2-15-89 Conservatives make a curious claim when discussing Oliver North, who is on trial in Washington for subverting the will of Congress (among other things). Patrick Buchanan, for example, insists that North is “not a criminal”, and that the trial is a political persecution rather than a criminal prosecution. Tonight, on Crossfire, he elaborated. The problem with Buchanan’s reasoning is that he divides the world into two classes: criminals and noncriminals. Criminals commit crimes; noncriminals do not. Criminals are driven by evil motives; noncriminals are not. Since North (in his view) is not driven by evil motives, he is not a criminal, and either (1) should not be tried, or (2) should be tried and acquitted. But isn’t the point of a trial to determine whether someone is a criminal? In other words, isn’t the label “criminal” something that we apply after a trial? First we have the trial; then, if there is a conviction, we affix the label “criminal” to the person. Buchanan has things backwards. If his claim is that good motives absolve one from guilt, I suggest he reconsider his arguments in other cases, such as the mercy killing of a Florida woman by her husband. As I recall, Buchanan (and many other conservatives) argued that, however noble the man’s motives (love, for example), he had broken the law and should be punished. Why isn’t the same true of North? I’m accusing Buchanan of inconsistency, of hypocrisy. He wants motives to count when the defendant is a conservative, but not to count when the defendant is a liberal or an ordinary citizen.
Twenty Years Ago
–––––––
