Another precinct heard from. Those who have not suffered, even for a few hours, at the hands of the penal system have absolutely NO room to comment. As Conservativeslayer mentions, there are but 2 types of screws; those with a modicum of civility and decency (a minority) and those who get their jollies lording it over the powerless in their thrall.

The sad, sad, truth is that we have become (if we have not always been) a thoroughly retributive society. Several of the 'bad apples' at Abu Ghraib were, in their civilian lives, prison guards here stateside. They merely used the same procedures they used at their stateside occupations...on steroids. Much like the fact that one of the greatest bones of contention the Iraqis have with us are the methods of search, arrest and seizure that have become S.O.P. stateside. I have written a short blog post about this at: http://ruminations52.blogspot.com/2008/05/need-we-learn-from-iraqis-i-know.html

As I recall from my long ago days in law school, doesn't Art. I, § 9 of the U.S. Constitution state, in pertinent part:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." U.S. Constitution

According to FindLaw:

"ex post facto law

: a civil or criminal law with retroactive effect" FindLaw

Granted, tis folly to expect our currently constituted Supreme Court to render a honest ruling on the matter, however, with the Constitution so unambiguous on this point, why is the question of "retroactive immunity" even being seriously raised?

Granted and noted; (albeit I take issue with your slavery analogy). However, post hoc legalization of a behavior that was criminal at the time it was committed infringes upon the rights of those citizens who were, at the time the criminal act was committed, protected by those valid criminal statutes. Q.E.D.

We have seen far too much tepidity from the political "left" i.e., the party Democrats. We keep being told that the prime objective is to "elect more Democrats" and everything will be well. Huh? How does that work? The voting public fought through the Rovian thought machine to elect a Democratic House and, ostensibly, a Democratic Senate (Lieberman being neither fish nor fowl) in 2006 and what has it gotten us? An end to the Iraq debacle? No! An end to the lawlessness of the Bush/Cheney cabal? No! When you consistently have the Republicans vote in lockstep and sufficient 'blue dog' Democrats scurrying over to vote with them, what is the difference? If the poor, over taxed, under-represented people are to have any real voice in the system, those that portend to speak for them (Democrats) must speak with a clear voice, in opposition to the forces of capital and overweening state power (Republicans).

...when dealing with jack-booted thugs.

Folks, it is time to OPEN OUR EYES and see the raging, rampaging fascist state we have BECOME! Simply because armed thugs with badges assault and arrest you does NOT mean you are guilty!

I've met Ms. Goodman and she is a very brave and very honest person. What was done to her and her compatriots was a clearly CRIMINAL act and should not be allowed to pass uncontested!

IMHO, since the inception of the National Security State under Truman, the "state secrets" doctrine has had much more to do with covering up government incompetence, malfeasance and law breaking than with actual prevention of the disclosure of secrets affecting actual national security.

If not before, this was most starkly revealed in UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)(find the case at FindLaw). For those unfamiliar with the case, United States v. Reynolds focused on a lawsuit stemming from the crash of a B-29 and the deaths of 9 of the 13 crew. The lawsuit forms the basis for government claims of national security trumping judicial authority. Since some of the instrumentation on the plane was "secret" the government asserted its "national security" claim to forestall the widows' lawsuit for damages. It was the government covering up for its own negligence and that of its contractors. And this pernicious doctrine has been with us ever since.

I do believe you are correct about the necessity of looking back to look forward. However, you state:

"In a vast representative democracy like the U.S., the people cannot be held directly responsible for the illegal or immoral actions planned, authorized and carried out by government officials, even if they elected those officials."

Though we did not hold the populations of Germany and Japan legally responsible for the acts of their governments, we did hold them morally responsible. Growing up in the early years directly following WWII, I know for a fact that many, if not most Americans continued to hold harsh attitudes toward the Germans and Japanese for supporting or simply acceding to the acts of their governments.

Beside the fact that the entire enterprise of the US/NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999 was the supreme war crime of being a "war of aggression", as stated at the Nuremberg Tribunal:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

the war of aggression waged by Bill Clinton (with the whole hearted and full throated support of Hillary) was replete with myriad instances of blatant individual war crimes, from the bombing of clearly demarcated hospitals, to the bombing of various embassies (the bombing of the Chinese embassy being only the most obvious), to the bombing of a multitude of civilian dwellings and targets.

To paraphrase Joseph Welch during the Army-McCarthy hearings:

"Have you no sense of decency, madam? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?".