There is an old saying, "You cannot see the forest for all the trees."

I think that when you get caught up in the fundamentals of anything, you are inviting trouble. Even lawyers consider the context of situations when viewing circumstantial evidence. The balance of law is contingent on how fairly it is applied. This is determined by many factors including the context of the situation and the level of the threat the alleged crime poses to society.

A law on a piece of paper is only a patch of words. It takes human beings to manipulate it into action. Therefore, applying laws as fundamental givens in every situation regardless of the context of the situation can be deadly.

If we are to follow a rules are rules mentality, we must rationalize that a man stealing a slice of pizza out of hunger is just as much a criminal as a man who kills for sheer pleasure. Both have broken the law. Both have violated the clearly spelled out rules. Both are criminals by fundamental definition of the law. But, both men present entirely different situations.

Similarly, a man who lies when asked about his private sex life while being investigated has broken the law. A man who lies about government actions that can impact global relations has also broken the law. Which one is the greater threat?

Finally, rules are made by men. Men can be wrong. They can be biased. Sometimes laws need to be reevaluated based on their ineffectiveness and selective application. The law and rules can be just as unfair as the men who apply them. This is why men get wrongly sent to prison and murderers sometimes go free.

You cannot ignore bias, prejudice, manipulation, and unfairness even when it comes to laws and rules.

The way that the law was used to incriminate Bill Clinton made us a laughing stock in just about every country outside of the U.S.A. Diplomats, government officials, and prime ministers offered their support and sympathy to Clinton during the Starr trials. They also siezed upon the opportunity to use the trial as an example of the Puritanical and backward ways of Americans when dealing with sex. If anything, the Clinton episode brought a huge wave of compassion for him and a bitter rejection of American moralizing from most of Europe.

It was by no means a victory or a shining moment in American history. People outside the US were either laughing or disgusted that a man like the President could be seriously investigated and charged for lying about consensual sex with another adult.

Clinton can hold his head high abroad. But, the way America reacted to him and the entire trial has made many people outside the US even more hostile towards Americans.

This is nothing to boast about.

[ June 15, 2001: Message edited by: MAC62 ]