We don't even know what Bush did, never mind why he did it. It's our country. We're entitled to know.

In an ideal situation, where all the participants were ideologically neutral, the investigation measured, and the media blocked until the final report, I'd agree. But they aren't. It would be a three-ring circus lasting for years. Both parties would be eviscerated, and a political civil war would put us on the edge of anarchy. Your experience here so far, should bear out my trepidation.

I'm comfortable with the idea that we should transition over to the next administration without an inquisition for several reasons....
* When Bush has been pushed to confront a legal difficulty, he's done the right thing. Torture was renounced, Padilla returned to the system, court decisions followed, and Congress consulted.
* We the people decided to change course with the election of Obama. I have little doubt "in house" investigations will ensue in the backround along with re-evaluation of all procedure.
* Submitting the investigation process to review by a committee of 300 million will not resolve anything. It isn't always a good policy to expose the sausage making process to consumers. The controversy over ballot fraud damages the process. Examining every candidates every move, reduces the pool of representatives to the rigidly self controlled, or sociopaths that don't care. Heisenberg had it right.
* We are a representative republic, not a democracy. Let them take care of it.
* I'm very concerned that the country is in the midst of re-evaluating it's role in global affairs both economically and in foreign relations. In the scope of history, Iraq will be a very small yet significant turning point in our national outlook. For the good I think. I'd rather move forward, than indulge in self-flagellation.

* Lastly, an inquisition will overshadow the good that will result from the war, in terms of reluctance to impose our will, strengthened civil protections, reexamination of the 4th in an electronic society, awareness of ideology rather than nationality in world affairs, and so on. Let's take the good we find and progress from there. The people here just want a lynching.

We (our country) need(s) such an investigation and then let the chips fall where they may - regardless of political affiliation or the political strength of those named during the course of the investigation.

Actually that process has been ongoing, resulting in changes of laws and procedures. What YOU want is an inquisition to find ways to punish the objects of your ire. I'm guessing it's still all about the 7-2 decision of the Supremes that Gore's recount plan was un-Constitutional.

Too bad bud. Believe it or not it's not all about you, and the country will revisit each item next term when the laws are re-examined individually. Go suck an egg.

Scooter is drawing a comparison between cooperation by a class of jurors with a class of criminal gangsters,

Actually the idea is that a jury is the actual arbiter of guilt or innocence. The jury in this case is the press, public, and political institutions. Collectively we have decided that laws enacted around political skulduggery, and uniformed armies, are not applicable to this set of circumstances. At this point there are more of us than there are of you and the majority seems to hold sway in this particular matter.

It such things weren't possible than every person in Missouri using colored margarine is breaking the law and should be jailed. (See previous thread) Don't like it? Too bad. Write your Congress person.

Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.

Try again.-- Aycharaych

So what? Laws aren't sacrosanct either. They are interpreted, modified, nullified, and exorcised. The point here is that public opinion was a significant factor in the outcome, not a dry machination of formula such as demanded here.

Maybe it would be more appropriate to label this "prosecutorial discretion". All the "sturm and drang" here is a consensus on the far left that crimes have been committed, judged as such, and all that's left is sentencing - but the actual authorities won't act on it. In that sense, it's jury nullification.

However if you consider the decision not to pursue said allegations to actual indictment, that's prosecutorial discretion.

In both cases though it's the cumulative opinion of the press, political institutions, and the people, that makes the ultimate decision. And doesn't it just piss off the libs. There's nothing worse in life than being rendered inconsequential, and summarily ignored.

Do you have a link to such a jury nullification?

-- Aycharaych

I'd say the Senate's decision not to convict Clinton after impeachment is a perfect example.

when they break the law, how and why does anyone imagine that we can ensure this "never happens again," especially as we simultaneously affirm -- yet again -- that political leaders will be exempted from the rule of law if they do it? What's the answer to that?-- Glenn Greenwald

Welcome to jury nullification on a national level. Sometimes the law gets overruled.

where do you stand on Warren's stated opinion that the US Government should assassinate leaders, or symbolic leaders, of other countries?-- Kitt

Don't ask, don't tell.