A former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury wrote the following in his ongoing tirades against the lack of justice in this country:

------------

'Martha Stewart was indicted for lying and obstructing justice. For these offenses to have any meaning, there must be a crime that she lied about and obstructed. The prosecutors presented no such crime. Stewart was indicted and convicted for lying and obstructing a crime when no crime happened.

Many Americans believe that Stewart committed "insider trading," because that is the disinformation her prosecutors used their media pimps to disseminate. The prosecutors would have liked to charge Stewart with insider trading, but could not. Stewart learned from her broker, not from a company insider, that a top executive was selling shares.

Since time immemorial, many people have sold shares for the same reason. Brokers call and report that a stock is being sold when the overall market is not. That is an indication that there is bad news in the market about that stock. It is a broker’s job to advise when to hold and when to fold.

Whenever a company announces good or bad news, SEC regulators and prosecutors look to see who sold or bought stock in the period immediately preceding the news. If they find company executives, or anyone whom they can connect to company executives, buying or selling prior to news, they bring a case of insider trading.

Insider trading is a creation of regulatory bureaucrats, not of statutory law. It is an undefined crime. Bureaucrats have refused to define the crime on the grounds that it is easier to convict people of undefined crimes. Many legal scholars maintain that there is no rational reason for making insider trading into an offense.

Prosecutors knew that Stewart was friends with ImClone’s president and jumped to the conclusion that she was tipped off by him. When it became clear that Stewart had the information from her broker, the prosecutors were reluctant to let go of their celebrity target whose demise would boost their careers. The prosecutors decided to make a crime out of a noncrime.

Stewart recognized that they were after her with an undefined crime. Like most people in such a situation, Stewart gave them a story that they would have a hard time twisting into insider trading.

This is the basis for her indictment for lying and obstructing justice.

...

The Martha Stewart jurors should have realized that the case was bogus when the judge threw out the main charge – that she had committed fraud by declaring her innocence. A prosecutor who would bring such a ridiculous charge obviously had no case whatsoever.

It appears the jury convicted Steward largely on the basis that she was white and successful. In their public statements, it is apparent that some of the jurors have the impression that Stewart is part of the corporate fraud that is believed to have caused widespread losses to shareholders who are "little people."

By failing to recognize the political persecution in front of their noses, the Stewart jury demonstrated the extreme risks of a jury trial. The prosecutors only wanted a symbolic scalp and had offered Stewart a plea bargain deal – a probation sentence in exchange for a plea that she made a false statement. Stewart, who has naïvely declared her belief in the integrity of the justice system, went to trial instead.

Stewart’s conviction has made it even less likely that an innocent defendant will place trust in a jury. Already 95% of felony cases are settled with a coerced plea bargain, because judges and juries routinely fail in their function of protecting defendants from prosecutorial abuse. Time after time, innocent defendants are convicted on fabricated evidence while exculpatory evidence is withheld. Based on the new DNA evidence, a large percentage of convicted murderers and rapists has been found innocent.

Stewart’s conviction is a defeat for justice and the American way. Prosecutors have undermined the socio-economic system by sending the Marxist message that Americans become successful and rich by evading the rules and engaging in criminal behavior.

Some message for a conservative Republican administration to send.'

...But the overarching point is how extraordinary it is -- specifically, how extraordinarily disturbing it is -- that we are even debating these issues at all. ...

Extraordinarily disturbing, indeed! What seems like hyperbole is in fact an understatement.

How can any normal American even consider that our government may "arrest individuals on U.S. soil and keep them imprisoned for years and years, indefinitely, without charging them with a crime ..."? Is it possible to sink lower? Has no one read our history? Have we no moral underpinning at all anymore?

It make you want to hurl.

"...The Republican candidates were indeed asked in the first debate and they were all falling over each other in their zeal to render Guantanamo as double-plus-good. ..."

I think the transcript would show this statement to be a factual error. Yes, most of the bastards fell over themselves to justify git-mo; but one candidate did not. Oddly, that candidate is the one the regulars here slime at every opportunity. I find that (and your error) to be depressing, and indicative that we face a bleak future no matter which party prevails in 2008.

In a country faced with great forces intent on the destruction of liberty, I think it would be wise to treat anyone on the side of liberty fairly.