If you believe the Republican-appointed federal prosecutors in Montgomery, former Gov. Don Siegelman deserves more time in prison than Lewis “Scooter” Libby received in Washington on Tuesday. Siegelman supposedly sold a medical health board appointment to HealthSouth founder and ex-CEO Richard Scrushy for a $500,000 contribution to the education lottery campaign.
The prosecutors want Siegelman to get a 30-year sentence to make sure he’s out of the way for a long time and can’t make a political comeback. A Washington federal jury convicted Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, for obstruction of justice in a White House intrigue of attempting to silence a war critic Joseph Wilson, whose wife worked at the CIA as an undercover agent. He received a 30-month sentence in a case in which there were no indictments or convictions for exposing the covert agent.
Siegelman, too, stood convicted of obstruction of justice in an investigation that resulted in no other convictions. Libby was involved in a matter of national security that directly affected the Iraq War. Siegelman was raising money to promote an education lottery.
The prosecutors in the Libby case recommend a three-year sentence. The prosecutors in the Siegelman case want him to serve 30 years. Even if you don’t like Mr.
Siegelman, you must be concerned that partisan politics are driving the case against him Our Founding Fathers knew all too well the historical abuses of individual rights in criminal accusations of individuals. From the Spanish Inquisition to the excesses of the hated Tudor English Star Chamber, the many examples of violation of individual liberties convinced the Founding Fathers that the right to a speedy and fair trial, first mentioned in the Magna Carta, must be incorporated into the Constitution of 1791. It was deemed so important as to be included prominently in the Bill of Rights.
Fortunately, very few citizens ever have cause to evoke the Sixth Amendment. But it's comforting to know this safeguard is in place. Aside from the assurance a trial will not be unduly delayed (or expedited) so as to prejudice a case against a defendant, it also assures the accused will be judged by an impartial jury of peers.
Presumably, this means a jury without axes to grind or under the undue influence of the prosecutors. So it is disturbing to see a government, controlled by allegedly conservative Republicans, of which I still claim title, cavalierly trample these basic rights. From the well-publicized incarceration for more than five years at Guantanamo of an American citizen vaguely accused of terrorism without an indictment with precise charges of what laws he has violated, to the Siegelman-Scrushy trial where alleged jury misconduct should have been immediately and thoroughly investigated, the Sixth Amendment has been reduced to a footnote of little meaning or consequence.
If the charges leveled by both Siegelman's and Scrushy's defense lawyers prove correct, jury behavior (alleged e-mail banter [outside of the deliberation room]) may have prejudiced the outcome of their trial. And if the judge in this case, in fact, does have more than an arm's length relationship with the prosecution, it is not an assault on the judge's character to insist he remove himself from presiding over the proceedings. It is fundamental to the issue of fairness by any definition.
In this same case, prosecutors, with the acquience of the trial judge, have held hostage certain witnesses, intentionally delaying sentencing and offering incentives (i.e., lighter sentences), in order to influence their testimony against Siegelman and Scrushy.
Pressuring witnesses by the defendant's side would never be tolerated and, in fact, would be viewed as witness tampering. Why do the same rules not apply to the prosecution's side? Under our Constitution and the law, the rules must be the same for both sides.
The government already has an unfair advantage with unlimited funds and resources to make its case, often against citizens without money or influence. To give them an additional advantage is unwarranted. Unfortunately, the crime for which Siegelman and Scrushy stand convicted is a common practice in American politics from the president down.
Consider how ambassadors often receive their appointments. It's usually after a substantial contribution to the president's campaign or his political party. If we charge every politician who ever appointed a political donor to a board or agency, our courts wouldn't have time to hear any other cases.
The fact is prosecutors and much of the public thought Scrushy should have been convicted in the initial trial of HealthSouth officials. They are now willing to accept a surrogate conviction on shakier grounds in order to see him convicted of anything, even if it's a traffic violation. Whether we like or dislike Siegelman or Scrushy, we have an obligation as a civilized, law-respecting society to demand a fair adjudication of their case.
Alabamians deserve to know the full truth in the Siegelman-Scrushy matter. It is essential there be a trial above reproach and with little room for discussion as to the true guilt or innocence of these men. To deny them this is also to deny ourselves the protection of the Sixth Amendment.
As Americans, we must insist this never happen. Leave Comments(0) | Email to a Friend | Print Article Opinion Pages: Don Siegelman and the Karl Rove Controversy Editorial writers weigh in on the political implications and aftermath of the Don Siegelman federal corruption case Pine Endorsement: Drew Carey as New Host of Price is Right! We tackle this big issue so you don't have to!
If you believe the Republican-appointed federal prosecutors in Montgomery, former Gov.
News RSS