Today's Letters: The law is different for powerful people

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published July 5, 2007

Bush lifts Libby's jail term July 3, story  

There are indeed two justice systems in this country. You don't have to be a radical activist with a bullhorn to see that powerful people have a different set of laws than the rest of us.

President Bush has said he wanted to "let the legal process play out" on so many things over the past few years, so why did he suddenly reverse this policy for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, whose sentence was still on appeal?

Aren't there other miscarriages of justice in this country that the president could turn his attention and influence to, rather than a small, deserved sentence for a wealthy friend?

Patrick Moody, Riverview

Judge was vindictive

If the trial judge in the case had not been so vindictive and had allowed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to post an appeal bond, President Bush would never have gotten involved, and the case would have moved normally through the appeals process.

I cannot understand why a nonviolent offender whose case is still unresolved has to sit in jail waiting for the charges to be tossed out by a higher court. I am not impressed by the argument that Libby would have lost his appeal anyway. If that's the case, then a couple of years of delay would not have caused any harm. After all, Oliver North's case was tossed out on a technicality.

Leonard Martino, Tampa

Bush lifts Libby's jail term July 3, story

Justice for some

Martha Stewart went to prison for lying about a crime she was never charged with. I Lewis "Scooter" Libby gets a free pass for doing the same. President Clinton was impeached for lying about something that although immoral, was also legal. Scooter Libby gets a free pass for obstructing the investigation into who exposed the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

FEMA director Michael Brown did "a heck of a job" by losing New Orleans. CIA director George Tenet got a medal for lying and twisting intelligence to sell an unnecessary and failing war. Scooter Libby gets a free pass for perjury and obstruction of justice. Martha Stewart went to prison. What ever happened to "justice for all"?

Paul Starr, Treasure Island

It's all good, or not

Too bad Martha Stewart didn't decorate Vice President Dick Cheney's office. She would never had seen the inside of a prison.

Jeffrey Harper, St. Petersburg

Prison inappropriate

As a liberal Democrat and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I support President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Nonviolent criminals don't belong in prison.

No, I am not outraged by the fact that Libby will roam free in the country he has betrayed. I am outraged instead by the fact that hundreds of thousands of young people languish for years in prison for crimes, such as drug use, that don't threaten personal safety. These heavy sentences, administered under the sanctimonious title of tough love, were meant to appease the lust for punishment of the same electoral base that pleaded for Libby's release!

Lodovico Balducci, Tampa

Bush lifts Libby's jail term July 3, story

A mockery of the law

Paris Hilton had to serve jail time for driving with a suspended license, yet Scooter Libby will, despite his conviction for perjury and obstruction, have his prison sentence commuted.

What a mockery of our legal system. How sad that I now have more respect for the celebutant than our president. I suppose Miss Hilton ought to have forged friendships in the political arena. Maybe then, she too could have (undeservedly) avoided her punishment.

Lisa Stern, Valrico

Weakened president's defiant "compromise" July 4, editorial

A presidential power

The author of this editorial should read the Constitution and realize that the president has the authority to commute or pardon as he sees fit. President Bush did it when he felt it was timely regardless of his "hate critics" and certainly not like President Clinton's last minute "crony" pardons when he was escaping from the presidency.

After the prosecutor knew that there was no crime committed in the theoretical "spy outing" case, he should have made the results public and closed the case. In stead, he continued the investigation, trying to find someone he could hang a crime on just to satisfy his ego, and unfortunately Scooter Libby became his target.

This case parallels the misguided Duke University rape case where an out-of-control prosecutor bent the law to satisfy his own personal goals.

Dayle Stevens, Largo

Bush lifts Libby's jail term July 3, story

It was Libby's job

I'm shocked that people are complaining about President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice. Yes, Libby broke the law, as Bush concedes, but that was exactly what we paid him to do.

The Bush administration concocted dishonest justifications for its Iraq war and did whatever it took to discredit anyone who told the truth. Libby was just one soldier in the battle to protect the president, the vice president and other officials from the truth. Why should he be singled out for punishment?

Letting judges decide how to punish convicted criminals in the Bush administration could limit, and possibly even destroy, the president's absolute power to disregard the law. There's no telling what that could lead to. Democracy, maybe. Oh, the horror.

Gregory A. Morgan, Lutz

Compare pardons

Before all the commotion about the commuted sentence of "Scooter" Libby by President Bush dies down, let's review some facts.

Libby was tried in connection with a case that became a non-case. All presidents issue pardons, but none more notable than Bill Clinton's on the last day of his presidency.

I had to laugh to see "Hill-Bill" (my name for the media darlings) being so righteous and indignant on the Libby issue when President Clinton, during his administration, pardoned some of the most despicable criminals of that time. Marc Rich comes to mind among many others.

So before you judge President Bush, review other pardons by previous presidents and do a comparison test.

Lois Scheff, St. Petersburg

Arrogance on display

Is George W. Bush trying to see how arrogant and above the law he can become without bringing an impeachment charge? He has bragged often about his "leadership" ability, but it seems clear that he has mistaken "arrogance" for "leadership." It is a mistake that has cost our country dearly, both in moral and constitutional values, and also in international esteem.

Plus he has broken his word as to how he would treat lawbreakers in his administration. What a sad and ugly way to close out his second term as president.

Bill Rogers, Tampa

Law is trampled

On Sept. 30, 2003, just after the White House leak investigation began, President Bush said: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is ... If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

The rule of law and the U.S. Constitution mean nothing to this administration. They are crooked to the core. With people like this running our country, all I can say is, "God help us all."

Mike Nuckols, Bradenton

[Last modified July 4, 2007, 21:38:34]