Martha Stewart: Punishing the Innocent, Excusing the Guilty
by
Paul Craig Roberts
by Paul Craig Roberts
Martha
Stewart has been sentenced to 5 months in prison and two years of
supervised release for not telling the truth about a legal stock
tip. The only thing she has been found guilty of is lying about
a noncrime.
Mrs.
Stewart was neither charged with, nor found guilty of, insider trading.
Neither she nor her broker had inside information that ImClone’s
anti-cancer drug was turned down by federal regulators. They only
knew that ImClone’s founder was selling stock.
Savvy
investors often sell when executives sell, because they see stock
sales by a company’s management as signs of management’s lack of
confidence in the company’s future. If the company’s founder didn’t
want ImClone’s stock, Martha Stewart didn’t want it herself. She
sold.
Neither
Mrs. Stewart nor her broker knew ImClone’s founder was selling on
the basis of inside information. When news of an investigation came
to light, Mrs. Stewart and her broker were unsure of how her sale
would be interpreted by prosecutors. The Securities and Exchange
Commission has refused to define "insider trading" on
the grounds that a vague offense surrounded by uncertainty makes
it easier to convict defendants who are accused.
Faced
with the possibility of being accused of a vague and undefined crime,
Mrs. Stewart and her broker stated that they had an agreement to
sell when an agreed price was reached. The statement was not made
under oath and if false does not constitute perjury.
Prosecutors
claim the statement was a stratagem to cover up a stock tip, the
legality of which was unclear to Stewart and her broker, and constituted
a false statement that "obstructed" the investigation.
Thus, even though prosecutors uncovered no evidence that Mrs. Stewart
had committed a crime, they indicted her for "obstructing justice"
by not telling them what they say is the truth about the stock sale even
though what the prosecutors say is the truth about the sale does
not constitute a crime.
No
one knows whether Martha Stewart and her broker told the truth or
not, but jurors naïvely believed the prosecutors. No one
not jury, judge, nor prosecutor had enough sense or decency
to know that it made no difference one way or the other. No one
can be guilty of covering up a noncrime.
Meanwhile
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released its report,
which states that the information used by President Bush, Vice President
Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell
to justify the invasion of Iraq was incorrect. Everything Powell
told the UN and Bush told the American people was wrong. A war with
tens of thousands of casualties was started, if not on the basis
of massive outright lies, on the basis of massive orchestrated misinformation.
The
deception was so successful that 45% of Americans purport to still
believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and
links to Osama bin Laden.
The
senators say the invasion was unjustified, but no person is to blame only
"the process." The intelligence information was not correctly
collected, analyzed, processed, or reported. Thus, everything got
fuddled up and our incompetent government confused myth with reality.
The
buck stops nowhere. No one is to be held accountable for a disastrous
blunder that has destroyed tens of thousands of people and a half
century of US foreign policy, wasted $200 billion dollars, and made
Americans unsafe for decades to come.
If
we apply the "process is guilty" standard to Mrs. Stewart
that is applied to our government leaders, even if she told a lie
the fault lies in the vagueness of the insider trading offense.
Not knowing what the offense is, people try to defend against being
accused of it. Mrs. Stewart is not guilty. The process of the law
is guilty for not defining the offense known as insider trading.
Judges and jurors are guilty for allowing prosecutors to use vague
laws and regulations to indict people.
Meanwhile,
the Bush administration refuses to allow contracts that it handed
out to cronies to be audited, while imprisoning corporate executives
for far less accounting sins.
Meanwhile,
the Bush administration has ordered Japan to detain and extradite
former world chess champion Bobby Fischer for playing in a 1992
chess match in Yugoslavia. By playing a chess match, the US government
claims that Mr. Fischer violated UN sanctions against Yugoslavia,
a country charged with provoking warfare because it tried to prevent
secession just as Abe Lincoln did.
Are
the American people going to reelect a government that prosecutes
citizens for noncrimes while excusing itself of war crimes?
July
17, 2004
Dr.
Roberts [send him mail]
is John
M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research
Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor
of the Wall
Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury.
He is the co-author of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Copyright
© 2004 Creators Syndicate
Paul
Craig Roberts Archives
|