Truth and Reconciliation

I would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission with teeth. Spend a year doing some serious investigation and then bring the perpetrators and enablers in. They can be given a choice -- say what happened and be truthful or be jailed for contempt and/or perjury. The panel should be of serious citizens who are not part of either party -- judges, lawyers and even theologians -- and who can hear testimony. Have Congress back them and give them subpoena powers.

We need the truth more than we need them in jail. If it is clear that telilng the truth is the only way to stay OUT of jail, we may get somewhere.

-- mbote123

I have to disagree with your advocacy for a Truth and Reconciliation commission where perjury and/or contempt are the only punishment. We are talking about serious war crimes and you and others suggest that the only thing that matters is getting at the truth, as if you can't get at the truth through a criminal probe that punishes the guilty. That's crazy. Would you have advocated a truth & reconciliation commission for Manson's crimes? After all he didn't actually murder people he just sent his "family members" to do it.

The Bush administration officials knew full well what they were authorizing. They were told by many members of their administration that what they were doing violated our laws and treaties and yet they went ahead with it anyway. And now we have people who think these people should be above the law and not prosecuted for war crimes. Are you actually aware of what evidence we already know about these crimes (government documents, testimony, etc) or do you only know the few sound bites that the MSM have provided to you? I just can't believe that anyone who actually reviewed the facts would be so cavalier in arguing against prosecution.

Here is a summary of the facts we know so far. It is in narrative form using testimony and government documents as the basis for the narrative. There are still things we don't know but you can pretty much bet if there were facts that helped the administration they would not be fighting to keep them secret. So what we know so far, as bad as it is, is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM OF THE JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON CONFERENCE ON FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF WAR CRIMINALS

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/robertjackson

I read today's Conason column because I'd hoped that Mr. Conason would have enough integrity to actually post some kind of explanation to his readers about why he used bogus USA/Gallup poll results in his last piece. Seeing no comment from Mr. Conason (if anyone can find it, please point it out in the comments section) I can only conclude that Mr. Conason feels no responsibility whatsoever to respond to the "little people" (readers) who pointed out his blatant factual error in last weeks column.

In my opinion, a columnist who resists accountability when he is caught misrepresenting facts and who then shows such obvious contempt for his readers when he is called on it is not someone I find worthy of reading.

Mr. Conason I believe you owe your readers an explanation. Please, don't add insult to injury by just ignoring us and pretending that it never happened.

Excellent Observation!

I'll bet Glenn really made Lizza's day.

On a side note:

I checked out Conason's column today and there was no explanation, apology or comment from Conason about his use of bogus USA/Gallup poll numbers in his last piece. I'm not sure which is worse - using bogus numbers to support your argument or refusing to address the issue once you get caught doing it.

As Glenn's Lizza piece shows, sometimes the truth hurts. Joe Conason really needs to address this issue and soon.

Glenn, I was very happy to see that the NYT included you in their discussion. Maybe there's a sliver of hope for the MSM after all. Of course when I see an op-ed by Glenn Greenwald in the Washington Post then I can really cheer.

It's been pretty clear for a long time that Congress and the President have no appetite for prosecutions of Bush criminals and most of them don't even want a Commission. Having said that I still think it's important for those of us who want a criminal probe and prosecution to voice our opinions. If nothing else it may push more of our Congressional leaders, who favor doing nothing, to at least embrace a Commission, out of fear that more people will begin to join us in advocating prosecutions. In other words our pressure to have prosecutions may force them to reluctantly go along with the Commission idea in order to avoid what we advocate.

If you're watching the Homeland Security hearing on cspan 3 right now...check out the guy sitting behind Janet Napolitano (to her left as you look at the screen) when she testifies. The guy really looks like a young Saddam Hussein. I actually did a double take. LOL

cspan must have noticed the Saddam lookalike because they've changed the angle on their Napolitano shot and you can't see him anymore. Just as I wrote this they enlarged the camera field and I saw him again.