Slashdot Mirror


Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

An anonymous reader notes that President Bush has decided to commute Scooter Libby's sentence after numerous appeals failed. Libby was convicted in March of obstruction of justice in connection with the Valerie Plame affair. The President's action spares Libby from 30 months behind bars."

49 of 1,574 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by obeythefist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's true the President has that kind of power, but isn't he supposed to at least try to seem impartial and not at all corrupt?

    Are there any stipulations regarding the Presidential use of power at all?

    --
    I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    1. Re:Huh? by daeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. It is part of the checks and balances on the Judicial and Legislative branch (Legislative because if he wanted to, the President could pardon everyone convicted of a law he felt ran contrary to the country). He is supposed to show restraint in using the power and use it only when it does not weaken laws unnecessarily.

      Of course, since President Bush doesn't seem to follow much for precedent in other areas, it comes as no surprise he commuted the sentence.

      Personally, I don't care about Libby. I'm more concerned that he has weakened the force that testifying to Congress should hold. Testifying to Congress should be a big deal. Obstructing them should be a big deal. He not only lied to Congress, he lied to the country our Congressmen represent.

    2. Re:Huh? by linumax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well the question is could it get any worse for Bush? He can't get elected for a third term, his approval rating is lower that any other president, the Democrats do not have the balls to impeach Cheney, let alone Bush, etc. Will American people march in the streets against him? very unlikely, they're too busy following the lives of spoiled celebrities. It just can't get any worse for Bush.

    3. Re:Huh? by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is as old - at least - as President Jackson, who said "To the victor belong the spoils." One of the spoils is to be able to pardon the guys who do dirty work for you. Sad to say, it's been going on for at least 150 years.

    4. Re:Huh? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's true the President has that kind of power, but isn't he supposed to at least try to seem impartial and not at all corrupt?

      You've apparently not been paying attention to the news for the last 7 years. Let me introduce you to 21st century American Politics- when the question isn't "is this politician corrupt?" but rather "who has purchased this politician?", because the assumption is EVERY politician is corrupt.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Huh? by shawnap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is nothing impartial about pardoning someone.
      The act itself indicates that the individual being pardoned has either already been convicted by a jury or that his conviction is a forgone conclusion.

      The recompense is that it is all public.

      We all know that Libby lied to a grand jury;
      that he did it to obstruct the investigation of a felony;
      that he worked in the white house at the time;
      that he was convicted;
      that that the supreme court recently upheld a harsher punishment for the same crime;
      that his appeal was not heard;
      And finally, that the president, knowing all this, chose to commute his sentence.

      We are to review the president's actions.

    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He not only lied to Congress, he lied to the country our Congressmen represent.

      Which one? Saudi Arabia?

    7. Re:Huh? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is part of the checks and balances on the Judicial and Legislative branch
      I thought checks and balances were entirely optional now. Can't the judiciary just declare they're no longer part of the judicial branch, or claim this has to do with national security, or say they respect the president's right to his own opinion while completely ignoring him? Turnabout is fair play.
    8. Re:Huh? by kthejoker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A) He's not innocent, he was found guilty in a court of law by his peers. And if you followed the trial, it was VERY OBVIOUS that Libby did, in fact, spill his guts to anyone who would listen that Valerie Plame had sent her husband on a "fact-finding mission to Niger" in an effort to get them to reprint the same (with the obvious insinuation that there was an agenda to the trip.) AND THEN PROCEEDED TO LIE ABOUT IT TO THE FBI. That was the crime committed. Lying to the government is a felony. That's why Bush is keeping the CONVICTION on record. Libby was not innocent. And B) He was found guilty in a court of law. That is why he "needs to go to jail." And yes, I can easily tell you that Libby deserved to go to jail for what he did. If it had been me, I'd be in jail. What makes him so special?

    9. Re:Huh? by Soporific · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah except one was over national security and the other over splooge. I'm not condoning either but really, put it into context.

      ~S

    10. Re:Huh? by dircha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You can't tell me that Libby deserved to go to jail for "obstructing" an investigation into whether someone committed a crime "

      Yes! Heaven forbid we hold federal officials accountable to the faithful pursuit of justice and to uphold the Constitution and rule of law to which they have sworn an oath!

      Lying to federal investigators? Conspiring to mislead the american people? My God, people! If we don't allow the administration to lie, to obstruct justice, and to mislead the american people, how on earth will they stay in power?

    11. Re:Huh? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?

    12. Re:Huh? by minniger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All of this is useful (thanks!). And totally beside the point.

      Libby was convicted, argued that he had a good case for an appeal and got turned down flat ( by rather conservative judge ). So he was headed to jail. Period.

      Bush didn't say "Oh he's not guilty so I'm gonna let him go". Bush effectively said, "Yeah, he's guilty and Dick doesn't give a rats ass". He tried to split some hairs to not piss off the law-and-order republicans but just ended up doing something stupid (as usual).

      sigh

    13. Re:Huh? by jamie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What exactly was Libby convicted of again? Oh yeah, obstruction of justice. He had nothing to do with Richard Armitage leaking Valerie Plame's identity.

      How does Richard Armitage leaking a covert CIA operative's identity to Robert Novak in July 2003 exculpate Scooter Libby from leaking the same operative's identity to Judith Miller on June 23, 2003?

    14. Re:Huh? by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Only false in so much as he wasn't charged with treason. Outing undercover CIA agents is a treasonous act. Charging him with lying and obstruction was a lesser offense and easier to prove. This government is being run like the mob. I found the definition of Facism interesting.

      Thanks to our friends at Wikipedia "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3]"

      Sounds like the Bush administration to me.

    15. Re:Huh? by Ekhymosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Democrats should do this, republicans should do that..." this is the exact behavior that is retarding the nation, driving it to insanity, poverty and international disdain. Instead of blaming the other party, fucking fix it and get on with it. They spend so much time blaming each other, that if they would have only taken a little bit more energy, not only would they have fixed the problem, but by fixing it made the other party look excruciatingly ridiculous and inept to even the most base of people. Of course, one can only dream.

      --
      Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
    16. Re:Huh? by wordsnyc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He generally does what he thinks is best, regardless of how the public is going to receive it, which is why people like me love him.

      "The public" being most of the rest of the human race. So when this little piece of shit starts a war by lying to the electorate and kills ~300,000 civilians, shreds the constitution, and presides over the most breathtakingly incompetent and corrupt administration in recent history, he's just doing what he thinks is right? And that makes it OK, and you love him? And the fact that this little shithead didn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni until this year doesn't bother you? Incredible.

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
    17. Re:Huh? by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Democrats should do this, republicans should do that..." this is the exact behavior that is retarding the nation, driving it to insanity, poverty and international disdain. Indeed. The sports team mentality that is so prevalent in politics is a primary source of the idiocy we endure. Even if something is clearly foolish or just plain wrong, there are people who will perform any and all necessary mental contortions to try to justify it, purely on the basis that it's their "team" that did it. The Democrats will shout and point fingers at the unethical Republicans over this latest travesty of justice, while the Republicans will similarly shout and point fingers at those damned liberals. Meanwhile, the country continues to go to hell in a hand-basket.
      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    18. Re:Huh? by Copid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not disputing she never has been "covert." I am disputing whether she was "covert" at the time this alleged outing occurred. And it never did occur, because she wasn't "covert" at that time. I believe that was the conclusion of Fitzgerald. But, over-zealous prosecutor he was, he needed to get a conviction to justify himself. Mr. Libby was that unfortunate individual in my opinion.
      The problem is that there's often no practical difference between hiding secret things a covert agent is currently doing and continuing to hide them after they're done. If your assertion is that she's not in any danger of execution because she's here in the US and not spying anymore, I agree with you. If your assertion is that her status at the time was not secret, you're full of it. The fact that she wasn't currently active in covert operations doesn't mean that leaking her past activities wasn't potentially a huge breach of security.

      Whenever a former covert agent's identity becomes public knowledge, every foreign intelligence agency worth its salt starts to tear through every record of everything that person has ever done, chasing down every possible lead and contact they can find. If, for example, they figure out that other people worked for the front company that the agent in question worked for, they know that those other people are agents. They know that any people those agents had contact with in foreign countries may have been agents or collaborators. Lather, rinse, repeat. These people don't work in isolation, and there's a lot of potentially valuable intelligence to be found once you know the identity of a former agent. That's why the CIA thinks long and hard before giving former covert agents permission to come out, and it's why wankers like Robert Novak don't generally have access to the names of even former agents. It's also why the CIA still considered her undercover and her affiliation with the organization was classified until some people who clearly weren't authorized to do so outed her.

      The idea that this was no big deal is, put simply, garbage. There are times when our government can be overly anal about keeping information secret. This was not one of them. There's no disputing the fact that significant classified information was leaked.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    19. Re:Huh? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      most LLL types don't actually know very much about our political system and even less about the facts in the Plame affair.

      From your post, it appears you're a bit lacking in the subject matter.

      The jury that convicted Libby was a crime against justice, hand picked from the craziest denizens of DC to "Get Rove".

      You're forgetting that the defense plays a very large role in picking the jury. The jurors were approved by Libby's defense team, and they would not have approved a jury of all crazy liberals.

      Libby was going to prison for, worst case, political ass covering of the sort that happens every minute of every day in DC

      No, Libby was going to prison because his ass covering broke the law. There's tons of political types who manage to cover asses without obstructing justice. For example, Karl Rove went back to the grand jury, and changed his testimony enough to avoid a perjury charge.

      while Sandy "Pants Burgler" Berger walked after finally being cornered by the facts and CONFESSING to stealing classified documents by stuffing them into his pants/socks/etc to remove them from the National Archives for the purpose of destroying them.

      Wouldn't a much more apt comparison be the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Back then perjury and obstruction of justice are such serious crimes that the President must be impeached even if he was never charged with either crime. Now you're claiming that those serious crimes are just minor political ass-covering. So, either Libby's crimes are a big deal, or you owe Bill an apology.

    20. Re:Huh? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Clinton's was over sexual harassement. He is/was a serial sexual harasser.

      Don't be so absurd. When two adults mutually consent to one giving the other a blowjob then it's not sexual harassment.

      It would have been sexual harassment if there was some coercion involved but there wasn't, and to suggest that there was is just ridiculous. Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant, on more than one occasion, and she's said so herself.

      But, sure, defend this morally corrupt Bush administration by continually trying to distract the attention away from the issues of the day. I wonder when you'll recognise which President has truly let down his nation.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    21. Re:Huh? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However they beleive in the rule of law and are so now opposed to the executive branch. It will be interesting to see what Republican canditates do to try to distance themselves from Bush before the next election - it's odd as an outside observer to see a monarchy grow out of the Republican party.

    22. Re:Huh? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly... it was Libby, not the sitting president... what's your point?

      That if it's a serious enough crime to impeach a couple Presidents, then it's a serious enough crime for Libby to do his time.

      Either that, or we all owe Clinton and Nixon an apology, because it turns out perjury and obstruction of justice aren't important.

    23. Re:Huh? by Archtech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "He generally does what he thinks is best, regardless of how the public is going to receive it, which is why people like me love him".

      Attila generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the local people were going to receive it, which was why the Huns loved him.

      Genghis Khan generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the local people were going to receive it, which was why the Mongols loved him.

      Stalin generally did what he thought best, regardless of how the people were going to receive it, which was why the Communist Party of the Soviet Union loved him.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  2. An Utter Farce... by kravlor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and perfectly legal, in this case.

    Still, I guess it just goes to show that now, perjury is OK!

    I must also strongly agree with Joe Wilson: "Scooter Libby is a traitor." I certainly hope that those responsible for the egregious breach of national security are convicted as such.

  3. Bush is a coward by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He could have pardoned Libby. Then Libby could continue to practice law and wouldn't have to pay the fine. Well, I don't think anybody thinks the fine will come out of his own pocket. And look forward to a pardon when Bush leaves office, which should not be under honorable circumstances.

  4. Re:News for Nerds? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nerds are people first and nerds second, and as people, we should all be concerned about the actions of thus most unctuous and corrupt government.

  5. Good News, Everybody! by MadUndergrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently our leader has decided that being shamed in front of your family and having your reputation tarnished plus being fined a nominal fee is enough of a punishment for high crimes against the government. Surely such things a possessing a few ounces of pot then deserve nothing more than a vicious finger-wagging, right? ....right?

  6. For shame by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Outing an active agent is an act of treason which, if I recall correctly, is still punishable by death in the US. Whether Libby, Rove, or Cheney did it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.

    This so-called administration has broken, no--pulverized--their oaths of office.

  7. Re:Slashdot turning into digg by flynns · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You could always, y'know, not visit Politics thread. It's not like you clicked on the "Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence" headline and went, "OH MY GOD POLITICS!! I had NO WARNING!" Seriously, what were you expecting? Discourses on the implementation of preemptive scheduling in the 2.6 kernel?

    --
    'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
  8. Timing is everything by VGR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So conveniently close to a holiday, too. A large number of people are on vacation, and both vacationers and everyone else will be too busy playing with booze and fireworks to give this much consideration.

    --
    The Internet is full. Go away.
  9. Halliburton back scratching? by MechaBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Halliburton owes Cheney for a lot of no-bid contracts. Cheney owes Scooter for muddying the waters in the Plame affair. Any bets on whether Scooter lands a choice position at Halliburton in the near future?

  10. Above the law (as usual) by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dick Cheney has frequently alluded that he is above the law in every respect, do you really think that his aides are any different? More proof that rich white guys almost never go to jail.

    And Bush commutes his measley 30 months in jail while still doing nothing for Ramos and Compean who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for DOING THEIR JOBS as border patrol agents.

    What a crock justice is in the country. I have no respect for the law at all anymore.

    signed;
    A disgusted citizen of a corrupt nation.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  11. Re:Bush regime, no democracy, etc., etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    how does that make this in any way acceptable?

    this has to be the worst excuse for accepting this kind of behavior that's ever been uttered

  12. Why did Bush reduce the jail term to ZERO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation. I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."--President Bush.

    If Bush is citing the probation office's advice, what was that advice? How long was the lesser sentence? Zero, no jail time at all? If not, then why did Bush let Libby off scot free? What is the jail term Bush thinks is appropriate for perjury and objstruction of justice, and why was Libby not required to serve that term?

    And why does Bush say "I respect the jury's verdict," when he patently does not respect the jury's verdict? What could possibly constitute more disrespect than setting the verdict aside?

  13. Re:Bush regime, no democracy, etc., etc. by jstomel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    None of those 140 worked for him or committed their crimes while acting in their capacity as a public official.

  14. Re:This is the most brazen abuse of presidential by d3l33t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This absolutely reeks of conflict of interest. I am ashamed of my government. I couldn't agree with you more. As a voter and taxpayer, I am sick of seeing my government make moral choices that i would scorn a 4th grader for (no offense, any 4th graders reading this). The corruption of this country seems to run deeper every year, and being someone whose only twenty it worries me. The biggest problem I sense the future holds is the ever growing numbing sensation when news like this is presented. More and more people seem to become desensitized. A 'now this, what's next?' taste lingers in the back of my mouth, and I await the news of more scandals uncovered. What don't I know about. The next logical question you ask yourself may be, 'how can we prevent further decay of our beloved country'. Good question America. But unfortunately, the damage is uncomprehensable from the bottom of the mountain.
  15. Re:I give up by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good God, you think that JFK was the last great president? If he hadn't gotten himself martyred, he would have gone down as one of the most corrupt and inept presidents in history. His party's rigging of the Illinois vote in 1960 was just as blatant as what happened in Florida in 2000. He gets credit for pushing through civil rights, but his support for that was always lukewarm, and ended up being pushed through after his death by his successor. And more than any one person, JFK deserves the blame for that stupid, pointless war in Vietnam.

    But he didn't live long enough for his chickens to come home to roost, and his successor, LBJ, found it politically expedient to give JFK the credit for his own accomplishments. Proof that in politics as in everything else, it's better to be lucky than smart.

    Every era has had bad presidents. There was Herbert Hoover, of whom it was said, "It ain't what he don't know that scares me -- it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" There was U.S. Grant, who was the greatest military leader of his time -- and the worst head of state of all time. There was the long string of bozos who could have prevented the Civil War, but didn't see what the big deal over slavery was....

    In that crowd, as in all things, Bush the Tiny just doesn't rate.

  16. Irony by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This may be the first major act by President Bush that is unquestionably constitutional.

  17. Having received a few blow jobs in my life ... by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But never once "outing" a CIA agent ...

    I'd have to say that there is a noticeable difference between the two acts.

    Perjuring yourself over a consensual blow job is a crime.

    Perjuring yourself to cover "outing" a CIA agent if MOTHER-FUCKING TREASON.

  18. Driven to it? by prof_bart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This whole fiasco (including the slashdot commentary) reeks of what has become the norm of American Politics.

    (1) How serious people think the crime is seems to be only dependant on what colour team they support: either (blue) "Complicit in the outing of a CIA operative - bordering on treason!" or (red) "No crime (she wasn't a covert operative), no harm (he had nothing to do with the news stories), no foul". Who is right? Who cares?

    (2) accusations of potentially politically motivated judicial decisions: The penalty given, and the refusal to allow appeals before incarceration has been argued to be at least marginally unusual for this sort of case (IANAL, but I've occasionally glanced at Google News), like the blue team finding a chance to make the red team make themselves look bad by drawing commutation out of wildly unpopular red team president: maybe, maybe not, but in this climate, who is to say? (hint, if you support the red team, the judgement was wrong and politically motivated. If you support Blue team, it was just and right and appropriate to the seriousness of the crime - see (1))

    (3) Shrill condemnation for a completely inevitable act by the red team: but, regardless of what team is in power, what do you expect? Either they honestly believe that the judgement was a miscarriage of justice (in which case, what else is the power to commute sentences supposed to be for) or he was actually up to no good, on orders from the government (in which case leaving the guy out to dry would go past the line of unethical). See (1) for a guide on how you should fall on this.

    Is this fiasco really factor for anyone? Wouldn't it be better if we stuck to what is *really* bothering us? There is plenty there, and it actually matters!

  19. Other travesties go unaddressed by Giro+d'Italia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How nice of Dubya to pardon a guy who was probably holding a lot of dirt about his administration in his back pocket.

    In the meantime, some kid in his 20s is rotting in a Georgia jail for having consensual sex when he was 17 and she was 15.

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/11/teen.sex.case/

    Obstruction of justice okay. Getting a blow job, no. Consistent with the Republican party's approach to Clinton I guess.

  20. Our Government Working as Intended by Arguendo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever I see corruption like this I remind myself of our Founder's absolute GENIUS. The legislative branch creates independent prosecutor to investigate executive branch -> the people convict -> the judicial branch sentences -> the executive branch commutes -> the legislative branch goes nuts. It's a perfect series of checks and balances.

    Meanwhile, we go about our lives content with the knowledge that our government is far too involved arguing about whether some exec in the Vice-President's office lied about an investigation in which a crime may or may not have actually been committed (no one was ever charged) to actually scheme up ways to consolidate power and threaten the Peoples' freedom. And in the end, no branch got too much say and it was the people who were required to actually convict the dude.

    Thank you Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton. This was the true gift of our Founding Fathers; not a perfect government. They knew that men will never change.

  21. On Harsh Sentencing by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the response I sent to someone who argued that the commutation was just:

    He was an extremely high ranking government official who lied to the FBI to protect the guilty. When that sort of thing is treated lightly, it sends a clear message to the public that our government is about politics and power, not about justice.

    FWIW, I also think Rep Jefferson (D-LA) should be put under the jail.

    The reason is this: a fine to Scooter Libby means exactly nothing. The PNAC will pay it for him. Moreover, for every Jefferson or Libby that gets caught, fifty scurry free through the halls of DC. And furthermore, the stakes are enormous. Libby will have power beyond yours or my imagining for the rest of his life for what he did. The only way to disincentivize the behavior, when one in fifty get caught and the rewards are frankly beyond my comprehension, is to make the penalty leviathan.

    Why do you suppose our politicians are so corrupt? Is it because they are bad people? No. It is because they are human and they are faced with enormous profit and zero downside. No one could be expected to maintain their moral integrity in the face of that. We have to help them stand their ground, by making corruption unthinkable.

    The only other option is to let it keep happening, and watch our nation continue to erode.

  22. Prison rape is NOT funny by Loundry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, he was going to a federal 'pound me in the ass' prison.

    I simply don't understand why this is a humouous meme in our culture.

    To the right, one would think that gay male rape would be regarded as a sin and a gross violation of manhood.

    To the left, one would think that prison abuse happening on a widespread scale should be something that a civil society should abhor.

    To the notion of American individual rights, one would think that being sentenced to rape is a cruel and unusual punishment.

    As is, it is treated flippantly.

    Shame on any of you who think this is funny. Prison rape is NOT a fucking joke! It is a disgusting violation of human rights and the persistant and wicked idea that it's either funny or representative of justice that someone be sentenced to RAPE is the primary reason why it continues.

    If you think my condemnation of you rape advocates is unfair, then I would like either a "liberal" or a "conservative" to make a strong, compelling case why any crime which merits prison time be "rape by default". Please tell me how exactly that represents "justice" to you.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:Prison rape is NOT funny by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that it's funny. It's that it may very well be the only thing about prison that people FEAR anymore.

      Rape obviously cannot be condoned by society, and yet the idea of a person we hate being violated so intimately is something the public loves with a fetish. It directs attention away from the otherwise sanitized, taxpayer-funded reality of prison, and gives people a more concrete idea of prison than orange jumpsuits and the image of a barred door slamming shut.

      People may hate rape on several levels, but the idea of rape as a form of punishment is still alive and well, even if our society cannot openly condone it. Blame the savageness of humanity if you will, but humor is just a weak mask for the truth.

    2. Re:Prison rape is NOT funny by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I can tell you that 100% of the time I crack that joke, it is because I find the practice of sentencing people to rape to be offensive. Remember the old advice of, "Never discuss sex, politics, or religion" when socializing? Well, our culture allows us to say just about anything if the person saying it can even remotely claim it was a joke. Not at work, but most other places. Just watch any stand up comedy show on TV, and you will see a stream of dirty, political, sexist, and racist jokes. So, what happens is that issues that would normally be considered taboo to speak about, are now put out in the open.

      Which is do you find more offensive, people cracking jokes who's punchlines are considered funny BECAUSE the statement is so offensive, or people just not talking about the problem at all?

  23. The world is watching America.. by viniosity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..and America is watching TV.

  24. Libby's lies prevented any IIPA prosecutions by Mal+Reynolds · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We'll only see a conviction for the outing of Plame when White House staffers stop perjuring themselves and stone-walling the investigation.

    In other words, never...

    The real reason Libby was prosecuted is lost on many of the administration's defenders. Many have deluded themselves into believing that Libby's prosecution was some sort of political witch hunt.

    This would have to be the first political witch-hunt in history where a Republican politico was prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor, sentenced and jailed by a Republican Judge, and refused bail by an appelate court, the majority of whom were Republicans.

    Libby's prosecution wasn't a witch-hunt. Libby was prosecuted because he blocked Fitzgerald's investigation. Libby lied and stone-walled, preventing Fitzgerald from ever getting to the bottom of why Plame was outed.

    The "why" is very important. This is because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act only allows prosecution of those who knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Fitzgerald had to prove they knew, but he couldn't reach that level of proof without honest testimony from those involved.

    But because Libby lied to the grand jury and FBI, because Karl Rove stone-walled and nearly found himself similarly prosecuted for perjury, Fitzgerald was unable to get enough proof to prosecute any IIPA violations.

    Libby's lies probably saved some in the administration from prosecution under the IIPA. That is why Libby was prosecuted for perjury and why no one has been (or probably ever will be) charged for outing Plame under the IIPA.