On a chiefly visceral level, I want us to bring back the guillotine expressly for the subject of dealing with this topic. I want to see the perpetrators of our nation’s war crimes tortured into confession, brought before war crimes trials and I want to see their heads roll. I have this lovely mental image of a seriously bloodied capitol mall and a nation elated at the sight because they’ve been shown truth and are awash in national shame and the benediction of revenge.

But stepping back from my gut, I have a hard time wrapping my head around how far down the food chain it should go. Is the head (and the heads behind it) responsible? Is it the neck? What about the shoulders? The heart?

If GB is guilty (and I believe he is, along with Cheney, Rove, Rice…et al), what about all the rest who were part of it? Did the guard at the gates of Gitmo or Abu Graib believe they had choices any more than the guard at the gates of Auschwitz, who was just doing his job? What about Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Joseph Lieberman? Hillary? Bill? GW1? It’s a bit difficult to figure out where to begin, let alone where to end…

Marat in the courtroom Marat underground

Sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound

Fighting all the gentry and fighting every priest

Businessman the bourgeois the military beast

Marat always ready to stifle every scheme

of the sons of the arse licking dying regime

We've got new generals our leaders are new

They sit and they argue and all that they do

Is sell their own colleagues and ride upon their backs

And jail them and break them and give them all the axe

Screaming in language that no one understands

Of the rights that we grabbed with our own bleeding hands

When we wiped out the bosses and stormed through the wall

Of the prison they told us would outlast us all

And I truly wonder where Obama needs to be in all of this. I don’t see it as the job of the President to investigate his predecessor’s crimes. That’s the job of the legislative branch. I suppose I hope they’ll do something, but expect they will not.

I have been seething over the Bush administration's abuses since Cheney absconded with the notes of his energy policy meetings with Ken Lay and the boys. I believe many in the administration deserve punishment worse than jail time. I believe the current administration has hastened our decline into a third-world nation, squandering our blood, treasure, moral authority and good will on earth. However, with Barack Obama's election, it seems hardly worth the renewed bitter (Rovian) divisions and the distraction from severe crises that such inquiry would engender. Hard as it is, and as much as I loathe Bush, Cheney, Rove and company, we must move on, and leave them to their fates. To hell with them!

In all the post-election talk, almost no one has mentioned that Mr Obama was a constitutional law professor. This was actually one of my main reasons for supporting him. I thought since he knows and understands the US constitution that he must also believe in the document. I hope I wasn't wrong. I think to prove his moral authority. Mr Obama must reverse the executive power grab that has occurred in this administration. Surely, as a lawyer he KNOWS that it is illegal.

Excusing high powered people in authority for their crimes is exactly what happens in parts of the world where corruption is rampant. And this truly erodes society as a whole.

... in terms of Senate support for Lieberman (arghhh!). Please advise your readers on how we can effectively oppose this stance. In Colorado, Sen Salazar is a Democrat in name only and it would be hopeless to write to him (though I will) and I don't know where Udall stands.

"hatchsin raises points I have considered and make some sense to me. But I'm no expert. I'm asking if such presidential pardons (should they come to pass--and I, too, expect they will) essentially render moot the viability or even the possibility of "investigating crimes committed by Bush officials." -- gehgoeson

A layman's answer follows:

No, a blanket pardon would not render moot either the viability or possibility of any investigations. As a matter of fact, such a pardon might even make such investigations easier since those who received pardons could not exercise their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination and would be forced to testify.

What it (a blanket pardon) would do, however, is take prosecution for the pardoned crimes off the table in the United States. It would not prohibit foreign governments or entities from using such testimony for use in an international court.

I guess it boils down to what end is desired. If we want the truth of what went on to see the light of day, pardons won't necessarily be totally damaging. If, however, we want revenge (through criminal prosecutions - jail time, etc.), pardons would not be a good thing.

Sorry, but Bill Clinton's official policies have nothing to do with W's reason for invading Iraq. You are just trying to avoid making a serious reply.

I.e. if two people committed the exact same serious crime, but one was a nobody, and the other a somebody, the nobody will generally be prosecuted much more harshly than the somebody. Of course, the rich, powerful and famous have always gotten, on average, more lenient treatment by the legal system in all societies throughout history, even in ones where such tiered justice wasn't formally codified. So there's nothing unique here. But this is a country that was founded upon a concept of equal justice for all, and we've strayed further and further from this in recent years. And it's not restricted to actual prosecution, but to our laws. A dual system of justice, one for the rich, powerful and famous, and the other for everyone else, has slowly been enacted. E.g. the Enron rule, special dispensations to allow large corporations to pollute without restriction, Blackwater's carte blanche in Iraq, etc.

If Obama intends to have a successful presidency, but nevertheless decides to sweep what happened before him under the rug in the spirit of phony "bipartisanship" (i.e. he's just another corrupt coward), then he will not only committ a grave injustice, but he will begin his presidency having mortally wounded himself from day one, politically, by having sent out the signal that he does not intend to punish criminal behavior, so long as the criminals are rich and powerful enough, and that he's too afraid to take on powerful people and interests. He will basically be saying "Go ahead and do whatever you want to do, just try to be a bit discrete about it, and I'll look the other way". The "go along to get along" mantra is how cowards and fools operate. I sincerely hope that Obama is not such a coward or fool. He has so much to lose, and so little to gain, if he does this.

Prosecuting past crimes by high government officials isn't just the right and necessary thing to do. It's the politically smart thing to do, because it will send out the message that Obama is not someone to be messed with, and garner him the sort of respect and even fear (by those who would consider breaking the law or otherwise acting unethically) that an effective president needs. Obama is certainly smart enough to know this. The real question is whether he has the courage and character to actually do it, and not listen to these morally corrupt political whores.

A country can only have one justice system, applied equally to all, or else it ceases to be a civil and well-functioning society. Considering all the other obstacles and challenges that he'll face as president, it would be the height of folly for Obama to believe that he can just punt on this one, and be effective enough to do all the rest. The two are inextricably linked. If he lets all these crimes go, then he will render himself too impotent to do the rest, because everyone will know that he's weak and breakable. He can't bend on this, not just because it would be wrong, but because it would be stupid. I hope to god that he knows this, and does the right thing.