The son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi needs to consult “a great neo-conservative mind” like George Bush before admitting something like torture. Neo-conservatives never admit mistakes - it is a sign of weakness.

In his press conference when Bush was asked about these reports of torture he wouldn’t admit even reading them, and just said, “We don’t torture.” That, apparently, was accepted as an adequate answer to that question.

Chris Matthews praised Bush’s performance as “powerful” on three occasions, while complimenting his “great mind.” Not admitting mistakes gives Bush power – he is “ready to fight like a rock through the rest of his term” gushed Matthews over Bush’s manliness.

In America, the issue isn’t about torture, it’s about how manly he looked when he avoided talking about it.

While rest of the world is focusing on what we do – “torture” – our Beltway media is focusing on “how we talk about it” – and Bush’s “powerful” avoidance of the question.

No wonder the gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world is growing – our media considers avoiding reality a “strength.”

We are “faith-based” nation now, and our media reflects that - we simply believe that “we don’t torture” and that’s all that’s necessary.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/09/matthews-bush-monologue/

Scott Horton, over at Harper’s, is on the same page as Samantha Power that we need “a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States.” He writes:

“What does it mean to have senior government officers who commit a series of high crimes and get away with it? That all future officeholders will have the same right to conduct their affairs above the law? That would make this country into much less of a democracy that the Founding Fathers gave us in 1789. A subsequent prosecution is a proper approach. And today, it’s vitally important that documentation of the criminal acts which have been committed be safely stored away so it can be used in future prosecutions: that includes evidence of the formulation of torture policy; the systematic evasion of the FISA statute; the use of the criminal justice system as a tool for political persecution.”

What are the legal precedents for bringing criminal prosecutions against a previous administration?

I agree that a “historical reckoning” is absolutely necessary, but at this point, I’m sad to say, I’m having trouble even imagining a plausible scenario where that happens.

Anyone?

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000839

Karen M, thanks once again for that link. I did read it before.

Mark Schmitt’s idea is quite different than Horton’s (Biden’s) because he has already given up on holding this administration criminally accountable for their actions. He is content with them living out their lives in luxury and even profiting further from their crimes by collecting royalties on books others people will write about their crimes.

If that’s what it takes to return to the rule of law, then so be it. I agree with him that it’s more important to confront the “actions” (rather than the individuals) that must be banished from American politics forever – “the secrecy, the raw exercise of executive power, the torture and domestic surveillance, the misuse of executive power to entrench partisan control, and the deceit.”

I’m worried, though, that if the individuals aren’t held accountable for their crimes that their “actions” won’t be either, at least in the public mind. So my question about plausible legal remedies still stands.

If such a commission can’t indict anyone, will it be taken seriously? Its decisions will be treated by conservatives just as Bush treated the investigation of Gonzalez – complete and total exoneration. In their mind, unless someone is behind bars, no crime has been committed.

At the same time, I see Schmitt’s ideas as much more politically plausible or doable than Horton’s (Biden’s). The important point is getting the public to understand how the rule of law was systematically violated, and to prevent that from happening again.

But even Schmitt’s idea involves a bit of implausibility, because at it’s core it will be an admission that the Republican Party became a “criminal organization” operating completely outside the rule of law.

I think that is the truth, but are we, as a society, willing to admit that?

Wouldn't that mean an actual apology and acknowledgement on the part of conservatives? An apology is an act that demonstrates strength of character and security in fundamental principles and values.

Are today's conservatives capable of it? Are we, as a country, capable of it? Will we admit to the rest of the world that just how wrong we were about our recent torture policies and apologize? Do we have that in us as a country?

While we ponder that question, let me just close with a quote from Dubya’s father:

“I will never apologize for the United States of America - I don't care what the facts are.”

(source: Newsweek Magazine, 15 Aug 1989.)

On Mugabe:

He does not wreak havoc out of evil, caprice, or lunacy. He does it out of cynicism. Mugabe, who liberated his nation from colonial oppression 20 years ago, is the father of his country. He is what would have happened if George Washington had turned out to be Richard Nixon.

http://www.slate.com/id/81386/