Litt's comment that he wants to avoid ("Robert S. Litt asked that the new administration avoid fighting old battles") is a complete misnomer in that the battles he refers to - attempts to prevent the Bush administration from even breaking the law in the first place - were never fought the first time around. An acquiescent and complacent Democratic-controlled legislature simply sat on its hands paralyzed by fear or greed and did nothing but approve and vote for dramatic changes in law to facilitate executive branch lawbreaking. To say he wants to not fight "old battles" infers that there was resistance in the first place - it might be the worst type of framing and mis-representation of facts he utters. The rest of what he says is simply justification for this mindset.

up the rear. Here's who should be onboard with investigations (and then trials if the evidence dictates criminal charges) . . . Big Media and Big Advertising. Think of all the crap they could sell. I guarantee you it would make for the greatest drama in modern times. It would draw anybody and everybody worldwide for months on end (except the 28% dead enders and hard core bible thumpers who would see it as the arrival of Satan). BTW have you seen the Faux News comments board and some of the vile shit being said about PE Obama . . . a little advice if you're going to read it . . . drink some Pepto and start cleaning your gun. Very unnerving not to mention the extremely bad grammar and spelling.

That some commenters here cannot understand the simple concept that if we perpetuate a system of laws and political governance that gives one class of people (political, business entities, individual wealthy, religious) what is tantamount to a right to break whatever laws are on the books with impunity, then we don't really have a system of laws or a system of self governance. We have a fiction. Try explaining to all the priests who were convicted, and the archdioceses that were nearly bankrupted, that child molestation is worse than murder and torture on an exponentially greater scale. If God's ministers on earth doing God's holy work aren't allowed to make the greater good argument persuasively then why in the world would we allow politicians and the rich?

Oh wait. I forgot in America George Bush [insert special class of people or person here] could be impeached or charged criminally if he/she got caught with a boy/girl/goat but will probably not be impeached or held accountable for ordering the torture of those accused of no crime in a forum they can actually challenge the charges and the murder of 100,000's in the form of "collateral damage". That's how scary this country has become and how truly close we are to it all circling the drain. Don't get caught screwing the wrong person if you're one of the above, but by all means kill, maim and displace all the people you want in the name of "protecting our interests", promoting "freedom" (through death apparently), promoting free markets (not that they're really all that free if you have to open them with gunboats, planes, missiles and foot soldiers and then don't factor that into the cost of goods and services) . . . How in the heck am I ever supposed to sit on jury duty again and convict anybody of anything? Why would I want to. The street crime you see in this country can't even compare to the scale of crime engaged in by the politicos, bankers, transnational businesses, MIC, . . . how is it that our sense of moral proportion has become so warped.

That people miss Glenn's point here and think there could conceivably be a bigger battle to be waged in America, is not thinking straight or is deluded. All other political, economic, or whatever domestic battles you seem to think need to be addressed are subsumed by this one. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't fight some battles concurrently. But if we can't fight and win this one, we'll never win any of the others. They'll just be two classes of folks then, the upperclass and those beholden to them supping of their extra special benevolence, and the rest of us disposable batteries.

Sorry for ranting.

Apparently you were deceived into thinking you lived in a democracy ....... full of truth and justice for all.

Here, its "money talks and nobody walks" ....

War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today. ~ John F. Kennedy

We are no nearer the goal today than in the 60s.

One reason is that American Mass Murderers are not even admitted to, much less brought to justice.

Good point.

It also points to the complicity of legislative democrats in the crimes, and my point earlier of which of the body's parts (bodies parts; body parts) of the body politic we stop at with any investigations that may appear.

But then, I just finished my second Chi-Chi.

Timothy3 - sorry for the slaying! I'll take a nap soon and give your belly a rest!

This one is for Mr. Obama, the President-Elect. Ran on a platform of "change" as I recall.

Accepting the notion that it would be better to ignore Bush Administration criminality than it would be to address it falls within any concept of "change" how? Is it "change" because it would represent formal U.S. Government acceptance of the proposition that the rule of law is inapplicable to the government now?

I would address this concept to Congress but it's hard to fathom who there would even understand the question or why we might be asking them.

But, unless I'm misreading it, Article 5 requires a 2/3 majority of the legislature to ask for a Convention. If the legislature is agreed to be corrupt beyond reconcile, how do you propose we get the foxes to be better overseers of the henhouse?

I believe that our nation is on an inevitable road to violence. For the record: I do not want this, and if it happens, I will take no part. If widespread civil unrest breaks out, I will do my best to leave the country. The reason isn't simple physical cowardice (although that plays a role :) but also because I believe that violence almost never solves a problem; how many times can you show that an armed rebellion has done anything other than lead to an even more repressive junta (where the victors "purge" the previous rulers, and anyone even suspected of being "sympathetic" to them)?

That being said, I believe that Paine's words hit home in the "distant from the scene of sorrow" phrase; Americans today are mostly insulated, still, from the misdeeds of their elected officials. Yes, we know that Iraq is bad, but it's still happening... somewhere... and only people that we mostly don't know are dying. That, and the "bad guys." Sure, the economy is tanking, but so far only the hedge fund managers are looking for work, and who liked those pricks anyway? In every sense, the common man is "distant from the scene" of the sorrow befalling America.

But that will change. If the economy continues to deteriorate, pretty soon it won't just be the bankers looking for work, it'll be the plumbers and teachers and programmers. It'll be you and I, or our friends and family. And if there is a major fuel shortage (perhaps due to an invasion of Iran, or something similar), soon we won't be ABLE to drive -- it won't just be a "green thing." And so on. As Paine, again, nailed it, our situation is precarious.

And by the time a "tipping point" is reached -- unemployment hits 10%, or a draft is required to support our lust for war -- we may well be too far mired in our current system to disengage WITHOUT violence.

That's why I say I see an inevitable progression towards civil strife in this country; a complacent populace and a collusive media are keeping us numb and ignorant while our political class keeps steering a more and more direct course towards the abyss. I don't seek or want violence; I fear it terribly. But if you plot our current course forwards, I don't see that we'll be able to avoid it.

That's part of why I asked the "thought experiment" in my other post. I wanted to hear alternatives to my doomsday scenario. If you accept that both parties have become corrupted and our source of information and discourse (the media) has been neutered and turned into a bully pulpit for the political class, I am at a loss for suggestions as to how to avoid my nightmare civil unrest scenario (which will likely only make things worse for the average citizen). But I am just one citizen shooting his mouth off; hopefully someone cleverer than me has a real, workable alternative.