Scooter

Apparently Scooter Libby will not appear as a witness in his trial - and that's okay. That's why we have laws, right? You don't have to testify in your own defense, and neither does your boss, the surly intemperate foul-mouthed Vice President.

But along the way the defense intimated to the judge that Libby would appear, and that made it okay for them to build a case on Libby being too busy to remember having revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent. I mean Libby's work leads to thousands of people having their lives and careers destroyed - how can he be expected to remember that one case?

So the judge is not pleased, and is making it known. That might be a bad move for him.

What if the Veep declares the judge and prosecutor to be 'unlawful combatants' and throw them into a blackout room in Gitmo forever? That's their right as, well, unlawful combatants. They hold the view that their actions are not affected by what we proletarians think of as the "law."

That goes double in the case of Cheney, who seems to think that the Office of the Vice President has powers beyond even those of the president himself. After all, the president can't break a tie in the Senate, and he's not usually sent to the funerals of world leaders, either.

But what if the shoe was on the other foot? What if the judiciary decided that they were empowered to do whatever they liked because of the cool robes and hammer-like gavel armament? I mean, if the executive and self-proclaimed quasi-executive can have their own prison camps, why can't the other two branch have their own as well?

I guess the judiciary really does have their own prison system, known as the "prison system." They just decide how and when they bang people up in it. Sure, Congress passes the "law," but if Georgie doesn't have to go by it, why should the judges?

This "law" is really just a guideline, right? If a judge feels that a defendant might pose a threat in the future if he's allowed out, they should be able to use their Decider powers to just get rid of the person for good, right?

This is America after all. We can't have people suspected of things just flipping around free.

And Libby: what if he were to get out and enable Cheney to do even worse stuff (hard to image, but stay with me)? He was willing to trash the career of a CIA agent and harm the actual non-fictional defense of the actual non-fairytale United States. And he did it to further the political cause of real life warmongering killers.

What more evidence do you need? Get rid of the jury and put Libby in the butt-assault hard time prison where you put people who've only killed like, one person. The Iraq wars body count is beyond a reasonable tally, and Libby's one of the guys who made it happen.

So why should there be more justice for Libby than for a shoplifter or a bank robber?

Here's the because: because this really is America, a nation of laws. In real America (as opposed to Bush-Rove-Cheney fantasy America) there are laws intended to try people on the merits of the evidence, and not put them away for a minute based on rank suspicion, or on where they were standing when they got picked it.

Libby is wealthy and connected enough to be sure of a fair trial. The Iraqis and Gitmo detainees are not so lucky. There are innocent people dead, tortured, and incarcerated for life because of the kind of stuff that Libby has pushed.

Too bad none of them have a voice.

And then there's the media. They've been a big part of this story, as the recipients of Libby's (and others - Rove, Fleicher, Armitage) self-serving leaks. Irony about their own part in all this is lost entirely on them.

Here's a good example of what this looks like; the NYT has a story out today on those cute firedoglake bloggers who've been giving great coverage of the trial on the INTERNETS. The trial itself has been an indictment of the insider gamesmanship of the useless Washington media, who have served as the propaganda arm of the Junta instead of the watchdog of the people.

Tim Russert and Judith Miller were prominent media types drawn into testifying how they took in 'off the record' lies and pushed them out to the public. Could anything be more sinister than the big media pretending to be neutral while passing along innuendo and outright lies cooked up in the White House?

And yet, the story says:

Even as they exploit the newest technologies, the Libby trial bloggers are a throwback to a journalistic style of decades ago, when many reporters made no pretense of political neutrality. Compared with the sober, neutral drudges of the establishment press, the bloggers are class clowns and crusaders, satirists and scolds.

“They’re putting in a lot more opinion and a lot more color than the traditional reporters,” said Mr. Cox, adding that the bloggers were challenging “the theory of objective journalism.”

"Objective journalism" hasn't existed in Washington in years. The likes of Russert and the rest have pretended at objectivity, while playing megaphone to the extreme right.

The difference with these marginal lefty internets types is that they admit their point of view. While Fox News lies about being 'fair and balanced,' these guys tell you right out that they've got a perspective.

While Tim Russert hides behind the skirt of Lady Justice while working for the extremist executive branch, the bloggers tell you what they think up front.

Oh, and the weapon these "clowns" use against their political foe?

The truth.

The "establishment press" ought to try it some time. I hear it can set you free.