If I'm understanding correctly, you are saying that it may be OK to break laws in search of a greater good while later punishment for that action may be necessary?

In other words, the end justifies the means?

This goes against all that is keeping us from becoming just another banana republic where revolution and assassination replaces the rule of law and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In my opinion, the Bush Administration should be held to account for any illegal action on their part, and punished accordingly.

Bush appears to be a pious hypocrite, the worst kind of person to be in power in a democracy. His term should live in infamy.

"If Obama wants to get bogged down in a fight with republicans that he can't win, I say bring it!" -- Steve Hatchett

(sigh) AGAIN?

You and who's army?

(Oh yeah, its Barack's now)

By allowing the Bush administration to leave office and not be confronted with the ramifications of their actions, we set the stage for future leaders to make the same mistakes. The country wants retribution for criminal acts committed by foreigners, but not by our own officials? This thought escapes me. They have stripped away our civil liberties, invaded our privacy, and sent our families to war based on lies. How can we just let them get away with that? For Christ sake, look at where he has led our country!!!! Obama will definitely be bombarded with other issues, but who's to say he can't form a commission or a task force of attorneys to work on this while he focuses on his other work. The voters are more energized and organized than ever before. We should be pouncing on that gusto and utilizing their efforts. Grass roots movement to demand an investigation anyone?? It's a shame that our congress and senate would be hesitant to prosecute Bush for fear of their own demise. They are in civil service, their job is not just to keep the country running, but also to protect the constitution and the rights and freedoms of American people. If it means they are at fault, perhaps they shouldn't be in office in the first place.

War crimes are international in scope. They should be adjudicated by an international court.

My guess is that on January 18, 2009, Bush will pardon Cheney, then resign his office. On January 19, 2009, President Cheney's one and only act will be to pardon former President Bush.

Then Cheney will resign and he and Bush will fly to their an undisclosed location in a specially stocked bunker out of the country (or Alaska.) Laura and Lynne will cook the antelope that George and Dick bring home every afternoon.

President Pelosi will not give President-elect Obama the keys to the White House until he promises to let her use Air Force One to fly back and forth between Washington and San Francisco.

I've been predicting this for a long time.

All the best...

Richard Jasper

East Amherst, NY

The judgment of history is more important for the health of a national community than criminal convictions, even when heinous acts are committed. Give immunity only in exchange for the whole, absolute truth of this shameful chapter.

I say let him pardon them all, because he can't pardon himself--and then we're left to prosecute the only man still holding any cards--the one responsible in the first place! George W. Bush for his egregious misuse of power, disemboweling the constitution, and generally leading this country into one of its darkest hours.

What I meant is that the world is not black and white. Not all situations can be resolved in an hour (with commercials). Sometimes hard decisions must be made-- for instance, to send a man in your command to do a job you know for certain will get him killed. Sometimes a morality decision must be made-- do you do "X" which is illegal or immoral (or both) in order to achieve "Y", which in your honest, most deeply-felt, wisdomed opinion _MUST_ be done for the greater good?

If the answer is "yes" AND if you are a TRUE patriot, then you must ALSO stand to account for your actions when the time is right.

I am not saying particularly that the "end justifies the means" but rather that there are times when foul deeds must be done to protect the nation. But, I am ALSO saying-- and don't quote one part of my article without also quoting this side-- that IF you make that sort of decision AND you purport to be a patriot-- ie. doing your "patriotic duty", it is ALSO your duty to stand to account for your deeds and actions.

You may very well go to prison or be hung by the neck until dead for doing exactly the "right" and "patriotic" thing. And your country should be both grateful for your sacrifice yet and satisfied by your punishment. Just because you "do what needs to be done" does not obviate your culpability or complicity, even though in the greatness of time you are proven to be "right" and a "patriot".

Consider any moment of conflict between two opposing nations, both sides may consist of people who truly believe that they are acting on the side of what's right. And yet, at the same time, most moral standard prohibit the killing of human beings. Thus in a time of war, both sides are "doing what must be done" (committing foul deeds) in the name of the "greater good". Both individually and from a national standpoint, the prevailing moral codes are being "set aside" to achieve the aims and directs of the nation. The people who enact these deeds most often believe themselves to be "patriots" and acting "in the name of their countries".

Are they patriots? Which side is right? Who are the true patriots? The winners? If that's the case, then "might makes right", right?

What if the United States had taken out Saddam Hussein and his sons with hidden snipers and then quickly and quietly assisted some other group into power to stabilize and govern the country? Fewer people would have died. Which is more "right" or "wrong", to kill three (or a few) people, or tens of thousands (maybe even hundreds of thousands) and to throw the country into nearly a decade of civil unrest, ethnic cleansing, economic uncertainty, and ruining its culture and national infrastructure? To say nothing of the American boys and girls that would NOT have had to die in a senseless war whose objectives were never clearly stated and put forth ..?

Which would have been the more "right" thing to do?

Whatever your answer, not all people-- not all nations-- would agree with you.

Is there such a thing as an Iraqi "Patriot" ? How about one with a Suicide Vest?

When is a Patriot a terrorist and vice versa?