The People vs. Dick Cheney
Will Obama bring the Bushies to account? Will Congress? Some local DA? A judge in Europe? Anyone...?
Just weeks before the 2004 presidential election, Donald Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense, appeared at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. After the secretary finished, with customary panache, assessing the state of the war on terrorism ("Have there been setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq? You bet"), a young man in a business suit asked politely, "Mr. Secretary, you have a very impressive career both within... and outside the government sector. As such a credible leader, could you please explain to us what your definition of the word 'accountability' is?"
Rumsfeld seemed nonplussed. "Capability?" he asked. "Accountability," the young man repeated politely, yet firmly. "Oh no, I don't know that I can," the secretary said. He cast out a few platitudes—"checks and balances," "gray areas," "individuals who have responsibilities"—only to find his stride by turning to Pentagon personnel metrics. He concluded that "You need to put in place a series of things that hold people reasonably accountable for their actions, and people, I think, expect that."
Today, with Rumsfeld and his former boss on their way to the judgment of history, the question of accountability looms large. From liberals fantasizing about Dick Cheney in handcuffs, to cia officials taking out insurance against prosecution, many are wondering: Will there be redress for the crimes of the Bush administration—and if so, what form should it take?
The list of potential legal breaches is, of course, enormous; by one count, the administration has broken 269 laws, both domestic and international. It begins with illegal wiretapping and surveillance (which in the view of many experts violated the Fourth Amendment, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for starters), the politicization of the Justice Department and the firing of nine US attorneys, and numerous instances of obstruction of justice—from the destruction of cia interrogation tapes to the willful misleading of Congress and the public. Perhaps the paramount charge that legal experts have zeroed in on is the state-approved torture that violated not just the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture but also the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the 1996 War Crimes Act, which prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment and other "outrages upon personal dignity."
With these abuses in mind, lawyers, policymakers, and others have identified three models from which to fashion a response to the Bush era. In decreasing order of opprobrium, the choices are impeachment, prosecution, and investigative commission.
Impeachment, according tothe consensus emerging in Washington and among a wide spectrum of lawyers and human rights advocates, seems both unlikely and undesirable. Though it has reared its head periodically over the past eight years—most notably with Rep. Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney—Democratic leaders have declared the option "off the table." And at this point, it's a bit moot.
The idea of prosecution has fared only slightly better. In Italy, 26 Americans—including cia agents, a military attaché, and several diplomats—face charges in conjunction with the rendition of radical cleric Abu Omar to Egypt. Human rights organizations, notably the Center for Constitutional Rights, have teamed up with partners in Germany and France to pursue charges against Rumsfeld for violating the Convention Against Torture, though so far to little effect. The possibility of other cases has been raised, most recently in British barrister Philippe Sands' warning that Congress should investigate the torture question, for "if the United States doesn't address this, other countries will." (See opposite page.)
More significantly, there have also been rumblings about prosecution here at home. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already appointed a special prosecutor to look into the Justice Department firings; potential targets include four top doj officials as well as Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. In June, 56 congressional Democrats signed a letter to Mukasey seeking an investigation into detainee abuses with an eye toward violations of "federal criminal laws." Then, after a September conference on the crimes of the Bush administration sponsored by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, attendees launched a committee to seek the prosecution of the president, chaired by the school's dean, Lawrence Velvel. Also in September, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced the Executive Branch Accountability Act of 2008, which calls for the new president to "investigate Bush/Cheney administration officials' alleged crimes and hold them accountable for any illegal acts." Baldwin's plan would require Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to consider the possibility of criminal charges—a model whose historical precedents Americans are only too familiar with.
Still, when I asked a range of legal and political experts about the prosecution option, few seemed to consider it worthwhile—at least at this point. "We need some sort of accountability," Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman told me, "but it won't necessarily be by prosecutions." The reasons are practical as well as philosophical. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz explained that "the real question is whether investigating one's political opponents poses too great a risk of criminalizing policy differences—especially when these differences are highly emotional and contentious." Others, including nyu law professor and former aclu president Norman Dorsen, who chaired two investigative commissions for the Ford and Clinton administrations, warn of the dangers of appearing vengeful, or even creating sympathy for those under scrutiny. After all, some argue, John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the lot are already persona non grata; though they'll likely do fine in the private sector or academia, their reputations are indelibly tarnished and their political careers effectively over.
Perhaps the biggest question, though, is one of political will given that Americans, it seems, really aren't that upset about what has happened. A recent University of Maryland poll found that tolerance for torture of suspected terrorists has actually risen in recent years, from 36 percent in 2006 to 44 percent last June.
Barack Obama's campaign message reinforced this reluctance to prosecute. In essence, he has promised to create a national unity government, a notion that doesn't square with criminally charging one's predecessors. As Obama put it last April, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve." Obama's advisers, too, have let it be known that prosecutions are not on the agenda except for "egregious crimes," a term that seems purposely vague. Only Joe Biden, perhaps straying from his talking points (again), has seemed open to the possibility. "If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," he said last fall, "not out of vengeance, not out of retribution—out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law."
But it is not just political caution that stands in the way of prosecution. It is also the fact that torture and other alleged crimes were sanctioned by legal advice within the administration and, in some cases, by Congress. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel has the authority to interpret the law for the executive; these interpretations—including the "torture memos"—are considered binding until they are reversed or disavowed.
In addition, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 limited the abuses that can be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act to only the most extreme violations of the Geneva Conventions (thus codifying the distinction between "torture" and "degrading treatment"); the changes were made retroactive to 1997, creating what Garth Meintjes, a noted authority on transitional justice and amnesties, has called "quasi amnesties." These changes are one reason why the Senate armed services and judiciary committees, in their hearings on torture last summer, seemed to focus on proving perjury as much as substantive violations of law.
With impeachment out of the picture and prosecution receding as a possibility, attention has turned to an investigative commission along the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that followed the end of apartheid in South Africa, the 1967 Kerner Commission on race, or the 9/11 Commission; the best model may be the Church Committee, Congress' response to the 1970s revelations on Watergate, cia destabilization programs abroad, and surveillance of Americans. (The Church hearings led to creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.) Perhaps recognizing that his impeachment bill is past its sell-by date, Kucinich has cottoned to the commission idea, announcing in September that he was looking to introduce legislation to launch just such a body.
As Walter Lippmann once wrote, congressional commissions can turn into a free-for-all as politicians, "starved of their legitimate food for thought, go on a wild and feverish manhunt, and do not stop at cannibalism." Accordingly, some favor the idea of an independent commission, run by someone of the stature of Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald or former New York US Attorney Mary Jo White, in the hope that this format would be less politically charged. The goal would be to prove Lippmann wrong and establish the facts in a reliable, nonpartisan fashion—to create an authoritative narrative that the nation could share.
But what kind of commission makes all the difference. Truth and reconciliation commissions, which the United States has never had at the federal level, are for healing. Watergate-style commissions bear the prospect of condemnation, exposure, and punishment. Then there is the question of just what is to be found: Much of what happened in the run-up to the war, the torture scandal, or the National Security Agency wiretaps has already been documented in news articles, books, and congressional probes; what is missing, though, is the full story about who knew what and when. Perhaps a commission could get members of the Bush administration to reveal these details. Perhaps there are other skeletons to be unearthed. The best hope, Meintjes ruefully acknowledges, is for a "negotiated truth" along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. As attorney Scott Horton has pointed out in Harper's, "Investigative commissions can provide truth...but they cannot provide justice."
Yet it's also true that once a commission begins, it is hard to control just where it will go. Although many who embrace the idea of a commission have disavowed prosecution, once the facts are out, criminal charges may yet follow. If prosecution looms as a possibility, testimony may be difficult to obtain. But if immunity is offered—a common element in truth and reconciliation commissions—prosecutions may prove problematic.
To be sure, any commission would be time-consuming and could distract the new administration from the urgent work of addressing the war in Iraq and the financial crisis. And there's the problem of potential complicity among those charged with the investigation. Members of Congress who voted for war, for example, would rather not revisit that moment; ditto those who were briefed on the wiretaps and the cia interrogation techniques.
Yet the downside of not addressing crimes of power is immense. It creates a space for lingering suspicion that the new president might want to keep some of the excessive authority Bush carved out for himself. What's more, signaling a new way forward in the matter of torture could go a long way toward reestablishing the government's credibility at home and abroad. One possibility, suggests Dorsen, is for Congress or a blue-ribbon citizens' commission to hold investigative hearings; only if crimes are revealed would the attorney general consider (very carefully) what the consequences of prosecution would be.
Whatever form it takes, the accounting will not be easy. As one close observer has put it, "Who would want the job of cleaning the Augean stables anyway?" Congress may not be able to redirect the rivers as Hercules did to wash out the accumulated filth, but it can go a long way in that direction. Accountability is a worthy goal even if incomplete. To borrow a phrase from Chile's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the best we can hope for is "all the truth and as much justice as possible."
Page 1 of 1 
Now that ObombANation quoted the Oath of Office Correctly he can be Impeached Correctly and along with the Weenie God's Impeachment Fire the New Secretary of State Ice Queen Hag Clinton! That House which was once our Capital Stinks of Communism! Terrorism Abides within our Country and it Resides at our once used to be Capital now nothing more than the John for the John Doe's and Mary Jane's!!!!! Throw The Book at MotherJonescom
I am sick to death of individuals such as Karen Greenberg putting forward the 9/11 Commission as some sort of triumph. It was the biggest whitewash in history, was a slap in the face to all of those that lost loved ones on that day, and is a disgrace to anyone that cherishes truth and accountability.
hell will freeze over before this neocon lite O'Bombya is going to bring any of these mass murdering, treasonous piles of putrid [deleted] to justice..
ObombANation is really concerned about the Poverty Stricken and under Privileged ROFL!!!! Hawaiian Vacation Retreat Illinois Home D.C. Home Highest Security Personnel in History...... He's so worried about others as much as Uncle Sam saying I don't want you!!!! Damn, where's my wallet!!! ObombANation will not do a 9/11 Investigation due to his name and especially the Clinton's names will be at the top of the List and to think Al Gore invented the Internet, ROFL!!!! Get prepared for a Heat Wave Damn, I'm freezing my Arse off could use a bit of Heat but it appears to be getting colder!!! Hope Gore is enjoying his Energy consuming Home and House Boat!!!
Matters not which Technology/Resources are used the Earth is being raped and poisoned while the Congress and Administration will Tax the Hell out of the People!!! Research resources being used for the current and future Technology and maybe you'll open your eyes to the dangers which is also breathed from invisible Automotive Exhaust!!!! Africa is and has always been on the Global Agenda of wiping out its population such as Clinton ignoring Genocide and Corporations raping its landscape and coastal areas for precious resources. Ark of the Covenant is thought to be in Africa and more talk as far as the Garden of Eden!! All a Power Play with the same results Rip the people off while secretly poisoning the Earth and Air not to mention the slave labor and lest it be forgotten The Clinton's Blood Diamonds!!! ObombANation is nothing more than a Clinton Puppet!! So much for Technology let alone Evolution!!!! It can only get worse from here on!!!
My book (uncited) is about 269 war crimes, not 269 laws. Why not review the book, which is available now?
Meanwhile, you have missed the point of my book--war crimes have been committed, victims remain uncompensated, and failure to follow the Geneva Conventions (such as the requirement for a Central Prisoner of War Agency) means that Obama is becoming a war criminal himself. The option that all the pundits have missed is quite simple--STOP THE ONGOING WAR CRIMES!
PRESS RELEASE
January 22, 2009
NEW BOOK DOCUMENTS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S 269 WAR CRIMES
With a Foreword by former Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz, the book George W. Bush, War Criminal? The Bush Administration’s Liability for 269 War Crimes by Professor Michael Haas has been released by Greenwood Press. Further information is available at www.USwarcrimes.com
At a time when President Barack Obama promises to “set aside childish things” in order “to assure the rule of law and the rights of man,” the book identifies a formidable agenda--the dismantling of hundreds of ongoing war crimes beyond merely closing Guantánamo and ending the war in Iraq.
Based on information supplied in autobiographical and press sources, the book matches events in Afghanistan, Guantánamo, Iraq, and various secret places of detention with provisions in the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements on war crimes. His compilation is the first to cite a comprehensive list of specific war crimes in four categories—illegality of the decision to go to war, misconduct during war, mistreatment of prisoners of war, and misgovernment in the American occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Haas accuses former President Bush of conduct bordering on treason because he reenacted several complaints stated in the Declaration of Independence against England, ignored the Constitution and federal laws, trampled on the American tradition of developing international law to bring order to world politics, and in effect made a Faustian pact with Osama Bin Laden that the intelligence community blames for an increase in world terrorism. Osama Bin Laden remains alive, he reports, because Bush preferred to go after oil-rich Iraq rather than tracking down Al Qaeda leaders, whose uncaptured presence was useful to him in justifying a “war on terror” pursued on a military rather than a criminal basis without constitutional restraints.
Aside from going to war illegally, some of the most heinous crimes include the brutal treatment of thousands of children, some 64 of whom have been detained at Guantánamo. Sources document the use of illegal weapons in the war from cluster bombs to daisy cutters, napalm, white phosphorus, and depleted uranium weapons, some of which have injured and killed American soldiers as well as thousands of innocent civilians.
“Bush’s violations of the Constitution as well as domestic and international law have besmirched the reputation of the United States,” Haas writes. “In so doing, they have accomplished a goal of which the Al Qaeda terrorists only dreamed—to transform the United States into a rogue nation feared by the rest of the world and loved by almost none.”
“One reason for the adoption of the Third Geneva Convention,” according to Haas, “was a revulsion against German-run interrogation camps during World War II.” Yet, he writes, “Bush’s order to set up interrogation camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantánamo, and other secret locations “is directly contrary to the Geneva Conventions.” Nevertheless, Haas notes that Nazi Germany’s war crimes were wholesale offenses, whereas the scope of Bush’s crimes is retail, affecting fewer (a few millions) of innocent persons.
In view of the vast number of war crimes, Haas recommends a truth commission with the aim of educating the world on the nature of war crimes. He feels that stopping war crimes is a more important objective than prosecuting the offenders, some of whom may be brought to justice in foreign courts if they travel abroad and the American judicial system is uninterested.
The author, Michael Haas, has written over thirty books on government and politics in his academic career as a political scientist (Yale M.A., Stanford Ph.D.) at Northwestern University, Purdue University, the University of Hawai`i, the University of London, the University of the Philippines, and several colleges and universities in California. He lives in the Hollywood Hills and can be reached at (323) 656-5873. To order the book (only $40 in hardcover), contact www.amazon.com or www.greenwood.com
Overall a very good article, however it does contain one very serious flaw:
“Then there is the question of just what is to be found: Much of what happened in the run-up to the war, the torture scandal, or the National Security Agency wiretaps has already been documented in news articles, books, and congressional probes; what is missing, though, is the full story about who knew what and when.”
It is an inherent and absolutely inevitable result of corruption, and most especially corruption that has been highly successful, that until fully independent and thorough investigation is done, what is known will be only the tip of the iceberg. Corruption always tries to hid and disguise what it does and to be successful it must do a good job of this. Consider our lapdog media and how many times they have reported the insignificant and trivial (to give the illusion that they are on the job) and then quite deliberately and knowingly withheld the most critical news of all, at least until such times as its impact will have been largely dissipated. (New York Times, for example. If it had done even the remotest semblance of an honest job, this catastrophe would have been one term instead of two.
Withholding critical events has far more impact that just allowing those particular events to escape notice. It prevents the reactions that might otherwise have led to a cascade of further exposures.
So long as fully independent, thorough and honest investigations are not done, the underwater portion of the iceberg is not exposed. And, whether or not they admit this, people are fully aware of it.
The truly disturbing thing is: All of the people well know it. The only exceptions are those locked into denial either by their own guilt or by their guilty knowledge that they have personally profited by the events (whether willingly or not) and are afraid that exposure might lead to some form of restitution and threaten their gains. Yet the media (the major and essential enablers of all that occurred) are working as hard as they can to prevent any meaningful investigation, spouting blatant absurdities like “we must look forward, not back”, etc etc. And the politicians who completely abrogated their sworn duties (the most important of all!) to “uphold and defend” are doing likewise. Both are doing this to protect themselves while knowing full well that doing so will destroy any chance of resolution of the problems.
Without full, honest and complete investigation with full disclosure, the rule of law will be an empty concept and completely irrelevant to the United States.
Rule of law is not a luxury, it is an absolute necessity.
Currently we have many very serious problems facing us, some of which could destroy our government, our civilization and even our planet, if not solved: global warming, environmental destruction and pollution, the impending death of the oceans and the “third rail” issue that, if not solved will make solving any of the others impossible: overpopulation.
Solving each of these problems requires overcoming many very powerful and firmly entrenched special interests who have been resisting any solution with every means at their disposal, fair or foul. They currently hold almost all of the political power and those making honest attempts to find solutions almost none.
We do not have the luxury of time to achieve these changes. IF we still have time, and that is far from certain, our only hope is to restore the rule of law as quickly as possible so that effective actions (as opposed to lip service and empty gestures by those at the root cause of them) will be possible.
Investigation and disclosure is no impediment, nor a luxury, it is absolutely essential to our very survival, as a people, as a nation and even as a species.
mojojo:
That is one of the most disjointed non-sensical string of thoughts I have ever read. Seriously, what the hell are you trying to say and where did you learn to express an idea? The Sarah Palin Institue for Political Discourse? I'm guessing that more than your "Arse" is frozen since your posting is about as sharp as an ice cube. Maybe it's time to take off the tinfoil hat and let the gray matter thaw.
How STUPID are you? They will not be convicted of anything. You would have better luck trying to get a real birth certificate out of your current President.
Is there any codified crime in wasting vast amounts of America's wealth to restore the infrastructure of Iraq without achieving hardly anything. As the Mafia was brought down by tax evasion, perhaps Cheny could be brought down by fraud.
Believe me, Americans are upset. Here's what they are: doubtful anything or anyone that is "political" will ever have to be "accountable" by Rumsfeld's definition, Webster's or any others. It's a sad state of affairs when our leadership can blatantly break laws and then dare the American people who elected them, "catch me if you can." Really. Sad.
If members of the Bush administration broke the law, how many members of Congress did the same by passing FISA, voting to allow an illegal war, knew about torture, and so many of other misdeeds performed by the administration?
Leave us not forget Mr. Barney Frank and his fudge-packing paramour when it comes to investigation of criminality. The fervor with which the lunatic-liberals seek to destroy what remains of the Bush Administration is almost sexual. Grow up. Move on. Let's not waste millions on moot legal points, ala Bill & Monica a decade ago. We have vastly more important issues to focus on...principal among them; Making sure the thieves in Congress are held accountable for the crimes THEY commit.
Whoa! THIS American is still PLENTY Upset!!! I just don't know what to do about the situation; but then, if the many things that YOU were upset about included awarding YOU your Disability (SSD) Pension for a Mental Illness that YOU DON'T HAVE, then accusing YOU of 'faking it' and threatening to put you in an Insane Asylum where they'll "Tie you to the bed, then let People come in and DO THINGS TO YOU at night" - IF YOU TALK ABOUT IT; what would YOU DO?
Now I know that I should have asked what those 'other' Drugs (Zyprexa, Risperdol) that that Doctor who I asked to give me some Prozac - cause I just wanted to try it, like everyone else - were actually for; as they labeled me Schizoid BEFORE they started [deleted]ing things up for me (not to mention killing at least one person) by ignoring the Neuropathy that I DID ask for my SSD for.
Any Suggestions? I'm: JimRinX on Salon, or JimRinX@hotmail.com
If you prosecute the actual torturers, there is nothing to be gained unless they produce evidence of a concerted effort on the part of the misAdministration to subvert the Constitution and international law to which America has signed on. This is true of every Constitutional outrage of the last eight years, including four years of gross abuses of FISA law and turning the Justice Department into Rove's Gestapo cum Stasi. National reconciliation is attractive, because it puts the PNew American Centurions on the same footing as fellow criminal travelers like the DeKlerk clique.
The fault, dear holier than thou newborn Progressive lies not in our stars, but in ourselves. Everybody that let these bastards corrupt the philosophical bases of American government is complicit, and needs a cleansing breath. Corbies come home to roost, and making the agents of the unAmaericanization could go a long way toward making it impossible for anybody to pull this sort of abomination in the near future.
That said, Shrubco went to such astounding extralegal and extra-logical extremes to justify their behavior, they clearly understood they were breaking the law. They instructed career federal employees to break the law on the basis of patently ridiculous legalconfections that were cooked up by the Stovepipe Gang. It's entirely possible that W himself was so intellectually lazy and just dumb he didn't realize that Yoo and Bybee, et al. was pure barnyard expletive. Maybe, even Fredo was that obtuse and that far out of the kiddie pool.
Perhaps this is left best to international justice. I wouldn't buy it for a moment, but it would be right in a sublimely sardonic way if Tony Blair said "Wait a minute, those aholes lied to me."
The crimes of the Bush crew fall into the rare category of transgressions with billions of eye witnesses. They have no defense for their actions. The question is, what purpose is served by punishing arrogance and ignorance and inhumanity?
Not much, for most of them. Incurious George will live out his life as an international pariah. Gonzalez might make amends by writing wills and handling immigration cases. If either steps beyond those bounds, it ought to be taken as cognizance of their complicity in trashing the Constitution, and the Justice Department ought to slap them down.
Rummy and Dickless, well they're another story. They used up their get out of jail free cards when Medeiros and a variety of Jesuits and Maryknoll nuns were raped and slaughtered. They've pulled this sh*t twice, and nobody needs them around for Strike Three. These two helped create the Taliban, they empowered the Ayatollah Khomeini, and they have singular responsibility for Central and South American death squads and the murders of Chilean heroes. And they did all of that in the interest of extra-legal power for incompetents, Oldtimers and Cold Warrior manques that undermined the foundations of American life and government. These guys ought to spend the rest of their lives in the closest thing that can be devised to Guantanamo.
In a just world, George HW ought to be sharing a cell with his co-conspirator Pineapple Face, not in Club Fed, but in some circle of hell somewhat removed from Ground Zero defined by Dante, eating undifferentiated gruel and listening to Henry Kissinger's gaseous borborygmus and breathing his flatus.
But that will only happen outside our experience. Whether for lucre or personal aggrandizement or perverse and antisocial (and deeply anti-Christian) political philosophy, the will of the people was subverted outright in 2000 and most likely stolen in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in 2004. (I'd like to see the political misdeeds prosecuted first.)
Let the chips fall where they may. Back in '98, the Project for the New American Century proposed basic war crimes to President Clinton, and no matter what you think about him, he wasn't buying crimes against humanity and entirely UNjustified war. All of the usual suspects signed on, and it's interesting they weren't interested in Shrub. They got Jeb, before it dawned on them a puppet interlocutor would better serve their purposes.
So, turn the tools, and leave them alone to pursue careers in mall enforcement. They should have known better, and following orders is no real defense, but they were human and scared. And he may have been President, but W sort of strikes me as the Jose Padilla of this case. Short bus dupe.
Most important, realize there are two aspects to the treasonous behavior. DThere's fomenting everlasting war, and then, there's the permanent majority. I believe thaat penultimate snake in the grass Lee Atwater is turning over in his grave at the intentional damage these subversive greedy old plutocrats have attempted.
If the Obama White House is so concerned about "so called" Bush Era tactics, then he needs to come forth with an original birth certificate instead of living a lie in front of the American people. What does he have to hide?
I'll slow down and actually read this article soon, but DAMN , that is the most imaginitive illustration I've seen on this topic. Makes me horny.
Jon:
Or his National Guard records. He managed to get rid of one of his opponents just that easily. Imagine what kind of strangeness would happen if those and other records were recovered? All of a sudden a right wing conspiracy would "happen" and the originals would disappear just like the people that found them. We would end up like Cambodia with the killing fields on the outskirts of DC.
Anyone still asking for President Obama's birth certificate may be more comfortable wearing their tin-foil hats over at freerepublic.com.
They'll welcome you with open arms, hands on Bibles, and guns-a-blazin.
Enjoy.
I couldn't agree with you more!
If we don't uncover the injust behavior of the neocons then they will just be recycled back into power when the next Republican cycle gains control again. Mickey Gulick
I'd love to see that plump little piggy Rove thrown in jail to become someone's "lover". Would wipe that cocky smirk off his face real quick.
It is amusing that many of those who want to forget, forgive and let go; still hold on to the notion that holding Nixon accountable for WaterGate was a triumph for democracy. John Dean, former counsel to Richard Nixon claims that the secretive Bush/Cheney administration’s crimes were far “Worse Than WaterGate” which is actually the title of Dean’s book.
Many members of Congress have more than compelling reasons for not investigating the Bush/Cheney Junta. Most notable on that congressional list are Jane Harman, Nancy Pelosi and Senator Jay Rockefeller. These trio, at least, were fully briefed on most of the misdeeds of the Bush Administration; all gave their tacit approval and became partners in the crime. Now they stand on other side, their hands washed, and claim affinity to the rule of law, alas, it was Pelosi who removed impeachment off the table.
With impeachment out of the picture and prosecution receding as a possibility, attention has turned to an investigative commission along the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that followed the end of apartheid in South Africa, the 1967 Kerner Commission on race, or the 9/11 Commission; the best model may be the Church Committee, Congress' response to the 1970s revelations on Watergate, CIA destabilization programs abroad, and surveillance of Americans.
Wow. I came to this website because I was disgusted by David Corn's appearance on Hardball this past Friday. I wanted to see why someone writing for what I thought was the liberal Mother Jones would be putting forth such mealy mouthed excuses for not prosecuting war crimes. And now I see Ms. Greenberg trying to downplay the idea of prosecutions.
I've been watching the discussion about prosecutions for awhile now and the call for prosecutions has actually increased in the last two weeks not receded. While the majority of the beltway aristocracy don't want to see prosecutions, that view is not shared by the public at large. Even the Washington Post, whose columnists attack those wanting accountability as "liberal score-settlers", printed a poll recently that showed a plurality of Americans want to see prosecutions. The public gets it - why don't our media personalities get it?
Very pragmatic and thoughtful discussion. Hopefully enough of us will pursue the conclusion of this article.
There are two legal systems in this country, one for the wealthy and powerful, and one for the rest of us.
It's enlightening to read some of our intellectuals opining about the wisdom of prosecuting crimes that have already been committed. Dershowitz shills, er, "explains" that this might look like criminalizing political differences with your predecessors. We wouldn't want it to LOOK LIKE THAT, after all, people might get the wrong impression. Another prof wrings his hands and says that we need "some sort of accountability" but not through prosecutions. Heck no, if persons commit crimes, we couldn't PROSECUTE them for crimes. That would be, so, so, NORMAL.
Obama is a political animal who doesn't appear to be inclined to let anything spoil his "post-partisan" theory of government, even violation of the US Constitution. Even crimes against humanity. Even domestic crimes that have taken us to the brink of being a Big Brother state as Orwell warned us about. Prosecution? We can't have that, Rush Limbaugh might call me names and play "Barack the Nasty Negro".
So here's the deal, folks. When the smoke clears on this, the legal system will let war criminals and domestic terrorists in our own government walk Scot free. This is the US legal system, the same legal system that smashes your face to the pavement for peacefully demonstrating, sends rich kids to rehab for drug violations and poor kids to prison, and the same system that gave a 50 year mandatory sentence to some guy in California who stole $100 worth of children's videotapes.
World audience, here's a question for you. Is this the "democracy" you want exported to you at the point of a bayonet?
-Wexler
We cannot afford to not prosecute Bush and everyone in his administration. Crimes of previous administrations were let go and it only gets progressively worse.
The American people are too dumb to figure out what is right and what is wrong, never mind what is important and what is not . So sad.
I can see why the ascendent political party would not want to prosecute the previously ascendent political party in a democracy. Clearly there are political hazards, especially when a somewhat too polarized citizenry takes party designations like "Republican" or "conservative" as some kind of deeply inculcated identity.
However, this "democracy" is not supposed to be exclusively about the political positioning of political parties. The US citizenry wants its country to honor the Geneva Conventions and other international laws because it seeks to hold other countries accountable when its own citizenry is at war.
Clearly, we have a problem today in that our army is no longer a citizen army, but with crises continuing to roil the middle east--some of which "we" played a role in fomenting--our poorest citizens are likely to to end up at war. The fact that we can't (at the moment) just draft Alan Dershowitz's nephews and etc, is no excuse to allow ourselves to degenerate into an anything goes warrior culture where we start doing our utmost to put people who serve flagrantly at risk.
I think the new Administration should seek some sort of bipartisan commission, with the aim of remedying the previous administration's transgressions and seeking to prevent their continuance. This should include an accounting of the participation of Congress and that austere body ought to confront its own role, even if that's "uncomfortable" for our self serving chickenhawk careerist politicians.
In keeping with this determination to remedy the past, the new Administration should also fully co-operate in any international investigations.
The ultimate importance of this to the US citizenry itself ought to be spelled out to it in full, so it understands why Obama is apparently collaborating with international bodies in investigating Texas' favored son.
This is not that complicated. Just get it straight and simple and say it over and over and over again.
Also, what about our crisis, brought about by widespread criminal collusion in mortgage and securities fraud? The government was involved in setting that one up, too.
Are we supposed to tolerate these endless failures from our national elite, which packs a truly obscene amount of firepower and which we can't possibly resist?
No, these things must be addressed politically by the Obama Administration, or he must pay a political price for his failures.
When patriotic Americans take steps to protect our country with no thought of personal gain then they have acted as they should.
Persons committing acts against the United States, it Armed Forces and its allies and who do not wear uniforms have absolutely no right to the protections of the Geneva Convention which is specifically designed to protect members of legitimate military organizations.
Finally, no President with a modicum of insight would prosecute a predecessor for acts designed to protect the country.
"What goes around comes around"
The truth is so very important if we wish to bring wrongdoers to justice.
What is wrong with this man?
What is wrong with this man? I dont know him, is he okay? Mike at pit bike store guide.
Even with all the fuss on
Even with all the fuss on both sides of the fence, there will always be disagreements on the underlying issues here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions so we should give due respect to those or we could just all agree to disagree and then move on. Mobie from holly mann | honest riches
Fret t,
I do appreciate your patriotic zeal, but if I may ask: Do you, in reality, give a hoot about the Geneva Convention?
George Bush, without the UN consent, attacked Iraq, ravaged the country infrastructures and contributed to the death of a million Iraqis. He used lies and deception to get us into that War. Do you think that this was enough violation of the Geneva Convention?
If I remember correctly, we have once prosecuted people like him at the Nuremburg.
Last month I thought someone was buying us oil stock like mad and the price went up . then the Pres announce the gov was going to replenish the nations oil reserves. Did someone inside know?
what the hell is wrong with you people? Bush is gone "get a life" You know if he is as bad as you say he is you would all have been jailed and executed during his Presidency. That's what Hitler did and you say he is "Hitler" Move on already your Messiah is now the "One" all will be healed by his mighty hand LOL.
Seems like the issue is more a matter of opinion rather than a matter of law.
This is just typical emotional junk and dangerous thinking. Bush made the same decision that Al Gore, Hillary and Bill made. everyone was on board. Do you prosecute everyone. Wake up left wing weirdo's and "MOVEON!"
Move on. Quit putting this country through the quagmire.
Let it go....please...for the sake of our country...I am worried if my hubby is going to have a job tomorrow...I am worried if I will have roof over my head...I worry about feeding my kids....stop the BDS.he is no longer the president....the AMerican people are worried about he economy, not some trumped up charges to satisfy egos....
Mark Hass likes to cite exaples of illegal weapons used by the U.S. in Iraq and Afganistan. It should be noted however that despite various claims as to how international treaties cover these weapons that the U. N. has never officialy declared these illegal. In fact in 1996 the International Court of Justice specifically declared that Depleted Uraniun was a legal weapon.
White phosphorus is banned undeer article 1 Protocol III of the Convention on Certian Coventional Weapons but the U. S. never signed the Protocol so it is not binding to U.S. forces.
International law does not ban the use of napalm. The above mentioned Protocol does ban the use against civilans but again it does not apply to the U.S.
Daisy cutter bombs are not banned under any international treaty.
The only way any of these weapons can be considered illegal is when used against civilian targets.
What crimes of power? "In the view of many experts" whoever the hell they are, none of it is litigated with most of the issues subject to a great deal of interpretation depending on the hatred Level of the one standing up for "law"
"War Crimes"? A contradiction in terms if I ever heard one. It's war baby,war! Do you understand?
Karen Greenberg is another of the blame America crowd. If people of her ilk would have been in command of the country during WWII we would be a conquered and cowed nation.
Perhaps she can host the radicals who strive to destroy our nation in her home.
This is an idiotic article. Democracy, you know elections, are what a democratic state uses to recify government errors or abuses. You throw them out, and elect other people. If each government starts putting the previous one on trial, you end up with a situation like the Stalinist USSR.. or any tinpot banana dictatorship. You will destroy democracy in the end. But leftwing lawyers like Greenberg are too stupid to understand that... or maybe that is what they actually want.
"Truth and Reconciliation Commissions...are for healing." Could have fooled me. I thought they were for political posturing, settling old scores, destroying the opposition and laying the foundation for extorniate litigation. And thank God the USA has no experience with them - nor should we desire any. Extra-judicial kangaroo courts, by whatever euphemism, are the devices of fascists and Stalinists. Ms. Greenberg and her friends may thirst for revenge but if she thinks the GOP burned itself with Whitewater, she ain't seen nothin' yet. A post-Bush witch hunt will be a disaster for the Dems, for the progressive movement and - if it matters to her - for the country as well. The eternal truth, elucidated by Thucydides 2400 years ago, is that the principles of a state descend down to the level of its circumstances. Lincoln jailed dissenters, Roosevelt locked up an entire ethnic population and Bush played rough with suspected terrorists. Too rough perhaps. But the threat was real, even if overstated, and when dealing with murderous fanatics I would rather play too rough than too gently.
The whacko hate filled left is really unbalanced. With the terrorists still threatening to blow up Americans, Iran about to get a nuclear weapon, N Korea with a nuclear weapon, and the economy in meltdown they want to start an all out political and legal war at home, and with our allies because George Bush and Don Rumsfeld let water be poured down the noses of a few murdering terrorist to save thousands of American lives. Obama's going to close Gitmo...in a year. In the meantime is he criminally liable for kidnapping and illegal detention because he doesn't free the murdering terrorists today? Sounds like Obama will have to join Bush and Cheney in the dock? And who do we hold responsible for the deaths that will occur because we don't pour water down the nose of some terrorist and make him/her talk? The left should keep in mind that if they want to criminialize political decisions because they won the last election that we can all start playing the criminalization game when the pedalum swing back our way Ms Greeenberg!
