Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Dealing with Bush's destruction of our Consitution is perhaps the most important issue for American history. I would point to the Truth and Reconcilliation committees of South Africa after apratheid. In the simple interest of getting the truth, police thugs, torturers, vitctims were given a forum to voice the truth, to air out the sins of the country, and as long as the crimes were politically motivated the guilty were given amnesty. It opened a vast flood of information of how the oppression was executed, where the missing bodies were, how some form of compensation could be awarded to the right victims. These committees sealed the judgement on apartheid -- there were no revisionists after that who dared pretend it wasn't illegal, immoral or brutal. It appealed to the higher nature of a nation, to forgive and learn and vow never to let such evil happen again.
Perhaps America can learn from this. Rather than courts -- where innocence is determined by the most expensive or most clever legal team; rather than punishment -- the fear of which keeps sins hidden for generations; why not let all America share in this guilt and repair -- we elected Bush, we did not impeach Bush, but we're ignorant about how much damage he has done and, therefore, how to correct it. So, with Bush and his thugs, lets air out the closets and the man-sized safes and let the truth set us free. The resulting legistlation could protect us from another Bush.
Let's see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the rest do the perp walk all the way from the White House to the Capitol and back to the Justice building. Then let's stick them on a plane and fly their asses to the Hague for trial and Gitmo for punishment.
One of the things I wonder about is whether dishonest testimony will lead to prosecution for perjury and refusal to testify would expose a person to liability for contempt of Congress. If the "evil-doers" are pardoned by their decider-in-chief, from what I understand is that they get immunity from prosecution for past crimes but not for subsequent crimes. That means Bush and Cheney are exposed to threats of prison sentences. Remember that Al Capone was not imprisoned for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre but for tax evasion.
Well, as long as George Bush is going to issue a blanket pardon, and by definition he can apparently make that blanket as big as he wants, I want him to pardon all my credit card debts, since compared to torturing prisoners, being in debt is not much of a crime. What? You don't agree that my credit card debts are more pardonable than torturing prisoners illegally? In that case, never mind.
Even if Bush should pardon one or more persons guilty of torture or rendition, such a pardon would only be effective in the U.S. Pardonees could still be prosecuted in foreign countries. Better than a poke with a sharp stick!
This absolutely should be done. Bush, et. al., has been secretive on all fronts that matter to the populace and no doubt have committed many and various crimes. They must be held accountable no matter the cost and time required. That was the case in "Whitewater" and the only person convicted in that fiasco spent a few weeks in jail for refusing to testify.
To paraphrase George Bush, "Kenny, you did a heck of a job"!
Unless im mistaken Obama taught constitutional law in Harvard. So if he has the fortitude to go after bush and his thugs, he will know what he is talking about.
My only real fear is that if he does then an "accident" is bound to happen.
What a disgusting cess pool we have become.
"My only real fear is that if he does then an "accident" is bound to happen."-- poorvic
I doubt that many people would cry over Bush or Cheney.
While it does seem unlikely that attempting to prosecute Bush & Co. here in the US would prove fruitful, there are at least two possible useful results from an investigation, and even from a Bush pardon.
First, in retrospect, it would seem obvious that one serious flaw in the pardon power is its seeming grant of the power of self-pardon. It would seem reasonable to consider the passage of an Amendment barring the use of the pardon power by a sitting president to pardon either himself, or any member of his administration (current or former member). Even if future administrations feel pressured to grant pardons - if only to preserve the hope for themselves - this route, ala Nixon/Ford, still seems infinitely preferable than the idea that a President should have the unlimited ability to pardon himself. Should Bush choose to exercise a blanket pardon, one might at least find the impetus to pass such an amendment.
Lastly, an important point of an investigative committee, and undoubtedly a matter of some concern to members of the administration, is not their liability in the United States, but their potential foreign liability. Should an investigation reveal serious wrong doing, it is quite likely that individuals would (theoretically) face international liability for their actions. Note here in particular the recent historical indictments in England and Spain against Gen. Pinochet or former members of the Spanish fascist forces - it is certainly permissible under international law, and it is not unheard of for foreign courts to indict foreign officials. While it is unlikely that the United States would ever extradite a former official even if charged elsewhere, the mere possibility of future charges or extradition, or the actual bringing of charges - which would likely serve as an effective bar to foreign travel for the indicted individuals, lest a foreign country detain and extradite them to the prosecuting country - would certainly be a significant weight for former officials in and of itself.
As such, the unlikely nature of US prosecutions does not negate the usefulness of an open investigation, nor is a blanket pardon a guaranteed escape ticket for administration officials.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
