The General's Letter

Earlier this week Scooter Libby, the former assistant to the US Vice President who also carried the title of assistant to the President of the United States, was sentenced to thirty months in prison for perjury. The offence and the conviction came in the course of the investigation of a course of political actions involving a public relations-savvy and vocal couple, she, a spy who was outed-- which was the focus of the investigation into the "outing," which could be illegal under American law -- and her husband, a former American Ambassador.

The judge who imposed the sentence considered the lie for which Libby was convicted to be open, flagrant and sustained.

In preparation for sentencing, defence lawyers collected reference letters to be used to attempt to lighten the penalty to be imposed on Mr. Libby. The reference letters were released by the court earlier this week.

One of these was a letter from the Chairman of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace.

I read the letter and wondered why and whether it was appropriate for, this General wrote this letter. As I thought about it I became more concerned.

I posted the following or close to it on two major American blogs. It stimulated some response.

A man named Peter Pace, wrote American Federal Court Judge Reggie B. Walton on behalf of Mr. Libby.

Mr. Pace is a general in the United States Marine Corps and at the moment is the Chief of Staff for the American Armed forces. Pace told the judge that, from his association with Libby, Libby was always concerned about the "the right way to proceed – legally and morally" "not just what was in the best interests of the country."

The general signed his letter as, "General, United States Marine Corps."

One has to wonder about the propriety of this.

The temptations for those shopping for sentencing support are many and the temptation to seek a commendation from the military’s Chief of Staff are no doubt powerful indeed. One can understand why those supporting Scooter Libby might ask. General Pace’s scrambled eggs in a country in a time of war could be a powerful and toney endorsement.

But one has to think twice as to why, "Peter Pace, General, United States Marine Corps" might be tempted to oblige.

The General has the responsibility to execute the directives of the President of the United States.

He does not have a duty to make life easier for the President or his
associates and friends and the General does not exercise the office of Chief of Staff as either a political or personal fixer for any of the administration whom he is to serve. He does not have the duty to be the friend of Scooter Libby and indeed his letter seems to step lightly to make sure that it does not leave the impression that he is. Surely this is as axiomatic for Administration officials as it ought to be to senior American military leadership itself.

So why would General Pace do this?

He was not speaking as a colleague of Mr. Libby’s although there are no doubt many who can attest to Libby’s public record in which "the right way" was usually – although not always, the conviction proves– his byword. Pace and Libby had no record of personal cooperation, through charity or church-synagogue or public interest or professional work.

So while there were many who attested to Libby’s character to this Judge who could speak from the vantage point of personal experience and long and intimate knowledge, General Pace could not.

In writing this letter, one is left with the impression that he is left amongst those of the referees in this sentencing who was added not because of the substance of what he could say, but the fact that it was America’s highest uninformed officer who was saying it.

With no personal motivation, with the recognition – which could not have escaped General Pace-- that there may others who were in a far better position of knowledge and experience to speak kindly of Mr. Libby, the General’s letter risks being marked as nothing more than the act of granting a personal favour.

And that in turn, opens the door to cynical questions of whether there was a favour, or the expectation of a favour, in return.

In doing this, this risks the question the next time he, or another high ranking officer of the American military stands to give evidence before a committee of the US Congress or is cited before the United Nations or is deferred to in the myriad of press briefings as a source of direct military information and advice, the General is risking doubt as to what favours they have been asked to grant and what favours had been given or expected in return.