Twenty years ago, Bruce Springsteen used to do a monologue during his concerts about going to traffic court. Defendants were given three options: they could plead not guilty, guilty or “guilty with an excuse.” Bruce said his trip to court taught him that “everyone is guilty with an excuse.”
So it is today. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently produced a 21-page document explaining his reasons for not recusing himself from the open documents lawsuit involving Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force. It may go down in history as a classic of the guilty-with-an-excuse genre.
Yes, Mr. Scalia admits, he did spend several days duck hunting in Louisiana with Mr. Cheney in January and yes, he knew at the time that a case involving Mr. Cheney and his task force would be coming before the Supreme Court. The justice takes pains, however, to point out that he and Mr. Cheney did not share a bedroom, nor did they fire their shotguns at migratory waterfowl from the same blind. See? There’s the guilt, then the excuse.
Still, Mr. Scalia admits he accepted a ride from Mr. Cheney in a vice-presidential jet, but it was only one way. In his excuse, Mr. Scalia says he bought a round-trip airplane ticket and used the return portion to get himself back to Washington, DC. Although Mr. Scalia boasts that he had not “saved a cent by flying on the vice president’s plane,” he also notes that he bought a round tripper because it was cheaper than a one-way.
As an op-ed in Wednesday’s New York Times points out, buying a round-trip ticket to save money on a one-way is a violation of airline regulations and as such breaks the terms of the contract between the air carrier and the customer, in this case Antonin Scalia. The specific term for it is promissory fraud.
Although in my heart I cannot become too upset with anyone – even Mr. Scalia – for sticking it to an airline, I have to wonder if he really should be sitting in judgement of others, particularly when he produces a case of premeditated fraud as evidence of his ethical fitness. The very fact that the man is willing to submit himself to such contortions to stay on the case may be the best argument for his sitting this one out.
As in traffic court, no sooner is one case dispatched than another defendant shuffles forward to face the bench. This case involves the senior members of the Bush administration, who were caught speeding toward Iraq when they should have been watching out for terrorist attacks. They eyewitness in this case is former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke.
In his new book, Mr. Clarke explains at length how he tried in vain to fix George W. Bush’s attention on al Quaeda in the months preceding the 9-11 attacks and how immediately following the attacks, Mr. Bush was more obsessed with linking them to Saddam Hussein than he was in finding or punishing Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Clarke is the second former Bush administration official to make these allegations, following former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. As with Mr. O’Neill, the Bush senior staff has gone into a full-fledged press offensive to discredit and disgrace Mr. Clarke.
Rather than deny what Richard Clarke says, the Bushies have resorted to the tactic of claiming he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. They can’t deny the evidence, your honor, so they attack the witness by having Condoleezza Rica say he was “out of the loop.”
That’s their excuse? Dick Clarke was out of the loop? Sorry we missed all those al Quaeda signals; our counter-terrorism guy tried to warn us, but he was out of the loop. If Mr. Clarke was out of the loop, who put him out? Why was he put out? Ms. Rice says Mr. Clarke was out of step with the rest of the national security team. So instead of replacing him, she just frosted him out, as if she were a petulant seventh-grader, leaving a gap in our national security big enough to fly an airplane – no, make that four airplanes – through.
Guilty with an excuse may be an acceptable plea in New Jersey traffic court, but when the safety of American citizens rests on your shoulders, there is no excuse.
Guilty With an Excuse
Twenty years ago, Bruce Springsteen used to do a monologue during his concerts about going to traffic court. Defendants were given three options: they could plead not guilty, guilty or “guilty with an excuse.” Bruce said his trip to court taught him that “everyone is guilty with an excuse.”
So it is today. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently produced a 21-page document explaining his reasons for not recusing himself from the open documents lawsuit involving Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force. It may go down in history as a classic of the guilty-with-an-excuse genre.
Yes, Mr. Scalia admits, he did spend several days duck hunting in Louisiana with Mr. Cheney in January and yes, he knew at the time that a case involving Mr. Cheney and his task force would be coming before the Supreme Court. The justice takes pains, however, to point out that he and Mr. Cheney did not share a bedroom, nor did they fire their shotguns at migratory waterfowl from the same blind. See? There’s the guilt, then the excuse.
Still, Mr. Scalia admits he accepted a ride from Mr. Cheney in a vice-presidential jet, but it was only one way. In his excuse, Mr. Scalia says he bought a round-trip airplane ticket and used the return portion to get himself back to Washington, DC. Although Mr. Scalia boasts that he had not “saved a cent by flying on the vice president’s plane,” he also notes that he bought a round tripper because it was cheaper than a one-way.
As an op-ed in Wednesday’s New York Times points out, buying a round-trip ticket to save money on a one-way is a violation of airline regulations and as such breaks the terms of the contract between the air carrier and the customer, in this case Antonin Scalia. The specific term for it is promissory fraud.
Although in my heart I cannot become too upset with anyone – even Mr. Scalia – for sticking it to an airline, I have to wonder if he really should be sitting in judgement of others, particularly when he produces a case of premeditated fraud as evidence of his ethical fitness. The very fact that the man is willing to submit himself to such contortions to stay on the case may be the best argument for his sitting this one out.
As in traffic court, no sooner is one case dispatched than another defendant shuffles forward to face the bench. This case involves the senior members of the Bush administration, who were caught speeding toward Iraq when they should have been watching out for terrorist attacks. They eyewitness in this case is former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke.
In his new book, Mr. Clarke explains at length how he tried in vain to fix George W. Bush’s attention on al Quaeda in the months preceding the 9-11 attacks and how immediately following the attacks, Mr. Bush was more obsessed with linking them to Saddam Hussein than he was in finding or punishing Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Clarke is the second former Bush administration official to make these allegations, following former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. As with Mr. O’Neill, the Bush senior staff has gone into a full-fledged press offensive to discredit and disgrace Mr. Clarke.
Rather than deny what Richard Clarke says, the Bushies have resorted to the tactic of claiming he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. They can’t deny the evidence, your honor, so they attack the witness by having Condoleezza Rica say he was “out of the loop.”
That’s their excuse? Dick Clarke was out of the loop? Sorry we missed all those al Quaeda signals; our counter-terrorism guy tried to warn us, but he was out of the loop. If Mr. Clarke was out of the loop, who put him out? Why was he put out? Ms. Rice says Mr. Clarke was out of step with the rest of the national security team. So instead of replacing him, she just frosted him out, as if she were a petulant seventh-grader, leaving a gap in our national security big enough to fly an airplane – no, make that four airplanes – through.
Guilty with an excuse may be an acceptable plea in New Jersey traffic court, but when the safety of American citizens rests on your shoulders, there is no excuse.
© Mark Floegel, 2004