Bush & Libby

[Rob]

Having just read this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6266766.stm

what does everyone make of it?

Is this a mountain made out of a molehill or is it the start of something bigger?

Personally, I'm leaning on the side that this is being blown out of proportion because of the coming elections etc.

Just out of interest, would say Gordon Brown have this kind of power to reverse a court made decision?

 

[gordonjblair]

while not being a fan of the present incumbent over there, and while I feel that it's wrong that an individual with no legal background should be able to overturn a decision made in a court of law, it would seem that a 2 year prison sentence purely for covering up an alledged leak (in addition to 2 years probation and a hefty fine, and probably never being able to work in government again) was perhaps a tad harsh.

What was the score in the trial around the leak itself (was there a trial?) does anyone know? [looks across the pond to where Dylan and Tx are sleeping peacefully in their beds....] guess I'll have to wait a couple of hours

As for the process over here, we have a legal system all the way up through the High Courts, Law Lords and European Courts... it's highly unlikely (unless Maggie got back in) that a PM would take such a step.

 

[Rob]

On how harsh the sentence is, depends if there has been a precedent (sp?) set in the past.

He did lie to the CIA and they did leak the name of a spy (is spy the right word?) and according to that BBC article they leaked the name because the husband of the agent had spoken against Bush.

 

[Dylan]

This seemed to be a bit of a witch-hunt to me, as info has been leaked countless times, just this time the democrats saw an opportunity and took it. While I don't agree with Bush commuting the sentence, he has every right to do so as president. Remember he didn't pardon the guy, just removed his jail time, he still gets the $250,000 fine and still has the record, which means he can't ever get a job with Subway or McDonalds (they have government contracts, and as such have to follow government hiring policies). His loses any type of pension he had, isn't going to be able to get a job worth [Poor language removed]. Hope he was financially smart and saved/invested some money, as that, in reality, is going to be all he has.

 

[atrottel]

Although I don't want to get into the Bush-Libby thing, especially on Scurvy-Ungrateful-Colonials Day, it wasn't Libby that leaked, was it? I think he was the one that lied through his teeth to an investigation about the leak, which arguably is a worse offence and goes to the balance between the executive, legislative and judiciary (and has historic resonances since the time of Nixon).

Plus I believe all his costs are being paid by wealthy supporters, so I wouldn't be too worried about his welfare (and he probably has a well-paid gig for the next decade as a speaker to conservative groups).

Have a good 4th, all you over there.

 

[CanadaToffee]

Rob, you got it in one - mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Rob]

Rob, you got it in one - mountain out of a molehill.

So I'm not always wrong then? yay go me.

You always have to be careful around any kind of election time, things that usually go under the radar as unimportant all of a sudden become major debates that mostly aren't even about the subject in hand.

If a president does this, is there some way any other form of power can argue it or reverse it or is the presidents word the be all and end all?