When the Seperation of Powers Fails
Western civilization has a common structure in separating the powers of the state. Based on the notion of an imperfect, corruptable human race, it is done to try and balance how much influence any one person or group can have. The common separation is between the executive, legislature and judicial brances of government. The legislature creates the laws, the judiciary administers and interprets the laws, and the executive enforces the laws.

But what happens when the judiciary rather than simply administering the laws, tries to manipulate the judicial system for their own ends? In America, much criticism is heaped upon the supreme court judges because they seem to have all the power and they have created the concept of a living constitution where they can interpret the constitution based on current social and moral mores, as well as international law. It doesn't matter what laws the legislature enacts, or who the executive (i.e. police) arrest, the judiciary gets to "interpret" the laws and release who they want.

We are also seeing this is the Wilson-Plame leak "scandal". The Fitzgerald investigation has spent 2 years investigating someone leaking the status of a CIA employee who was no longer an undercover operative at the time of the leak. What that means is that there was no crime committed. That's the first clue that maybe this investigation wasn't about administering the law. But the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald has done much worse than simply keeping this circus going. From Opinion Journals Best on the Web.

What Did Fitzgerald Know and When Did He Know It?
A New York Times news story hints at the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle:

An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel's chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles. . . .

Mr. Fitzgerald's defenders point out that the revelation about Mr. Armitage did not rule out a White House effort because officials like Mr. Libby and Karl Rove, the senior white House adviser, had spoken about Ms. Wilson with other journalists. Even so, the Fitzgerald critics say, the prosecutor behaved much as did the independent counsels of the 1980's and 1990's who often failed to bring down their quarry on official misconduct charges but pursued highly nuanced accusations of a cover-up.

The Times suggests that there was a coverup of sorts in this kerfuffle:

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Armitage was up at 4 a.m. for a predawn workout when he read a second article by Mr. Novak in which he described his primary source for his earlier column about Ms. Wilson as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Armitage realized with alarm that that could only be a reference to him, according to people familiar with his role. He waited until Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, an old friend, was awake, then telephoned him. They discussed the matter with the top State Department lawyer, William H. Taft IV.

Mr. Armitage had prepared a resignation letter, his associates said. But he stayed on the job because State Department officials advised that his sudden departure could lead to the disclosure of his role in the leak, the people aware of his actions said.

According to the Times, "Mr. Armitage kept his actions secret, not even telling President Bush because the prosecutor asked him not to divulge it, the people ['who are familiar with his role and actions in the case'] said."

It seems that Fitzgerald and the State Department covered up a noncrime, and the effect was to keep alive the illusion that it was a crime. We won't speculate about the prosecutor's motives, but the more we hear about the case, the clearer it is that the whole thing stinks.

I think the word 'hints' at the start is a serious understatement. Fitzgerald has wasted time and a lot of tax-payer money, destroyed the reputation and career of someone, and all the whilst he knew who leaked the name.
- posted by Alan Grey @ Wednesday, September 06, 2006