# If it shown that Clarke lied under oath should he be prosecuted for perjury? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2004, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823 "2004-03-27T23:26:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823/21 "2004-03-28T19:43:01Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > It’s not purjury when you are just stating an opinion. Which is unless I misunderstood you the point you are trying to convey. Quite true, so I would assume Frist is objecting to specific instances of actions against terrorism that Clarke said the Administration took which they did not. Either that, or that they did do things which Clarke is claiming that they did not, which would be easy to prove I would think. Anyhow, the claim that someone working for any administration should testify as to the faults of the administration is so absurd as to be beyond belief. This isn’t exactly something the current administration invented. Get Clarke on perjury, and every adminstration official who testifies would have to take the Fifth, or has his resume out before traveling to the Capitol. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823/22 "2004-03-28T20:03:19Z")
> [@](#): > > As much as most Libertarians hate to admit this, _ALL_ laws are instituted to enforce morality. I certainly am not among the “most”, then, because that is exactly how I feel. There should be one law only, and it should restrict government. “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion” is Ockhamly sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823/23 "2004-03-28T20:19:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Quite true, so I would assume Frist is objecting to specific instances of actions against terrorism that Clarke said the Administration took which they did not. Either that, or that they did do things which Clarke is claiming that they did not, which would be easy to prove I would think. We already have Clarke’s explanation. His 2002 story basically just left out all the “yes, buts…” Yes, they authorized cover action spending to increase fivefold. But they never appropriated any of this spending to anything, making it moot. Yes, they said wanted a larger plan. But they were in no rush to actually get it into action, and when it did get talked about in September, it wasn’t much more than increasing funding for the Northern Alliance. Yes, they didn’t countermand standing orders from the Clinton administration. But they didn’t push people to follow them as a priority, which in Washington means that they get drowned out by all the other orders and chaos. The only thing that Clarke really seems to have actually switched his tune on is the claim that the Bush camp had disdain for people who had worked under Clinton. And this is hardly a big deal, since we know it’s true and he was avoiding criticism of his President in 2002. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823/24 "2004-03-28T22:17:21Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Anyways, you are a bit overestimating things when you say that the prisons are “brimming” with people who only tried to pursue their own happiness. > > As of 2000 (according to the Department of Justice) only 251,200 persons were incarcerated on drug related offenses. Roughly one fourth of all U.S. prisoners. That was just State prisons. State and Federal combined is [another story](http://www.ncpa.org/iss/cri/2002/pd060602e.html): > [@](#): > > The number of Americans incarcerated on drug-related offenses rose 15-fold between 1980 and 2000, to its current level of 400,000. Federal percentage was/is much higher as well: [Cite:](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm) > [@](#): > > Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995. > > In 2001, drug law violators comprised 20.4% of all adults serving time in State prisons. More fun facts re prison: > [@](#): > > Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions. > > Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,166,260 persons at yearend 2002. > > At yearend 2002, 1 in every 143 U.S. residents were incarcerated in State or Federal prison or a local jail. > > The prison population has grown an average of 45,000 inmates per year (3.6%) since yearend 1995. > > There were 5.9 million adults in the ‘correctional population’ by the end of 1998. This means that 2.9% of the U.S. adult population – 1 in every 34 – was incarcerated, on probation or on parole. > > Assuming recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 20 Americans (5%) can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African-American men, the number is greater than 1 in 4 (28.5%). Sorry for the hijack, but I couldn’t let that stand uncorrected. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823/25 "2004-03-28T23:47:57Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > I submit that your view is naive and even dangerous. It lacks the vigilance necessary to guard freedom. Well, when it comes to the law, you seem to agree with Jack Cade in Shakespeare’s Henry VI: > [@](#): > > Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? That parchment, being scribbl’d o’er, should undo a man? I’m not naive enough to say “If the law says it, it must be good”, and I’m certainly not going to deny that there are bad laws. Some laws are bad from the getgo, and others can be abused and loopholes found in them. Still others are archaic, and lack relevance to modern life. Yet others might seek to achieve policy goals you disagree with. However, the laws were all passed for a purpose, and generally, it was to, as the drafter saw it, improve society. Take the constitutional power named above, for example. It wasn’t drafted to increase governmental power, but to limit it, With the provision, a congressman in the minority party can say something unpopular or critical of the government, without having to risk arrest if the government doesn’t like what he had to say. This has the unfortunate side effect of letting Frist shoot off his mouth about Richard Clarke. However, you don’t need the law to oppress people. Even without law or government, strong people will oppress weak people. A group of barbarians don’t need a law saying, “It’s legal to loot the villiage and rape the women there”. They just do it. What the law does, or what it should do, at least, is be strong enough that everyone else is “made weak”…So that everyone is equal in front of the law, and there’s one law for everyone, rich and poor, strong and weak. It should be designed so that everyone, if not equal in ability or materially, at least has equal protection, so that I can’t oppress you because of my resources, and so that you have recourse to stop me from abusing you. The government, for all the bad it can do, can also do good. It took the government to electrify the Tennessee Valley. That wouldn’t have been done at anywhere the speed it got done without government aid and coordination. It took the government to build the transcontinetal railroad. That wasn’t going to get done without governmental aid at anywhere the speed it did. It took the government to make sure that the stuff in your hot dog won’t kill you. The food production companies showed no willingness to do it on their own. You need to be vigilant about the government. You need to make sure the laws being passed benefit everyone, and not just a rich few, and you need to make sure the government doesn’t take away our neccesary liberties. But in spite of that, you shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. I believe governments can do good, and that they can exist to serve everybody, and make the country and the world better. I know you think that’s a naive viewpoint, and obviously, I’m not going to convince you. Your set of values and beliefs in this regard are totally opposite to mine, and we’re both stuck in our set of beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Queef\_Sniffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/a698b9/32.png) [@Queef\_Sniffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Queef_Sniffer)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823/26 "2004-03-29T03:05:17Z")
My question would be: What should be done with Bush id it turns out that all of Clarks assertions are true? What if we see that Bush did intentionally mislead us and congress? Is failing to be reelected enough or should we pursue criminal charges. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823/27 "2004-03-29T04:54:32Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > I certainly am not among the “most”, then, because that is exactly how I feel. There should be one law only, and it should restrict government. “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion” is Ockhamly sufficient. Until you get down to specific situations, in which case you have to to decide what is or isn’t “coercion,” and in which case you start approaching angels-on-the-head-of-pins levels of sophistry. And, of course, there is the very real problem of who does the guaranteeing, and how they are prevented from arrogating enough power to do a little coercing of their own. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-it-shown-that-clarke-lied-under-oath-should-he-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/236823.md?page=1)