As much as it rankles me to admit this, he is right. I say this knowing full well that the Bush Administration committed many crimes. The list of criminal activities is long: the violations of the Geneva Conventions, FISA, the abuse of supposedly nonpartisan offices for political purposes, the outright lies to Congress, denial of habeus corpus rights, tampering with elections -- it truly is the most breathtakingly lawless administration in American history. I make no excuses for this criminal administration. If we truly were a strictly law-abiding country, the majority of the members of the Bush Administration would probably end up in jail -- including Mr. Bush himself.
However, the political health of this country is more important than even the rule of law. If we were to enforce the law rigidly, we would tear this country apart. It is grossly unfair that so many Americans put politics ahead of the rule of law, and object even to the notion of an investigation of criminal activities. Politics should not excuse lawbreaking. But the ugly truth is that Americans are not fair-minded enough, and they are not dedicated enough to the rule of law to accept such investigations. Like it or not, we have to live with these people, and shoving things down people's throats may be fine for the Bush Administration, but it's not acceptable to me.
The Bushies were amoral, vicious, tribal in outlook, and utterly without any true patriotism. Their loyalty was solely to their party, not their country. And much as it rankles, we should rise above that sordid thinking and refuse to respond in kind now that Democrats are in control. Mr. Bush dishonored the Presidency and the country; he brought American politics to new lows of partisan ugliness. We must now show true dignity and nobility by refusing to play the game the way they play the game. We're better than that.
The Republicans will likely continue their destructive behavior, spewing their bile and slandering everybody who's not part of their tribe. That Rovian crap worked for ten years, but it has burnt out the American public. There are still millions of hateful and hate-filled Americans who will continue their negative, cynical antics. They will cheer on Ms. Palin and who knows -- she might even win their nomination in 2012. If that happens, the Republicans will suffer the most ignominious defeat since McGovern's disaster in 1972. Let them revel in their sewage. The jig is up, the American people finally recognize how bankrupt that whole style of politics is, and the Republicans have no hope until they learn to purge those partisans from their ranks. I for one will be glad to see the Limbaughs, Kristols, Roves, Palins, and Cheneys sent back to their caves where they can gnaw on bones and growl at the world.
31 comments:
"It is becoming clear now that Mr. Obama has no intention of prosecuting the crimes of the Bush Administration."
True as to prosecuting, but I think there's a 50/50 chance of an investigative commission and a final, scathing report.
"...[T]he political health of this country is more important than even the rule of law."
This is a super-large statement. If true, we do not really have the rule of law. This has certainly been the argument of those on the left who are pushing vigorously for war crimes trials of Bush, Cheney, et al: if they are not prosecuted, this tells the world that we care not a fig (or at least not enough) about laws.
"They [the GOP right wing] will cheer on Ms. Palin...she might even win their nomination in 2012."
Count me among those who would be delighted if this were to happen, for exactly the reason you cite: a crushing, last-gasp defeat for the worst (but now ruling) elements of the Republican Party.
Yes, I winced when I wrote that line ("The political health of this country is more important than even the rule of law.") It's an ugly, cynical statement that violates my ideals. Yet the case of Mr. Nixon compels me. The rule of law demanded, at the very least, a full investigation into Mr. Nixon's crimes, and I believe that, were we a strictly law-abiding nation, Mr. Nixon would have been convicted and jailed. But the political implications of such a development would have been horrendous. We would have spent the latter half of the 1970s screaming at each other. Remember, the impeachment of Mr. Clinton was nothing more than revenge for the impeachment motion against Mr. Nixon. Imagine how much worse things would have been had Mr. Nixon been convicted and jailed.
There are times when peace is more important than justice. Many times in legal disputes lawyers urge their clients to accept an unjust settlement because the cost of justice is simply too high. The same principle applies here.
I disagree with you on this Chris. So far that pattern has been:
1. Allow the criminals to get away with murder.
2. The criminals commit even greater murder next time.
3. Repeat.
Simply put:
(Watergate) < (Iran Contra) < (Take your pick off a list of the many illegal actions committed by the Bush administration)
Why will this time be any different?
Chris,
I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly here. It would be much better for this country and the world if the political establishment were beholden to the law.
The problem which you have missed, and which partisans of both sides miss, is that the leadership of both parties are complicit in the crimes of any given administration. The Democrats have no interest in an investigation -- nay, they fear one -- because it would implicate them in the lawbreaking of the Bush regime.
You brought up Clinton's impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair. The fact is, Clinton did far worse than lie about sex. His real crimes and abuses of power could not be discussed because they are the status quo in American politics. Challenging them would be challenging the system itself.
No, Obama will not investigate. Nor will he repeal or undo the egregious and unlawful expansions of power that occurred under Bush. Instead, he will utilize these new powers for his own benefit.
As one writer put it, the two political parties are really just "two wings of the same bird of prey".
Yes, that's a good point. Moral hazard is a very real problem. If we bail out the banks because they're too big to fail, do we not encourage even less responsible behavior in the future? Are the politicians "too big to incarcerate" in the same way that some banks are "too big to fail"?
Whatever course we choose, we risk polluting the future. If we let them get away with it, we encourage future crimes. If we punish them, we weaken the divide between political disagreement and criminal prosecution.
Perhaps we would do well to set up "truth and reconciliation commission" akin to those used by South Africa. Guarantee full immunity to all crimes openly confessed to before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Promise prosecution of crimes not confessed to. Publicize the crimes, and then use that publicity to enact sterner legislation to prevent such crimes in the future. In other words, humiliate the wrongdoing politicians. Perhaps that will be an adequate compromise.
Oops, my previous response was to Overdroid, not Dither. I'll work on a response to Dither now.
Dither, I don't take so cynical a view of the political situation. You could make an argument that the Democrats acquiesced to the crimes of the administration, but acquiescence in the face of impotence is difficult for me to condemn. And no, I don't think that any investigation would reveal any lawbreaking on the part of the Democrats. How could they? They weren't part of the Executive Branch -- they had no power to execute any policies.
And I certainly disagree with you that Mr. Obama will change nothing. Have you not read the news reports that he intends to shut down Guantanamo at the earliest opportunity? Within one week we shall see if Mr. Obama takes any action. Perhaps then you can rub my nose in my false optimism. But beware -- the rub can go either way!
Chris,
I don't think I'm cynical so much as realistic. It was the Democrat-led Congress, with the support of Barack Obama, that voted for immunity for telecom companies that broke the law by helping the Bush administration spy on Americans in clear violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. Obama also voted to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.
Maybe Obama will shut down Guantanamo. That would be nice. But foreign policy will not fundamentally change. It will still be interventionist, murderous, grossly expensive and a reliable source of future troubles for Americans.
Obama has chosen Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize the Iraq War, as his Secretary of State. It was Clinton's husband who signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" into law, which made "regime change" the official U.S. policy toward Iraq. If you do some research, you'll find Democrats were peddling the same lies and fear-mongering rhetoric about Iraq as Republicans. They are doing so now about Iran.
It was Clinton crony Paul Begala who described executive orders under the reign of his boss thusly: "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool."
Yeah, I feel relieved that these people are back in the White House. Not!
Mr. Begala said something you don't like. And what position does Mr. Begala hold in the Obama Administration? None? Ah, but Mr. Begala was one of thousands of people hired by the husband of the woman whom Mr. Obama chose as his Secretary of State: proof positive that Mr. Obama will continue to use executive signing statements in the same way that Mr. Bush did.
And you say that you're being realistic, not cynical.
"His [Clinton's] real crimes and abuses of power could not be discussed..."
Dither: And what might those be, may I ask?
P.S.: Besides an investigtion of possible war crimes, Pelosi seems dead-set on prosecution as well. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out (though I lean toward the view that nothing significant will happen).
P.P.S.: Apropos unprosecuted crimes by chief executives, I've seen no mention of Iran-Contra and the beloved President Reagan.
An interesting followup: apparently House Speaker Pelosi has expressed a willingness to consider investigations of Bush Administration activities. She now acknowledges that the argument has two sides.
How much time would it cost Obama to direct his administration to investigate and prosecute Bush'n'Co? The opportunity cost is simply too great. I'd like to see them hang as much as the next guy, but fixing the economy (yeah, right...as if!) and getting out of Iraq will keep his hands full and are more important. I think.
I originally thought that nothing would happen to Bush and his cronies who have twisted and abused the laws of the nation for years...
However, I'm starting to wonder if maybe some justice will happen. I agree that a "truth and reconciliation commission" is probably the best approach. There's probably a lot of people who worked for Bush's administration who are ashamed of what they've done or been involved with, but they fear coming forward. Give them an opening and maybe we can see Cheney behind bars, WHERE HE BELONGS.
Christopher Weeks, the opportunity cost of investigating the Bush Administration would not be too great to Mr. Obama. There are plenty of Congresscritters who are eager to press ahead. They could carry out a few preliminary investigations and then have a Special Prosecutor appointed.
I am starting to suspect that this country really might have the political willpower to pursue such investigations. The Washington Post had an interesting Op-Ed piece here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/20/the-rule-of-law/
(I'm too lazy to screw around with the HTML tags)
Still, I greatly fear that such investigations would trigger deep conservative resentments that would fester for decades. If investigations are pursued, then they must be carried out with absolute integrity. None of the fishing expedition crap that was done against Mr. Clinton.
That's your argument? You're afraid of spending a few years "screaming at one another"? That makes it okay to torture? to kill thousands?
Advocating amnesty for war criminals for the sake of not upsetting conservatives is like pardoning the Nazis because we're afraid of upsetting the Germans.
My concern, Red Bull, is that if such prosecutions are perceived to be politically inspired, they will have no credibility and will merely trigger a swinging pendulum of each seesaw of power triggering investigations of the previous Administration -- which in turn will paralyze government.
I had a conversation this morning that suggested a clean way of resolving the problem of perceived political influence. In this scenario, the left screams for the heads of the Bushies. Mr Obama, the voice of reason, refuses to launch prosecutions, but offers as a compromise some sort of blue-ribbon committee to investigate events. A year later, the blue-ribbon committee submits its report that documents -- horrors! -- clear violations of the law. Senators with gravitas shake their heads in dismay at these astounding revelations, and pass resolutions demanding prosecutions of the little fish. Mr. Obama reluctantly agrees, but limits the criminal investigations to little fish. Lo and behold, during prosecutions, the little fish give testimony clearly implicating Big Fish in illegal activities. Now we're faced with a horrible conundrum: do we convict Little Fish who were only following orders from above? So we make deals with the Little Fish: immunity for testimony. After several years of all this legal fiddling around, we finally get the Big Fish in the docket. The process has been so roundabout, and the revelations so steady and damning, that by the time the Big Fish are indicted, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter are the only two Americans left defending any of the Big Fish.
That scenario, I think, addresses my concerns. But just launching DOJ investigations on January 21 will never enjoy credibility -- it will smack of political revenge.
Because it seems unlikely that convictions would occur if the Republicans won the election, I think that any convictions that result from a commission would be seen by conservatives as partisan politics, even if the law was clearly broken. The only way I see around that is if the Democrats get some support for that from a few prominent Republicans, especially McCain. Since Bush is now a liability, some Republicans might be willing to push him "under the bus", so that might be possible.
Any investigations would be political in nature. That is, they would be designed to help sustain the illusion among the public that the rule of law is actually in force. The probability of seeing Bush or Cheney led away in handcuffs is next to nil.
If criminal cases were pursued, I would still see this as politics rather than justice. Why? Not just because, as I've already pointed out, many Democrats who are now riding high were complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration. Nor just because past administrations, like that of Bill Clinton, committed crimes that went unpunished.
The underlying reason I would see any prosecutions as nothing more than power politics at work is because, as I've already alluded, there is no rule of law that applies to the government itself. Therefore, any decision to prosecute officials for violations of an illusory legal framework is necessarily arbitrary.
Even if you accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, it is a fact that the powers claimed by the government as Constitutional have grown exponentially since the time that document was ratified. The document itself was never amended to provide for the bulk of these new powers. They were just "usurped", to use George Washington's word.
So long as a few appointed judges have agreed with the outcome of these power grabs (or were at least willing to acquiesce), they were declared perfectly Constitutional. And it has gotten to the point where most of the federal government's business is in flagrant and obvious violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and no one even bats an eye. In other words, a state of total lawlessness.
This problem is systemic. You can go on believing it's just a matter of the wrong people being in charge, and that the new guy will fix everything. That's like hiring a priest to run a whorehouse because you're upset by prostitution. So long as it's still a whorehouse, it really doesn't matter who's in charge.
By the way, why do you suppose Goldman Sachs was the top donor to the Obama campaign? Do you think Obama's recent vote to hand over billions of taxpayer dollars to Goldman Sachs might have had anything to do with that? Pardon me for my cynicism. Goldman's execs are probably just firm believers in the rule of law, and found a kindred spirit in Obama.
"...just because past administrations, like that of Bill Clinton, committed crimes that went unpunished."
Dither: That's the second time you've mentioned, sans documentation, the supposed unpunished crimes of the Clinton Administration. What is it that you refer to? (And why not mention, as I will now for the second time, the well-documented and unpunished Iran-Contra crimes of the Reagan Administration?)
P.S. To say nothing of the fact that Clinton (and the Democratic Party) in fact paid dearly for sex in the White House, the result being Bush's "victory" in 2000.
Gerald,
How about the massacre of 76 people, including 21 children, at Mount Carmel in Waco? Most of them were burned alive. During the siege, in which military tanks were deployed (in violation of the law), the sounds of a rabbit being slaughtered were blasted into the Branch Davidian compound as a form of psychological torture. Nice, huh?
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark called the subsequent government investigation into this event a "whitewash." Unfortunately, the attitude of the typical Clinton supporter can be summed up as follows: The victims had it coming because they were weird and didn't follow orders.
Then there was the murderous trade embargo against the people of Iraq. Remember this exchange on 60 Minutes?
Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died [because of the sanctions]. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
I could go on, but hopefully the point has been made.
Regarding Reagan, I agree with you completely, just as I have agreed with you and Chris that Bush has broken the law. I am not a partisan Republican. In fact, I have never voted for a Republican in my life. Partisan politics is a dog and pony show designed to facilitate the rulers' strategy of "divide and conquer".
Louis, you're quite right that, if Mr. McCain had been elected, there would be no investigations. And I strongly agree with you that prosecutions should not be pursued if investigations do not produce evidence sufficient to convince some leading Republicans. I believe that Mr. McCain and Mr. Specter are good touchstones. If investigations don't convince them to acquiesce to prosecutions, then prosecutions should not be pursued.
Dither, you take a few good points and then extrapolate them into the stratosphere. For example, you claim that the economic sanctions against Iraq was a crime because half a million children died. I think you confuse a morally questionable act with a crime. A crime is a violation of a law. No law was broken in this case. Hence there was no crime. You're welcome to object to it on moral grounds, but on legal grounds you're just plain wrong. And the same thing applies to the Waco incident. No law was broken. We can argue about the ethics of the policies that were carried out, but that's nowhere near the same thing as a crime. When you abuse the language like this, deliberately confusing your terms, you fool only yourself.
I believe that your claims that the government operates in a state of total lawlessness are another example of wild hyperbole. I agree with you about the erosion of checks on governmental powers. This is most egregious in the case of Presidential powers. And the Bush Administration has done more to expand Executive powers than any previous administration. But Mr. Bush, for all his faults, did obey some laws. He broke a great many laws, but he also obeyed a great many laws.
Dither: Thanks for the examples re: Clinton. I wouldn't minimize them as much as Chris does, but I would agree they're in another universe from the Bush-Cheney law-breaking.
P.S. You say you've never voted for a Republican in your life. Have you ever voted for a Democrat? From your posts, I wouldn't think you'd even bother (which I could understand).
Chris:
If you follow the chain of history back far enough, you realize that, at some point in time, one group of people simply imposed its will on another group of people by brute force. That's any government in a nutshell.
Even the Constitution has no claim to legitimacy. Did you sign the Constitution? I know I didn't. That fact alone should give pause to anyone who believes in "the rule of law". It's always been the rule of men.
There's no government without a paid army whose purpose is to kill their brothers and sisters whose only crime is not "consenting" to be "governed", i.e. robbed of their money, compelled to do this, and prohibited from doing that, all at the arbitrary whims of the people who fancy themselves "the government".
Seen in this context, the Waco raid was business as usual. Agents of the BATF, an agency born in contempt of its own Constitution's 2nd, 9th and 10th amendments, were sent to enforce unconstitutional federal gun and drug laws. Numerous false statements were made to justify the raid, to secure the use of military hardware, and to portray its targets in the most unsympathetic light possible. The whole site was plowed over within a week of the fire. There's the rule of men again.
But no law was broken, you say! Why? Because no one was tried and convicted. This is exactly why Bush can sleep soundly tonight.
Gerald: I have voted exactly once, for a third-party candidate who had no chance of winning. I no longer believe in voting.
Dither, you are an anarchist. I do not use that word as an epithet, but as a characterization no different from "liberal", "conservative", or "libertarian". I myself find anarchism so far beyond the pale of reasonable discussion that I am hard put to respond to your statements with anything other than a series of "That's not true" statements. Your fundamental assumptions are so different from mine that we share no common intellectual ground; that makes productive conversation impossible. I don't resent you or reject you personally; I respect every person's right to their own political opinions. But I cannot imagine any scenario in which you and I are able to teach each other anything.
Chris,
That's fair. It's true that our fundamental assumptions are different. I won't press the issue further, except to say that you shouldn't dismiss any line of inquiry in your search for the truth.
For myself, I've found there's no wider gulf between perception and reality than in politics. The theory of government that I started with -- that is, the standard high school civics textbook version -- did not explain what was happening in the world around me.
I think this is true for most people. Everyone seems perennially disappointed by the government. They get their hopes up when their side wins the election, only to see those hopes dashed when nothing really changes at all. Their theory must be wrong, but very few of them are ever exposed to an alternative theory. So they just continue on the same course, expecting something different to happen the next time.
I don't have any illusions about being "relevant" or changing the system. But I've found some peace of mind in simply not believing the lies on which the system is founded, and in withdrawing my intellectual support for it.
I would be living a contradiction by supporting other people in doing something that I myself would not do. I believe this is why governments censor press reporting on war. It's easier to win support for jingoism than for burned and bloodied corpses.
Anyway, enough out of me, already! I've had my say. All the best.
You know, what you wrote about realizing that the high-school-civics version didn't work for you -- that struck a chord with me. I had a very similar experience as I was coming of age during the Vietnam War. Even though I was lucky enough to get a high draft number, I was swept up in the crisis of that time and spent a lot of time trying to understand what the hell was going on. I eventually stumbled upon a solution that I will recommend to you: reading history.
I hasten to add that I do not say this to insinuate that you are uneducated or lacking in proper education. I haven't the faintest idea of your background. But the more history I read, the more I wanted to read. It took me in a great many directions, and I learned all sorts of useless nonsense. And it did not answer any of my questions. But after many years and hundreds of history books, I have a firmer grasp of the issues. I recommend the experience. I will not recommend any particular book because that would be presumptuous of me. You'll know what you want.
Good luck, and I look forward to additional discussion (assuming we don't lock horns again over the anarchism thing).
I wasn't quite sure what to contribute to this discussion, but I remembered a quote that struck a chord with me that sums up this debate:
"There is a difference between the legally right and the morally right." -Desmond Tutu
Should the rule of law be obeyed at all times? This is a tough question. I think that without question, the law is never always right. If I had to break the law in order to do the right thing (thought experiment: canceling out selfishness, which obeys the deterrent of punishment), I would. However, laws are important, and we should not directly give power to circumvent them.
For example, I believe torture should be outright illegal. We must forbid it. On the other hand, if I were interrogating a suspect, and I were 99% positive that if I did not get the information from him, it would cost several hundred lives, I would break the law. The law's presence itself however is important. I cannot be *allowed*, then the law itself is meaningless. I have to break it myself and face the consequences.
We are faced with a similar scenario with Bush, just like we were with Nixon.
I think that Mr. Bush's crimes are much worse than Mr. Nixon's. Mr. Nixon's crimes were confined to one area. Mr. Bush's covered the map.
That's fair. Regardless, the nature is similar. Bush has flagrantly violated our laws, and the rule of law implies that we should in fact indict him. We're breaking our contract with the rule of law, just like I would if I were to torture a detainee in order to save lives.
Russel Tice, and ex NSA worker is saying that the wiretapping was far greater than previously assumed.
www.crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/countdown-nsa-surveillance-far-vaster
Also Chris, you said this:
Still, I greatly fear that such investigations would trigger deep conservative resentments that would fester for decades.
This seems to be the common state of many conservative pundits regardless of any events in the real world, or choices made by Democrats.
That being said, I do think your lengthy trial scenario would be a reasonable solution. I really believe we need to see some consequences to the actions of the Bush administration or it will all just happen again.
Yes, the Tice revelations provide another angle. "We were quite happy to forgive and forget, but then these new revelations popped up, and they're much more serious than anybody had imagined..."
That might work. You're right that some conservatives are just ugly people. Mr. Limbaugh has flatly declared that he hopes Mr. Obama's programs are a failure -- talk about closed-mindedness!
I had fun on Inauguration evening surfing the conservative websites. Most of them didn't have anything nice to say. Mr. Obama's speech was a total dud, they claimed (yeah, right); he flubbed the oath of office (that was Mr. Roberts' mistake); all those happy celebrating people are a bunch of idiots; and so on and so forth. These people seem to get off on hate. Let them; I think that the rest of America has seen their true colors now.
Post a Comment