Subject: A system of Law, not Men......... (fwd)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 145913 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
.....FYI.....More on the Clinton credibility issue........guru......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:15:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: nleditor@mail.orion.org
Cc: emfguru
Subject: A system of Law, not Men.........
Dear editor:
In another one of its high school level editorials, the Sunday News
Leader (Aug. 2, 1998) has joined the attackers upon Ken Starr by
insinuating that he is a "partisan loose cannon" who has improperly
expanded his investigation to the detriment of the nation.
I say that is a "high school level" analysis because it is superficial
and without merit in terms of its statement of the actual situation.
In fact, I would expect a high school editor to do a better job.
Your editorial was "couched" in terms of a criticism of the Special
Counsel Law, itself, and martialed in defense of its position a series
of past history examples from previous Special Counsel Lawrence Walsh,
in addition to your criticism of Ken Starr's "$40 million" effort --
which you state has already produced "dry holes" in the Whitewater,
Travelgate, and FBI files cases.
What is the basis for the latter conclusion? I have seen nor heard no
evidence that justifies such a "dry holes" conclusion at this point. Do
you know something that we don't?
Moreover, is it not more accurate to say that the total picture of what
is being investigated by Starr more properly falls under the heading:
possible misuse of presidential power -- in all of the cases you have
already written off (above) and, in particular, the Monica Lewinsky case?
Of the Monica Lewinsky case, you say, "something that may or may not bring
down the president, built on a tawdry story presented in a politically
motivated civil case that no longer exists." None of that fully comports
with the facts.
1. The Paula Jones case does still exist and is not "nonexistent"
until she has exhausted her constitutional rights through appeal, which
surely you must have known was filed in the Arkansas court just this past
week!
2. Yes, the Monica Lewinsky case is "tawdry," but what does that have
to do with its legal (particularly its constitutional) merits? Nothing!
Its "tawdriness," is a totally irrelevant aspect -- difficult as that
may be for the public (and the press that caters to the public) to
understand. If the day ever comes when we, as a nation, say, "Oh its
OK for our public officials to lie (under oath) and cover up certain
offenses -- the "tawdry ones" -- but not others," then our constitutional
system of government by law rather than by men ... will be finished.
3. You talk about Starr being "politically motivated." Again, other
than statements by the First Lady and others in the White House, where
is the "real" evidence of that. But of course Mrs. Clinton and her fellow
White House staff propagandists can be counted as totally objective about
Starr's "motivations"??????
More importantly, I suggest that what would 'really' turn these Special
Counsel cases into political free-for-alls would be the application of
the very standard you call for in your editorial: Let's allow 'little
lies' about tawdry affairs, but not big ones......
Consider ... would not that totally 'politicize' the process? As the
political milieu attempted to sort out which lies would be allowed and
which would not? It is for a very good reason that courts of law do not
allow such 'discretion' as to when the truth is allowed and when it is
not.....
Finally, dear editor, in what I believe to be a 'contrived' fashion, you
implicitly endorse the propaganda of the White House when you insert the
oft-repeated (by White House apologists) $40 million (probably more by
now) that is being expended by Starr in this investigation.
Sir, I respectfully submit that if that is ALL that it costs to ensure
that we maintain our system of law rather than men (and "politics as
usual" or more abuses of power by high officials) -- then it is money
well spent!!!
I salute the steadfast, nonpolitical, professional "get the facts" (in
spite of all the White House obstructive tactics) and then apply the law
(not public opinion) ... performance that the nation is getting from Ken
Starr.
In fact, may I venture one prediction: I predict that when this matter
is finished -- rather than abolish or "let the law die" (as you suggest)
-- Ken Starr's performance and record in this case will be the 'salvation'
of the law.
I believe that the American people are smarter than the press and the
politicians who prefer political bombast and poll-taking to constitutional
procedures. I believe that (as in the Nixon case) the American people
will decide, again, that one thing we do NOT want for sure -- is
presidents who think they can "get away with it" -- abuse their power, lie
about it and cover it up!!!.......
Sincerely,
Roy Beavers
26555 Gene Drive
Lebanon, MO 65536
ph: 417-588-1825
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html