Indictment a fishing license

The more I read about this, the more I am convinced that the CIA is a tool of anti-Bush components in the government. I am not saying there is treason afoot; I am saying that the traditionalists in the State department and the CIA are bed partners that are against Bush foreign policy.

These traditionalists do not see that Mohammedanism is a political and cultural threat; rather they see Mohammedanism as a tool or instrument to use for manipulation of multicultural American interests. As a tool for consensus rather than as a threat to the American way of life. This view has the CIA using wicked people to advance a multicultural agenda.

It is the mistake that brought us the Shah toppled by the Ayatollah. It brought us a Batista toppled by Castro. It brought us a Chiang Kai Shek toppled by Mao Tse Tung. Europe saw this bring a Hitler that exterminated 12 million people of which 6 million were Jews seen as a sub-race polluting the master race.

The same CIA and old guard State Department want to work with Mohammedans that look to Hitler and his book, Mein Kampf as a hero and a plan to exterminate Jews and American Christians because of the superiority of Mohammedans that worship an Allah created by the blood lusting pedophile known as Mohammed.

Below is an Article that demonstrates the absurdity of this line of prosecutorial inquisition.
___________________________________________
THOMAS SOWELL: SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Fri, Nov. 04, 2005

WE HAVE been hearing for a long time what a terrible thing it is to reveal the name of a covert CIA agent -- and it that it is because that can be a life-and-death situation for the agent and a devastating setback for this country's ability to get other countries to supply intelligence.

But it was an anticlimax when the man who is accused of doing that -- Lewis Libby on Vice President Cheney's staff -- is not charged with the crime for which a special prosecutor was appointed, with extraordinary powers and an extraordinary budget.
Unfortunately, this situation is not unique. It is not uncommon for a prosecutor to charge someone with a crime that did not even exist when the prosecutor's investigation began. In other words, the crime was created during the investigation.

That leaves aside the question whether the person accused is in fact guilty or innocent of the crime with which he is charged. And presumably if the prosecutor had enough evidence to charge the accused with the crime for which the investigation was authorized, he would have done it.

One of the legal problems is that it is by no means clear that a crime was committed.
It is one thing to tell the world the name of a CIA agent operating in Iran or North Korea, for that agent may never come back alive. It is something else to say Joe Wilson got the assignment to go to Niger because his wife sits behind a desk in Virginia.
Put bluntly, too often authorizing an investigation is just a fishing license for a prosecutor, regardless of whether he has evidence on the crime he is supposed to be investigating.

The case against Libby is essentially that he remembers conversations with reporters differently from the way those reporters remember them.

Any married couple who has gone on vacation and come back with the husband remembering some things differently from the wife can see why this can be a hard case to prove perjury, much less the crime that was being investigated.

However, prosecutors nailed Martha Stewart, so they may be able to nail Libby. Meanwhile, it is fascinating to see those who downplayed an organized campaign of perjury and subornation of perjury by Bill Clinton a few years ago, now touting the indictment of Libby as proof the Bush administration is corrupt.

There is no talk today about "move on," with or without the dot com. There is no one saying "get over it." More important, there is no orchestrated campaign of character assassination in the media against prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the way there was against special prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

There is no need to demonize Fitzgerald. What really needs serious re-examination are laws under which special prosecutors are issued unlimited fishing licenses to go see if they can trip someone up on inconsistencies in statements about something that was not even a crime in the first place.

After a special prosecutor has spent millions of tax dollars and is in the media spotlight, the temptation is to find something, anything, rather than say it has not been worth the expense or bother. A regular prosecutor has many other cases to turn to if a particular case does not look worth the investment of more time and money.

Special prosecutors have only one case and no incentive to weigh alternatives like a regular prosecutor. Even aside from cases involving a special prosecutor, there are far too many complicated laws regulating too many things for which people can easily be indicted, leading to a media frenzy -- and often a biased frenzy at that.

To the liberal media, the accused is "innocent until proven guilty" -- when the accused shares their political views. Otherwise there is "the appearance of impropriety."

Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.