|
the debate will go where it will... but we've strayed from the intent of my OP.
as i demonstrated, the facts of the libby case as well as president bush's use of the privilege place his conduct well within the historical precedents set for presidential pardons by any objective measure. if a person claims to view this example of its usage as a threat to the rule of law (as many here say they do), then sober judgment would have to conclude that this is only the latest in a long string of similar abuses stretching back to the origin of the constitution.
so, given that this event has many antecedents, those who disapprove of the pardon on the grounds that it flouts the law must fall into one of two categories:
1) those who object to the general usage (or existence) of presidential pardons
2) those who object to this particular instance
given the general dismissal of past pardons as major issues, i conclude that those who object must object to this particular one for a reason not rooted in a love for the rule of law. the most likely motivation left is simply a political ax to grind. hardly worth getting worked up over.
as i see it, the only way to counter this line of reasoning is to prove that the libby case is objectively more serious than past cases or that the president acted in an unprecedented way. a quick wikipedia search of the history of presidential pardons will show the difficulty in those making arguments.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|