Prime Directives Versus Just Desserts

When government employees are accused of crimes, their first line of defense is secrecy. At the federal level, this often means using a “classified” stamp on potentially incriminating, or even embarrassing information. While lower levels of government can’t fall back on “national security — classified!” they often simply arrogate themselves the same power without naming it. For example, in the normal course of things, a police department will simply decline to divulge the name of a police officer accused of illegally shooting a suspect or bystander. And usually they’ll get away with it. The second line of defense is the doctrine of “sovereign immunity.” This is the notion that if someone is “just doing his job” for the government, he can’t be held accountable for the consequences. A related dodge — used to exempt FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi from prosecution for the murder of Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge — is the assertion that the Constitution’s “supremacy clause” (article Six, paragraph 2) exempts federal employees from state or local laws. It’s generally understood in the ranks of government that if stonewalling and falsifying the evidence doesn’t work, and that if “sovereign immunity” isn’t enough to get a government employee off the hook, he or she can expect executive clemency. This comes in two varieties: Commutations of sentence and full pardons. The gold standard is the full pardon — not only is the criminal’s sentence lifted, but his or her reputation is theoretically rehabilitated and his or her rights — including the “right” to head back to the taxpayer trough — are fully restored...read more