I saw it Daily Kos and thought you'd appreciate it, particularly this part (it's Friedman's 2009 "resignation" column):

But to have been so completely and fundamentally wrong about so huge a disaster as what we have done to Iraq — and ourselves — is outrageous enough to prove that people like me have no business posing as wise men, and, more importantly, that The New York Times has no business continuing to provide me with a national platform.

http://tinyurl.com/56d5qs

Let me get this straight... the Democrats only investigate for political reasons.... there are no real crimes to investigate.... Well, there probably were, but that's none of our business... if the crimes came out, they'd turn out to be justified.... but that's nobody's business, too.... Bush wasn't impeached because of democrat's complicity.... but complicity in what no one knows, because it's secret and there was a good reason for it....

The logic here is so impeccably circular one has to marvel. If Democrats aren't going after Bush, it's for the Best, but naturally, since it's them, it's because they're really weak and complicit. But if they were to investigate, it would cause great harm, and be done only for "political" purposes, but once the truth came out, everyone would see that Bush was right and the Democrats were wrong. Heads Republicans win, tails Democrats lose. Oh yeah, and Clinton caused 9/11, and Saddam did, too.

I used to wonder, who, exactly, was half-witted enough to still support Bush... could 22% of America be that dumb? This NOB post explained it for me.

Today's Contest winner, or is this more of a lifetime achievement award.....

We already know that the law does not apply equally to persons in the USA.

Corrupt businessmen can steal millions or billions and just get a fine if caught.

I can go to jail for stealing a hubcap.

Etc, etc, etc,

Refusal to pursue members of the Bush administration who have clealy broken laws will be a further reminder of this inequality and will breed more cynicism in the american people.

The real blockage here is that the courts and congress went along with the activities and thus are accomplices ...... they will not want to pursue convictions that will also indict them.

A friend of mine linked that to my blog this morning. I had written inspired by the disgust I felt at watching Friedman flog his book on the daily show, and Stewart's complete disregard for Friedman's incredible failures on Iraq...

apparently that's from the fake NYT that circulated around yesterday...

http://www.nytimes-se.com/2009/07/04/the-end-of-the-experts/

Take a look at my blog for the Friedman article I wrote...link at sig...

Obama will have to do a careful balancing act. At a conference in Washington this week, former department criminal division chief Robert S. Litt asked that the new administration avoid fighting old battles that could be perceived as vindictive, such as seeking to prosecute government officials involved in decisions about interrogation and the gathering of domestic intelligence. Human rights groups have called for such investigations, as has House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

Insisting that war crimes are just "politics" -- "he said, she said" differences of opinion, and "can't we just move on" -- is to trivialise our judicial system, to ignore the unjustified deaths of thousands of people, and to neuter the rule of law.

These are jus cogens crimes; internationally and universally recognised as crimes whether or not they are banned by domestic law. They can not be ignored. Any civilised nation has a duty to prosecute them, and if they don't, others may do so.

It's not "vindictive". It's not "politics". It's necessary and should happen regardless of the political affiliations of any of the perpetrators.

Cheers,

You will probably get a kick out of this:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/fun-facts-about-invertebrates/

or clicky on siggy

wrote:He seems to me to be the guy to say, if a crime's been commited then they will face the music. Period.

Show me some evidence for this. I am certainly not against Mr. Obama. Best president-elect we have had in many decades. But I do not see him thinking as you say. I think his attitude is "Yes, some bad thinks were done, but let's move on and do good things".

Glen: Thanks for bringing Mr. Litt to our attention. I did a web check on him and ,as you outlined, he has been an advocate for the big boys who are clients of Arnold & Palmer. I hope that you will pursue this question further. He seems to be typical of the Washington consensus ; let bygones be bygones for the rich and powerful, but, screw the poor and powerless.

"Let me get this straight... " - Hag

I don't think you can do that. You misrepresent my post, repeatedly. You put forward a classic straw man argument.

Try answering this;

Why haven't the democrats brought impeachment proceedings against the gross, rampant. lawlessness of the Bush administration?

I for one, wish they had. . . . they're not that stupid.

Thanks for the link to Litts' Clipper Chip testimony.

Litt, in support of his argument that the government should have a back door that allows access to anyones encrypted information says:

Law enforcement's responsibilities and concerns include protecting privacy and promoting secure commerce over our nation's information infrastructure. For example, we prosecute those who violate the privacy of others by illegal eavesdropping, hacking, or stealing confidential information.

And by prosecute, of course, I mean not prosecute. Litts' testimony is well worth reading simply to watch the state of mind of a person who would have been equally freaked out by the invention of the printing press as he is by the invention of computer aided encryption. Luddite+Authoritarian=Chicken Little hilarity. The government is falling. The government is falling.

While the clipper chip is dead, the government's surveillance plans will not work if people are allowed to use encryption. This battle is far from over. The latest tactic is the judicial idea that a password has no fourth amendment protection. Turn over your password or go to jail. This is the best possible solution for the government.

On the upside we won't need translators any more. Speak english or we lock you up.