while interacting with those who provide it. Thus, even the "grey lady" provides blog links to articles etc. Another way for the public to serve their role as citizens is the jury. The Libby trial underlined the potential here. In fact, some took it as strange that they took their role so seriously. As one sympathetic essay noted: "In sum, this jury's diligence and inquisitiveness evidenced the kind of active learning and processing of information that, frankly, we probably see far too little of, from most juries."
I supplied a quote respecting the importance of not lying to Congress, our representatives, deemed a core means to secure our rights and welfare. Not just the courts. The executive, which Andrew Jackson noted is the one person voted for by the nation as a whole, also has a role. Separation of powers and the like play a factor as well. Thus, that essayist noted:
But the biggest objection to a pardon, to me, is the need for accountability. ... In a system of separation of powers, the last crime we should pardon is a conviction of an Executive official for committing a crime to protect a higher Executive official.
Apparently, "contrarian" Michael Kinsley disagrees at least in part, sharing some sympathy for conservative hacks like Charles Krauthammer who deemed a pardon (which would imply guilt ... let's paper over that, huh?) immediately worthy of editorial comment:
From the left - or at least from the contrarian center - Michael Kinsley in Time takes the view that it makes little sense for Libby to go to prison given that he was lying only to conceal journalistic anonymity, which may in itself have social value, and given that the Bush Administration has lied about worse things, and Libby shouldn't be a fall guy.
As the essayist noted:
There's a point at which this sort of contrarianism becomes too clever by half, however. Does Kinsley really think we should craft a perjury exemption for "lies that help journalists get sources," "lies that aren't as bad as some other lies," and "lies that aren't committed by the guy at the top"? As to the last two categories, we'd have to let an awful lot of mid-level mafia capos go free if the argument "I'm not as bad as the guy running the operation" were sufficient to justify a pardon.
MK -- like his sometimes co-conspirators at Slate -- has an annoying tendency to appear to just want to be contararian. The "you are wrong, just for a different reason" philosophy Lawyers Drugs and Money blog has discussed in the past. For instance, now Shafer (the press critic) suggests Patrick Fitzgerald did a good job. I am dubious of his sudden seeing of the light. Anyway, if we don't go after the chief assistant of the Vice President, who do we go after? The fact is that we need to take an "attack the kings' ministers" approach here. I surely say go for more, but doubt Kinsley is an impeachment supporter.
Likewise, it is stupid to frame the issue as he does here. This is not the "only" reason he lied and obstructed justice. That's asinine. Often, the most important thing is fair process. It might have been in To Kill A Mockingbird, but once a judge noted that a losing litigant was satisfied -- he just wanted a chance to make his case. These days a generally neutral (sure, it cannot be totally neutral) and acceptable process is apparently a bit too much to ask for from some of our public servants. Attacking this reality is of fundamental importance.
The alternative is that people -- with cause -- will have some sympatheties with the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (a braggart that was tortured), which on some level is simply insane. BTW, I'm not sure how a terrorist mastermind would be an enemy combatant. And, meanwhile another check -- the press -- is kept out. But, we can rely on transcripts, right?
Uh huh.