Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

468
Letters
Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:00 AM

Post-partisan harmony vs. the rule of law

A clear consensus is emerging: Obama shouldn't jeopardize all the important things he has to do by investigating crimes committed by Bush officials.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Saturday, November 15, 2008 03:14 PM

Leftist Saloniks show true colors (red) - clamor for Stalinist Show Trials.

How about bipartisan show trial?

Bring in Putin to testify!

Swear in Bill Clinton (again) - this time he tell truth.

Dial up the ghost of Saddam Hussein to get even for the brutal hanging. He can splain how he wuz just a peace loving patron of Sumerian Arts and that Kurds deserved chemicals which were really meant to de louse them from pests Jew Israeli doctors planted in their villages.

Bring in Taliban to 'splain how they wuz really helping womens and childrens murdering ladies for wearing vulgar nail polish.

Saturday, November 15, 2008 02:31 PM

Rule of Law

Those who argue agains holding the Bush administration accountable for the mis-deeds of the last eight years should be asked to explain the failure of this strategy to act as a deterrent to future administrations. We have watched the Nixon administration get away with massive illegal and unconsitutional activities. This was followed by the Reagan administration breaking express Congressional bans against supplying aid to the Contras, undercutting the Constitutional role of the Congress to control the pursestrings. The Bush administration built on the lack of accountability in the past in commiting its crimes, believing that they, too, would not be held accountable. Each step along the way erodes the rule of law and elevates the political class above accountability. How bad must it get before we stop hearing these justifications for full fledged assaults against the Constitution and the rule of law. Mr Bush, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Cheney and their immediate entourages should be investigated, prosecuted and should go to jail. This may break the downward spiral that has its roots in the militarized American political system.

Saturday, November 15, 2008 01:52 PM

Does Rule of Law have meaning?

As I recall from basic American history, it was the lawless stances of the British monarch and Parliament that led to our Revolution. It is hard to imagine a country that has a greater charter document than the Constitution, and yet here is an argument that hinges on whether or not that document has real meaning. No where does the Constitution declare legal exemption for the President in regards to him breaking its laws; no where does it abdicate that the responsibilities of the President do not include adherence to those laws. A "gentleman's agreement" between those chosen few who have been elected to the office yet is not in agreement with the Constitution and thence the People who are protected by those laws, is not an argument worth defending in any logical sense. Either there is a rule of law or there isn't.

Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:58 PM

Wish it all away

Neither party has had the any interest in the rule of law for decades. The betrayal on impeachment, was the most recent evidence of that.

By convention time, it was clear that the Democrats would work hard to sweep this under the rug (and you know the Republicans were all too willing).

The next hint was also an eye-opener, for me:

Since 2003 this nation has murdered over one million people for absolutely no reason whatsoever!

At least not a credible one. How did we get through a national election without having a conversation about this event?

Obama began signaling, by his comments about not wanting to "spend his first administration dealing with the last one", that he was willing to duck the whole mess. And so, Game over. Here is the political reality:

No sitting President is EVER going to willingly hold a previous one over for trial, no matter what they have done.

At least not within our current political party system. No one who survives that vetting process will have the integrity. They will also know that to do so would begin an endless round of vendettas, consuming their term in office.

What you will hear instead, should the matter threaten to consume airtime is this:

"For the good of our nation, and in light of the pressing... blah blah blah and to avoid partisan bickering... blah blah blah I hereby pardon everyone.

In 2002 only a handful in the admin, plus selected members of Congress, sworn to secrecy or jail, knew what we'd done. By the 2004 election, all of Congress knew it, and probably half the public. By the 2006 election this whole nation knew full well what had been done in out name.

When Congress refused to honor their oath, and we did nothing, we lost something precious. We can no longer point to any kind of "they" whatsoever. It is now We The People who have murdered a million, tortured thousands, and thrown away the protection of the rule of law for our children and grandchildren. We've allowed, and then supported the excuses offered by our members of Congress, "It's too disruptive.", "It's too much trouble."

Where now is our country's moral standing to object to anything, any other country does, while we pretend we did nothing?

Sixty years after their atrocities the German people are just now climbing out from the cloud they've lived with for "allowing" their government to "run wild". How long will we carry this burden?

Saturday, November 15, 2008 11:14 AM

All the research and work is already done!

No excuses: 1. Kucinich articles of impeachment and the

2. transcript from John Conyers's faux Judiciary Committee hearing on The Executive Branch's Abuse of Power which featured well-researched testimony about Bush Administration abuses from heavyweights including Bruce Fein, Vincent Bugliosi, Elisabeth Holtzman, Bob Barr, Fred Schwarz and Elliott Adams... (Google to see the full hearing on video)...

provide everything the Obama Administration and their staffers need, so it won't take a lot of time and he could announce it with other key initiatives at the same time. "Housecleaning". Get Patrick Fitzgerald to do it. Skip the Congress.

These criminals must pay and at the very least, they need to be very afraid.

Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:45 AM

Beat Me, Bi-partisan Daddy, Eight to the Bar!

Now I see. If a person claims to be a humanitarian and a (small "r") republican, every time he opens his mouth in favor of civil rights or the rule of law he's just shilling for his clients.

When Christ gave his life to pay for our sins, He was just shilling for His clients.

Conservatives, you gotta love 'em.

Saturday, November 15, 2008 07:29 AM

Why does the incoming president have so many Real Important Things to do?

Because the previous president broke the law with impunity. We have a financial crisis because of crony capitalism. We have two wars because intelligence was cooked to fit the neo-con ideology. We have a reputation in tatters because the political class sanctioned gross violations of US and international law: torture, illegal detentions, etc.

We have a choice: we can go on cleaning up after lawbreaking political elites (which is what the Real Important Things of the let-bygoes-be-bygones crowd amount to), or we can break the cycle by stopping the problems at the source: by re-establishing the rule of law. This is the Most Important Thing To Do of All.

Most Active Letters Threads

405

I'm thankful I'm not President Obama

Backers deride Katrina-style negligence, haters hate him more each day. Can this presidency be saved? Of course
323

Tough-guy John Bolton, hiding under his bed

As usual, right-wing pseudo-warriors are drowning in extreme cowardice.
320

Greg Craig and Obama's worsening civil liberties record

A new Time account of the fall of Obama's White House counsel sheds much light on rule of law issues.
228

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
154

Phil Carter's resignation from key detainee policy post

Many of the "War on Terror" policies he spent years condemning were ones expressly embraced by Obama.

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon