In previous (admittedly dusty) posts, I have taken exception when legal or political privileges are extended to those who have influence. Call it a crusade if you will, but there it is: exceptionalism and favoritism annoy the hell out of me. I'm a big fan of everyone playing by the same rules.
This concerns Ruth Marcus' Washington Post column (h/t Glenzilla),
which argues on pragmatic grounds that Bush Administration officials should be exempt from prosecution for allegedly committing (well-documented) felonies. I concede that in all high-profile cases there are political aspects to consider. But to me that has more to do with differences over policy. When explicit and rampant lawbreaking by elected officials is strongly supported by evidence (not to mention televised Cheney interviews), the aspect of choice is absent or severely diminished when deliberating whether to prosecute. If not, then a tiered system of justice is implied. Right?
I left her this comment:
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to contain two central assertions:
- Prosecuting alleged felonies committed by the Bush Administration is too costly to the nation or too difficult.
- Crimes that government officials may be tempted to commit in the future can be deterred by means other than prosecution.
Therefore, if I am a government official planning to commit a crime, I have two goals:
- Maximize the political costs of prosecuting me.
- Ignore, circumvent or minimize any other sources of pressure that may directly impact me.
Sound familiar? It should, and no wonder. Many in the upper levels of the second Bush Administration had cumulatively committed or been a party to several episodes of widely-acknowledged lawbreaking that were effected through the Office of the President. Not a coincidence.
Dispensing for the moment with the pragmatism arguments you advanced, here's a more principled (or, if you like, systematic) reason to abandon your suggestion: shall all alleged felonies be subject to the same considerations nationwide? I have never held public office. If I commit felonies that meet the situational criteria you describe, will you also argue on my behalf in the pages of the Washington Post?
If yes, awesome. I can start plotting!
If no, then you have just argued for a tiered system of justice that takes class and position into account when defining which alleged felons will have well-documented criminal charges against them dismissed. Are you really advocating that we should live in such a country?"