As usual a response of mine has created some stir. I would love to respond with a pithy comeback, but I thought I should explore some things point by point in a respectful manner. The issue before was the issue of prosecuting an ex-president, but could just as easily be levied on another issue. A phrase was used in one of the letter responses that didn't anger me so much as it made me chuckle. First a little background.
For most of my adult life I have made an effort to look for pragmatic solutions both in my line of work and politically. When those on the other side politically would try to insult me they would call me a liberal. They knew this would get under my skin. So, when someone tries to insult me by claiming I am not a liberal I actually take that as a supreme compliment. I am most certainly not a liberal and never claimed to be.
In that end, there are two things that bother me. First, extremism bothers me. Many of my posts (and others) have been anti-Republican or anti-right because they have become victim to extremism. Extremism has its roots in idealism. Idealism is generally a good thing, but with the folks on the right, that idealism turns into extremism. Extremism could be defined as unchecked idealism or the desire to get one's agenda across at any cost. My biggest agenda (if it can be called that) is to avoid this on both sides.
I look at our nation's history through the eyes of a historian. Like any other historian I have my own biases. I see America as a triumph of incremental change. The Articles were a radical change that did not work. The constitution in its own way was incremental change from the government they were coming from in England. When radical change has come, opposition has swept it away like an etch a sketch. Incremental change has been the lasting change that we have enjoyed.
So, when someone says I am not a liberal I say thank you. I am a Democrat and want what is best for the party. For me, the best thing for the party is not to give into extremism. Look across the aisle and extremists are eating the opposition party apart. I feel no need to chase them down. Incremental change will ultimately give us the permanent change we want. Conservatives almost destroyed this country, but they did not do this overnight. They did over the course of almost three decades. It will take some time to change it back.
A part of being pragmatic is establishing priorities. It means we recognize some facts but also recognize that pursuing that truth would be more harmful than good. A prosecution of George W. Bush would be more harmful than good. When we go through with that reality we are pursuing justice. We are also crippling the government and rendering us ineffective in turning around those policies which are hurting people. For some, justice is more important and I can respect that opinion. However, hurling insults at us that would prefer to move forward with the business of making policy changes won't help and ultimately look like the mirror image of that which we are fighting on the right.
For most of my adult life I have made an effort to look for pragmatic solutions both in my line of work and politically. When those on the other side politically would try to insult me they would call me a liberal. They knew this would get under my skin. So, when someone tries to insult me by claiming I am not a liberal I actually take that as a supreme compliment. I am most certainly not a liberal and never claimed to be.
In that end, there are two things that bother me. First, extremism bothers me. Many of my posts (and others) have been anti-Republican or anti-right because they have become victim to extremism. Extremism has its roots in idealism. Idealism is generally a good thing, but with the folks on the right, that idealism turns into extremism. Extremism could be defined as unchecked idealism or the desire to get one's agenda across at any cost. My biggest agenda (if it can be called that) is to avoid this on both sides.
I look at our nation's history through the eyes of a historian. Like any other historian I have my own biases. I see America as a triumph of incremental change. The Articles were a radical change that did not work. The constitution in its own way was incremental change from the government they were coming from in England. When radical change has come, opposition has swept it away like an etch a sketch. Incremental change has been the lasting change that we have enjoyed.
So, when someone says I am not a liberal I say thank you. I am a Democrat and want what is best for the party. For me, the best thing for the party is not to give into extremism. Look across the aisle and extremists are eating the opposition party apart. I feel no need to chase them down. Incremental change will ultimately give us the permanent change we want. Conservatives almost destroyed this country, but they did not do this overnight. They did over the course of almost three decades. It will take some time to change it back.
A part of being pragmatic is establishing priorities. It means we recognize some facts but also recognize that pursuing that truth would be more harmful than good. A prosecution of George W. Bush would be more harmful than good. When we go through with that reality we are pursuing justice. We are also crippling the government and rendering us ineffective in turning around those policies which are hurting people. For some, justice is more important and I can respect that opinion. However, hurling insults at us that would prefer to move forward with the business of making policy changes won't help and ultimately look like the mirror image of that which we are fighting on the right.
I'm not bitching at you Scott. There are people out their rationalizing Bush Co.'s crimes way more than you are. Just pointing out the utter stupidity of our nation to just sit back and let the minority run rough-shod over Obama, considering just how monumentally criminal their guy was.
Also, Im sorry... but hurting the country by opening old wounds? Um, it has only been 2 years since his last crime. The wound hasn't even scabbed over yet for heaven's sake. The steam still hasn't dissipated from his giant piles of dog turds he left on the U.S. presidency. There is no opening old wounds when it is fresh and still bleeding.
translation of opening old wounds:
Fear of voicing the crimes of Bush co. on the world stage. Writing it down into some form of legal precedence, and prosecuting all that is affiliated.
That is what people really want to be "pragmatic" about. The realization that at some point they supported Bush and all that he did.
Ohhh Myyyyy! You people is getting fugly...what was it that Chatty on the Chron used to say? ..oh yeah.... "Why can't we all just get alooooong??:..said in my best imitation of her whiny voice in my best Chicago accent! :)
I don’t think it’s appropriate that you tell everybody they were played for suckers just to get your comment count up, so I guess we’re even.
Thus why I'm leaving. That was completely uncalled for.
's matter, man. Mommy didn't give you enough attention when you were a boy?
hiatus...c'mon man, I don't get the righteous indignation? It seemed a legitimate debate?
This likes the place to be...
I'm jumping in the middle of the issue but I'm all for the "Rule of Man", as long as the man is internationally recognized as "The Man!" On the right they quake in fear of the AntiChrist because ostensibly he's a good guy, just frontin'...kinda like what they do on a daily basis, but on the left, what is the analogue? I don't know but when he shows up I'm paying attention.
On a serious note, shouldn't the World Court that has been cited here, actually have jurisdiction over a war criminal whether they like it or not. Aren't there 'charges in absentia' or some such thing?
That is probably a good thing.
I never said it was my goal to stroke my ego. At any rate I am officially on hiatus.
I respect people with ideas, but I don't respect people that try to "troll" ideas to further their own egos. You are out of line.
I love people with a sense of humor. I simply wanted to inspire lively debate about something other than oil. Maybe I should just stop posting since everyone loves to jump down my damn throat.
Muhahahaha and I sucked them in again. People should remember when they are dealing with someone playing Cheneys advocate. I liked all the arguments today and especially the ones in Latin. Ms. Niemeyer would have been proud to know I got almost enough of that to pass. I think I can sum up 55 posts pretty succinctly.
_________
And this is all about your "number of posts today".... well, aren't you special!
Until Obama does something worse than kidnapping innocent people out of their homes, whisking them off to a secret prison, and torturing them to death... I don't want to fuckin hear it!
What about the illegal domestic spying? What about the destruction of evidence? What about the political firings of U.S. Attorneys? What about the Walter Reed Hospital scandal? What about the Libbey/Plame affair? What about Blackwater and their ties to Bush Admin? Hurricane Katrina debacle? What about the SWIFT scandal? Fraudulent EPA report changing? Cooked Iraqi intel? Stolen 200 election? 2004 election rigging? Bush ties to Enron? Obstruction of Justice in Gonzalez investigation? US attorney targeting of Democratic office holders? FBI's abuse of NSLs?
Good grief the list goes on and on.
We gonna investigate ANY of these?! Oops Obama MIGHT be guilty of something unethical. Better ignore the last 8 years blatant criminal behavior so we can let them attack the black man.
Pragmatism? Lets call it what it really is, rationalization...
Carguy - sorry, I should have cited the quote properly. It is attributed, generally, to Julius Caesar's FIL, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus. The meaning is: Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
Or, as Johnny Cash said:
Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still.
Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still.
Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still.
Listen to the words long down,
When the man comes around.
[...]
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts,
And I looked and behold: a pale horse.
And his name, that sat on him, was Death.
And Hell follwed with him.
Muhahahaha and I sucked them in again. People should remember when they are dealing with someone playing Cheneys advocate. I liked all the arguments today and especially the ones in Latin. Ms. Niemeyer would have been proud to know I got almost enough of that to pass. I think I can sum up 55 posts pretty succinctly.
1) all of us agree that in a perfect world those scumbags would be in jail.
2) we somewhat disagree on how to make that happen.
3) we also disagree as to whether it is possible.
My solution is to let the world court do it. Let us say in one voice that we are not above the law. Let us say that when we question someone elses treatment of prisoners that we expect no one to snicker. Moreover, let the right try to argue that we should be above the law.
I couldn't agree more. But what can be done now? Really. We have, once again, succeded in painting ourselves into a corner.
heh i remember right around the last election the posters claiming that since the terrorists hadn't blown anything up in america since the last time they blew something up in america....Bush was the best president ever.
I've heard of lowering the bar, but since when did the number of buildings still standing after an administration ended become the standard for judging presidential success?
For me, it's a lot like the memory of Jane Fonda. I'll always remember her as the woman who visited Hanoi and basically spat in the faces of my brothers-in-arms. I will never allow time or history to tell me otherwise.
Make no mistake, the rehabilitation of George Bush and Dick Cheney is underway. Liz Cheney is at the forefront challenging the truth trying to get people to believe outrageous claims about her dad. She apparently inheirited his warm personality and lack of morality.
When the Bush library opens, it will be little more than an apologetic institute for his 8 years of disastrous leadership. Conservatives are counting on time to soften the memory of Dubya's presidency, and for many Americans it probably will. After all, look at how they have rewritten the past to make Ronald Reagan look competent and caring. Many people in this couontry will fall for this propaganda in 10-15 years unless we are up front with the truth.
there are tragedies and outrages in ANY war...tragic, but to be expected when people are put under such unimaginable stress.
This was different...this was the "leader of the free world" saying that we are above the law. That we are not bound by treaties that we signed. That with a couple of convenient re-definitions we can do what we want to people and no one can tell us we're wrong. What's worse is that we have a whole section of our population who believe it was a GOOD thing. Bush is a hero for gittin 'er dun, whatever it takes, and that the liberals are a bunch of pansies for not supporting the torture and indefinite detention of people defined as our enemies.
THAT'S the worst part of the Bush legacy
Sam, I will NEVER let the memory of that dick Cheney die.
My latin is a little rusty, but I think I got the jist of it.
Scott: Pretty big debate today. I see you riled up a couple of the girls. But, please, I don't want to see your name and the word "reprehensible" in the same sentence. Things may have gotten a little warm today but you are a valued and respected member of the Fourth Estate and an irreplacable asset here at TDH.
And to Rockheadedmama.....my Fiat got all rusted when I left it outside too.
As always, it takes a marsupial to bring things "human" into proper perspective.
The damage to us as a country has already been done. In WWII and Korea, to my knowledge, we lived up to our ideals. According to my friends who were there, we started to slip up badly in VietNam. My Lai comes to mind. There were many others. Now this. The ultimate judgment will take place at Heaven's Gate. I don;t know if St Peter will waive me through. Maybe, if they grade on the curve. But I don't think I'll be running into Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. Well, unless, things don't work out so well for ME.
Wombat, I will take your 2 pesos any day of the week.
Well said.
Sam has it right about not letting it die in our memories and I my preference would be for the ICC to handle it for the reasons I stated. I've stated reasons why I don't want or think that a U.S. led prosecution will work. I suppose that makes me reprehensible and if so then so be it.
Yes. It's quite one thing for a person to say that they don't expect to see the right thing happen in a case like this, however much it ought to happen and however much they'd actively support its happening. It's quite another to say we should simply set it aside and move along, for expediency's sake. The latter is morally reprehensible and shameful.
I'd love to see prosecutions but I know this won't happen for several reasons. Obama has enough on his plate right now without adding criminal indictments of Dubya, Cheney, etal. Republicans would love to see him go off on that tangent and lose sight of his agenda. There also seems to be an unwritten policy that former presidents are immune from prosecution of acts committed while they were in office. Nixon is as close as we got and he was pardoned.
Bush/Cheney will get away with what they did but that doesn't mean that we should ever let the memory die.
The bottom line as I see it is who do we want to be? Putting my own cynicism aside(say THAT three times fast), let's say it was possible to put Bush and Cheney and Yoo on trial. Forget the fact that roughly half our nation would be screaming bloody murder over what's seen as high treason against a former president brought about by shadowy forces bent on destroying their great christian nation(people who are also armed to the teeth)
On a purely hypotheticaly philosophical level, we would have to answer the deepest question possible. Do we really believe in the principles of democracy? The concept that no one is above the law? All those things we sing about on the fourth of July?
It's a question of principles...and if you can set a value aside for the sake of pragmatism or expediency, then it's NOT a principle. That means we have NO moral ground to criticise other nations, becuase we are no better than them. Not China, Russia, even Iraq under Saddam. It means the Geneva convention is meaningless, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It means we are only different from Nazi germany as a matter of degree, not principle.
I know nothing will ever happen to the Bushies...I know the way the world works just as well as any. The inertia of the way things have always been done is difficult to overcome and won't likely be done in our lifetimes. But i don't think that it's okay....I'm not willing to throw my hands up and say "Oh well that's things go, better just to get along" I think it blows gopher balls that the guilty walk off into posterity with that same smug grin that always made me want to throw frozen chunks of manure at them.
We as a nation are diminished by our failure to live up the principles we exhort others to adhere to...there is a critical and tragic difference between "We do not torture" and "We do not torture as bad as they torture"
just my 2 pesos
To me pragmatism requires common sense, which seems to be lacking, in many facets of government establishments.
Perhaps it's because few have committed such heinous crimes not only against people in other nations, but against their own nation and the laws of their own land, laws which they've sworn to uphold.
Or maybe it's because of naysayers and "pragmatists" like you. Congratulations.
Which is why so many ex presidents and vice presidents have been prosecuted before. Des brings up a great point and why I asked the question before: why not become a signatory again and become a signatory of the ICC again? That would signal the world we are willing to put our money where our mouth is so to speak.
I liken it to the steroid debate in baseball. We have a testing system but we do not have blood tests. So, in essence they are saying we want to pay lip service to PEDs but we really only want to catch the idiots. If baseball would allow Olympic testing then it would shut everyone up. Allow our leaders to be subject to the same rules as the other world leaders and you shut everyone up. Run a prosecution in the U.S. and you won't get the highest actors. We didn't get Nixon. We didn't get Reagan. They didn't even try with Roosevelt or Johnson. Why do you think they will get Bush and Cheney?
"If we pursue prosecutions then the likes of Scooter Libby will fall on their sword and Cheney/Bush will be untouchable."
Nonsense. You've been watching too many political crime thrillers. Get the right documents and witnesses, and you can get your case out.
Fiat justitia ruat coelum
the elephant in the room is how do you prosecute the leaders without prosecuting the people who carried out the orders? We've seen it time and again...the expendable soldier goes to jail while the those of lofty rank wriggle free
Excellent analogy for both you and Rockheadedmama. I actually enjoy when we get to discussions on this level. Pragmatism doesn't mean you never fight, it simply means you choose your fights. If something like that happens to someone in my family I choose to fight that wrong into eternity.
My problem with the school analogy is that it falls under what I would call "all or nothing" fallacy. Schools operate under the guise of fighting what they know is a winning fight. So, while they would likely stop short of prosecution they would discipline the child to their legal limits within their own confines. The reason is two-fold. First, it cuts down on costs, but they are also protecting the teacher and other students by stopping short of pursuing something that might become a loss. If a student is found not guilty then what does that tell the teacher and the other students. If you can tell them that the student has been placed in alternative school then the other students are safe and the teacher has the vindication of knowing students will be dealt with.
If we pursue prosecutions then the likes of Scooter Libby will fall on their sword and Cheney/Bush will be untouchable. At this point you succeed in proving that which you wanted to disprove. They are immune from prosecution. What a message to send the world. I understand the impulse to try anyway. I choose not to support a losing battle in this instance. It doesn't mean I surrender my choice to fight in other instances. This is yet another part of the all or nothing fallacy. I choose to fight on other issues.
It is because the lawgiver does not know the particular cases to which his rules will apply, and it is because the judge who applies them has no choice in drawing the conclusions that follow from the existing body of rules and the particular facts of the case, that it can be said that laws not men rule. Because the rule is laid down in ignorance of the particular case and no man’s will decides the coercion used to enforce it, the law is not arbitrary. This, however, is true only if by “law” we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody. This generality is probably the most important aspect of that attribute of law which we have called its “abstractness.” As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons.
--- F.A. Hayek
"We take our orders from the evening news
Paper dolls with political views
Find religion on the radio
The more you listen, the more you know
Sell the lie in a new pop song
No one questions as they sing along
Keep the pigs happy in the shit
Pick a side and bend the truth to fit
The grass is green and the skies are blue
And they're saying grace in the heart of America
Your mind's wiped clean when they come for you
And they lie to your face when you live in America"
The realist is the man, who having weighed all the visible factors in a given situation and having found that the odds are against him, decides that fighting is useless.
Raoul De Sales
I prefer to fight the fight.
Scott: some thug shoots your small child and kills her. He's a friend of the prosecutor and the police in your small town and manages to avoid arrest, despite your and your family's outrage.
A number of years later, the staff in the police department and the prosecutor's office turns over. You demand justice. But they say it's been too long. Even though they technically could prosecute the crime, it would "disturb the peace". It would "cripple" relations in your small town. It's best, they say, to just move on.
So move on, Scott. That's right. It's the pragmatic thing to do.
There are a few consequences to “looking forward.”
Any captured American soldier can expect to be tortured. For that matter, any American kidnapped or taken hostage anywhere in the world can expect to be tortured. And what can we say or do about it?
Any claim to any moral superiority over any dictator, despot, or tyrant anywhere in the world is gone. How can this president or any future president go anywhere and preach about human rights? How do we condemn any country for violations of treaties or international law? How do we insist that the next Milosevic be tried for war crimes? We can’t. They’ll laugh in our face, as they should. We’ll only prove to the rest of the world that we’re the hypocrites our enemies say we are. We’re all for human rights until something happens to us.
Also on treaties. Why would any country sign one with us knowing that we’ll only keep it if it’s convenient and politically expedient for us.
Rule of law? Out the window. Rise to a high enough position and you’re above the law. If that’s the kind of country we want let’s keep “looking forward.”
Pragmatic use of prisoners? Human Experimentation at the Heart of Bush Administration's Torture Program.
This has always stirred the hornets nest, so let me go one by one.
1) Yes, the statement about the constitutional law professor was made in jest. The point is that idealism is a luxury on the sidelines. He has to consider the real time implications of every decision he makes.
2) In reference to the world court, could he not sign us back in? While it may not be the action some of you are looking for, it would signal the rest of the world that we will abide by the same rules they do.
3) In terms of the other options on the table, you do two things in my mind. First, the liberal media (MSNBC, Air America, et al) can drum on this all they want and should. Our goal collectively is for this to never happen again. Secondly, we make sure history is written correctly and accurately. We know about the internment camps, Tonkin Gulf, and the mistreatment of Native Americans in addition to everything else. Make sure the next generation knows about this.
4) In terms of pragmatism and the other side not treating things equitably there is a big difference, the Clinton investigation WERE DONE WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE. Folks, I keep saying it and you keep ignoring it. WE DROPPED THE BALL. This should have been done while Bush and Cheney were in office. Now they are private citizens that would be prosecuted for public bad acts. They have more constitutional protections as private citizens so a prosecution would likely yield a not guilty verdict. The Scooter Libbys of the world would fall on their swords and everyone (including the rest of the world) would wonder what in the heck we were doing anyway.
In short, there is a reason why no other ex president has ever stood trial for crimes while in office. I suppose you can hate me for seeing reality.
Should students who assault and maim teachers be prosecuted? I think not. It would be too traumatic for the rest of the children. Besides, we have a jury system and literally every person on that jury would be biased one way or the other about teachers since every one of them has had some experience with teachers. The pragmatic thing to do, after first retiring the teacher who was so stupid as to get assaulted, and transferring the assaulter who was only reacting, (after all we didn’t witness the assault - so who knows for sure what happened or whose fault it could be??), to a different school, would be to otherwise ignore these situations when they arise and tell the rest of the children, while it is abhorrent that an individual would be so hurt, shit happens, and when it does, you just have to make the best of it and move on. Now, some of you may whine and cry – “but, but - it’s against the law!!” - but, you have to be adult about things and realize that life isn’t fair and it was just your turn to have some injustice in your life. Who am I to decide this is the correct way to handle these situations? Why, I’m the person who sets myself up as the decider. As long as me and my ignorant friends are in the majority - you’re liable to get my idea of justice.
BTW there is no statute of limitations on MURDER...
Pragmatism means nothing when talking about two totally unequal situations.
Blow job compared to murder by torture??????
Um, sorry no real comparison. YET, which do they choose to investigate?
I think we all need to step back and see what insane people are really running this country.
Also, anyone want to explain why Obama scraped manned space missions? He needed to give the military more money or something?
Personally I think Obama sabotaging NASA is a bigger crime than this horseshit about offering someone a job for political gain. Anyone see what it takes to get a bill passed nowadays? Makes offering a job for political gain look like child's play.
Bush and Co. will never be held accountable for their actions except possibly in the pages of history. That's not a pragmatic solution, it's a functional reality. As a people, we're completely incapable of admitting error until a generation or two has passed and any chance of real justice if moot. Only then are we far enough removed from personal accountability that pass blame off as someone else's fault. We pay lip service to the ideals of Justice and the rule of law, but we don't really believe it...since every time those ideals get in the way of something we want to do someone finds away to explain that those principles don't apply.(manifest destiny, japanese internment camps, guantanamo, etc.)
And before you say World Court, please re-read SSTM's post regarding the ICC.
"I find it hard to believe that a constitutional law professor would so easily succomb to "The Rule of Man"."
Then I've got a nice bridge I'd like to sell to you.
Ok, Scott - I'll bite. What are the other options that are on the table? Please clarify what you think should be done to bring Bush/Cheney et al to JUSTICE for illegal acts and crimes that go against the Geneva Convention?
Personally, I thought she was quite succinct.
And to that end I agree and never said otherwise. The rub is in how we proceed. Everyone outside of the Bush administration and far right have acknowledged the illegality of what was done. The pragmatic question is what should be done about it. There is a reason why the president is not proceeding with criminal investigations folks. I find it hard to believe that a constitutional law professor would so easily succomb to "The Rule of Man". There are considerable political, national, international, and emotional ramifications that come with such a prosecution. In a scant 18 months has our president gone from decent to rogue? I say he is simply pragmatic as he has always been. There are other options on the table.
Thank you for being constructive and mature in your response.
Bingo! David Cole hit the nail on the head...
"So the question is not whether laws were broken by the Bush administration and its lawyers. They clearly were. The question is whether we the American people will insist that the laws be enforced. As I have argued in these pages [“The Torture Memos: The Case Against the Lawyers,” NYR, October 8, 2009], what is critical—as a moral, historical, and legal matter—is that we acknowledge in some official manner that what was done in our name was not just a terrible idea, not just an unfortunate mistake whose consequences we will live with for a long, long time. It was illegal. That accountability can take many forms. But what is unacceptable is to proceed as if no wrongs were done.
Yes, DOJ answers to the President.
Check out David Cole in the NY Review of Books: http://www.newyorkreviewofbooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/08/they-did-authorize-torture-but/ and http://www.newyorkreviewofbooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/us-crimes-without-punishment/ and http://www.newyorkreviewofbooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jan/14/getting-away-with-torture/. David Cole is a professor of law at Georgetown Univ. School of Law.
So, if I understand correctly, the only prosecution possible would be by our DOJ, the ICC not having proper jurisdiction. I'm pretty sure that Obama will not sanction that. So the question is, could or would the DOJ choose to prosecute either without his permission or against the orders of the POTUS??? If my memory serves me correctly, the DOJ answers to the president.
Oops, I read the "could" as "should". Yes, that not only could be our response but in fact would be our response. If the ICC can't, then by all means the U.S. should. Crimes committed by sitting leaders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Hardly. As I said, I'm all for dragging them up in front of the ICC. That's precisely where they should be.
However, because we haven't joined the ICC (or rather we were reluctant signatories under Clinton, and then were backed out of it by Bush), the chances of seeing that happen are nil.
I would hope that he, and those that follow him, would be more aware that it could happen to them as well.
Just because you are a President, you should not get a free pass to commit crimes - and I don't give a rat's ass what party you belong to.
Are you saying that our response could be "you guys don't have jurisdiction" over our people???
After reading my post, I think some may have gotten the idea that I was implying Obama would be "party" to the prosecutions. Obviously not. But exactly how does a sitting president react when his predecessor and much of his administration do a "perp walk" down the boardwalk in Schevinengen?
(That's the name of the beach near The Hague)
I could have gone the rest of my life without reading that MotherJones report.
Does the World Court have the cajones to indict the USA???? I think we are the biggest importer of Heineken in the world.
Scott, I completely agree that Bush, Cheney and the rest should be hauled before the ICC. However, as you might know, Bush removed the U.S. as a signatory to the ICC. Additionally, everyone has biases, judges and juries alike, in all countries. So do you think, then, that we should simply sit on our hands?
This will make Jimmy Carter's "hostage crisis" look like a "walk the park."
I can see it now...."U.S. On Trial, Day 11." Brought to you by CITI Bank.
That is, IMO, the ideal solution.
BUT, how does "The World Court" start this process and (here's the big question) will we ALLOW them to prosecute OUR president, VP, Secy of Defense, and senior military officials??????
If Obama thinks healthcare and the BP oil spill are a pain in the ass.....as I've said before, he WANTED the job. A World Court prosecution, in this case, would be a no-win for him.
The USA on trial in The Hague for "war crimes"........I just don't see that happening.
So, short of a world court we should just sit back and let the bullshit on both sides of the aisle continue?
To use your wound analogy, leeches are really nasty suckers - really nasty - but the medical profession is starting to use them more frequently because they do an excellent job of cleaning out the wound and helping it heal.
We need to clean out the wound in America, or this shit is never, ever, going to stop.
And did you see this little gem?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/06/bush-administration-experimented-detainees-phr-report
Horseshit.
The statute of limitations never runs on murder, at least in the U.S. system.
Pragmatism is great, but it doesn't do much to tell you what your moral code should be. Ultimately, you can end up with far more broken eggs than anyone other than a war criminal or a war criminal sympathizer would feel comfortable countenancing.
I agree Carguy, if everyone looks carefully at my replies on the other thread they will notice that I welcomed prosecutions in the world court. When you look at our legal system, it is built on the jury system. There is no impartial jury in political cases. This point seems obvious to me but I guess not so to others. A world court prosecution would accomplish two things. First, it would remove us from the equation. Republicans and Democrats become spectators. Secondly, and mire importantly, it does something that our own prosecutors can't. It shows the world we are willing to live by the rules we all agreed to live to. Instead of being the inforcers of the world we would be partners. We would finally regain our moral authority. Doing our own prosecutions would not do that which is just one reason why I am against them.
Pardon the analogy but I liken it to a wound. When a wound is fresh, that is the best time to clean it, disinfect it, and do whatever else needs to be done. We lost our chance to do that when Congress didn't launch an investigation while Bush was in office. Doing so now would constitute ripping the scab off to reclean the wound. What precludes the right from reopening scabs from past Democratic administrations? Before you know it, there are so many scabs open that you might bleed to death.
In legal terms, when does the statute of limitations run out on these things. Do we punish the Roosevelt administration for internment camps or the Johnson administration for trumping up the Tonkin Gulf? There is a difference between knowing and making sure everyone knows and criminalizing political acts of the past. Whining about this and the 2000 elections is a part of what gives our party a bad name. There comes a time when you simply recognize it and move on.
"...A part of being pragmatic is establishing priorities. It means we recognize some facts but also recognize that pursuing that truth would be more harmful than good. A prosecution of George W. Bush would be more harmful than good."...
Scott, I agree that being pragmatic means establishing priorities, however, when do we get to the point that criminal acts will continue because there is no real threat of punishment?
Seems to me that we are already there.
Indeed, we have a complex issue here and reasonable people will disagree.
We already look bad in the eyes of our neighbors and allies. We already look bad in OUR own eyes as well as we are guilty, undoubtedly guilty, of doing exactly what we criticize and condemn other countries for doing.
"Justice" would be nice, but, as you say, it really isn't a pragmatic solution. So,I suspect we will adopt the "Bud Selig" approach and hope we can avoid this in the future. But we won't. I would not be surprised if withing the next 8-10 years that we don't stumble across another U.S. blunder and violation of the same laws we chastise other countries and other leaaders for. It's very disappointing.