Was Scooter Libby convicted because the US judiciary is independent?

Question

and what would have happened in the UK, where the Lord Advocate feels able to tell the Crown Prosecution Service to drop cases that don't suit the politics of the day?

you can guess what I think the answer to this is. There are lots of things to criticise about US institutions, but I think they're way ahead of us in judicial independence. What do you think?

Answer 1

He was convicted by a jury of his peers not a judge. It is not okay for ANY government official to lie under oath, whether Democrat or Republican. You all made a stinking big deal about Bill Clinton lying under oath about a blowj*b but it is okay for a representative to one of the most powerful positions in this nation to lie under oath about something that has affected the lives of thousands. A war based on a lie. The reasons used to start this war of choice shifted like the sands in the Sahara. Over 3,200 dead, over 20,000 wounded and maimed of which over 7,000 cannot return to active duty because of loss of limbs, severe brain damage.
Oh but it is okay to lie about something like that, I guess sex means more than life.

Answer 2

Scooter Libby was convicted because he was guilty as hell. Cheney should have to answer to the American people also.

It is a crime for a member of government to announce the name of a CIA operative to the public knowledge. And its a crime to lie to the grand jury about it also.

Answer 3

Good point. Just like U.S. federal judges are appointed for life, they are very independent. Which leads to some good decisions and some outrageous ones. California courts are world famous for bizarre legal decisions, but they are independent entities answering only to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps our system for all its flaws is better than the U.K. one. Thanks for pointing out a different perspective.

Answer 4

Lets see there was no crime but he is guilty, Sounds political to me.