Thursday, June 21, 2007

So What Were We Arguing About Anyway?

Engram looks at the folly of a conviction that was pursued despite the knowledge that there was no actual crime involved. Hitchens summarizes it nicely (though even Cohen chips in):

With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying....

As Fitzgerald worked his wonders, threatening jail and going after government gossips with splendid pluck, many opponents of the Iraq war cheered. They thought -- if "thought" can be used in this context -- that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something. For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.

Opponents of the Iraq War needed a scalp and convinced themselves that Libby was just the beginning of a cascade of prosecutions that would end with Dick Cheney being frog-marched out of his office. That did not happen, of course. But they got Libby while trampling many of their ideas of freedom of the press in their zeal to start those dominos tumbling.

And here we are, years later, and the only question I wanted answered in the whole Affaire La Plame has gone unanswered.