There is a third way based on maintaining stability while acknowledging that grave crimes have been committed. A Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Of course, there first has to be a collective admission that there is something wrong, which is doubtful given the state of our media. Secondly, there has to be a viable threat to the nation if reconciliation is not undertaken--prosecutions could engender violence or civil war or social fragmentation, doing nothing encourages more criminal acts.

I doubt we're anywhere near where we would need to be for a reconciliation process, but we're certainly as far from prosecuting anyone.

I believe that Bush acted the way he did to protect us.

I'm sorry you believe this. Remember Glenn's repeated references to the Leader? Remember that "German problem" regarding Der Fuhrer? I don't understand this psychology, I really don't. This "protect us" stuff is simply the language tyrants use to either gain, or add to their, power. You know this. You do.

Does Litt's statement that he does not comment on clients mean that the statements on his webpage:

"Represented several employees of intelligence agencies in connection with criminal investigations. None has been charged."

Are off the record?

As a sidenote, I notice that he also defended businesses that potentially provided illegal "foreign payments". I would bet money that he defended those Chiquita guys that were giving "aid and comfort" to terrorists in Columbia. If I was a right-winger I might ponder how much he hates America.

Here's what should be done. Give the Republiscams 3 or 4 months. If they filibuster everything in sight, then we can forget post-partisanship. Investigate 'em all, blacken their names and get a filibuster-proof Senate in 2010. If they cooperate instead of obstruct, then that will be worth the price of letting their crimes go unpunished.

Honestly, Bush was just trying to "protect" us? Rove, too? And even the Democrats?

From what, pray tell? 9/11? Oops. Economic collapse? Well.... A Republican Majority? Check. Another Republican President? Mission accomplished.

It's funny how all Republican arguments are built around conjecture, which invariably flies in the face of observable reality, but is nonetheless "out there," if only the truth were known.

Bush was indeed a great President, but we'll never know how great because he's just too humble and modest to tell us, since he always puts country above politics.

Something just flew past my window, and oinked.

"By "policies and misdeeds," do you mean "crimes and felonies"?

Is this your view for all crimes -- that all that really matters is that they be exposed and stopped -- or do you feel that way only about crimes committed by high political leaders?"

Speaking of straw men ...

I didn't say that no one should be prosecuted. I said that maybe some people shouldn't be, and that it isn't completely outrageous for Obama and/or his justice department to consider factors other than the (il)legality of some of his predecessor's actions.

I might get as much vindictive pleasure as the next guy in seeing Cheney in chains, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that there might be some greater good in foregoing that pleasure. I'm not against Obama entertaining that idea either, even though it's being championed by an interested party.

"If we decide - as you've done -- that political leaders won't be punished when they break the law, only "exposed" after they leave office, what possible reason would political leaders have in the future not to break the same laws?"

I didn't "decide" anything. I suggested that prosecutorial discretion isn't completely invalid. Suppose there really were a serious investigation geared toward prosecuting Bush appointees for torture or domestic spying. Do you really think anybody high up the food chain is going to go to jail for committing such acts? Maybe, someone below the cabinet level will do time in Club Fed for perjury. If that result comes at the cost of our actually knowing what Bush or Cheney or Rice or Rumsfeld knew about or ordered, I don't think that's such a great bargain. And realistically, I don't think it will have any deterrent on future ideologues.

On the other hand, if an investigation offering immunity in exchange for full disclosure from the people who would otherwise take the rap actually exposed the principals' roles in detail, I'd take that deal. Also, as others have noted, Obama has to govern, alongside congressional leaders of both parties who are complicit in what Bush did. Are you saying that he should spearhead a crusade to throw 'em all in jail, rather than hold his nose and let some of 'em get away with it? I'm not saying I'm happy about it, but I can see how it might be necessary.

"If you remove the punishment aspect of the criminal law, then you turn "laws" into "suggestions."

Punishment seems to have really turned around the drug problem in this country hasn't it? For a civil rights lawyer, you seem to have pretty reactionary (and ill-informed) views on the effectiveness of punishment.

"I'm just wondering if you do that for all crimes -- like the ones on your corner who rob banks and burglarize homes and sell drugs"

Bank robbers and burglars should go to jail. Drugs should be legal (in no small measure because that will result in fewer bank robbers and burglars).

" -- or just for the nice people in suits who work in Washington?"

Depends on the suit. I can't stand chalk-stripes or seersucker. Same deal for regimental rep or yellow power ties. Throw away the key. Greenspan first. Solids, pinstripes, and subtle plaids are OK. Paisley gets a pardon every time. Sheesh.

I got in an email dispute with my mom about Lieberman. I was passionately advocating that he had to GO, because of his race-baiting, because of his campaigning against Obama while being part of the Democratic caucus, and in general because of his role in one of the most corrupt and lawless administrations in history.

My mother's response: Joe's a nice guy. We shouldn't be "partisan" or mean-spirited. Obama's campaign wasn't about "change" in the progressive sense (I think she might have been right on that point), but rather about "fixing Washington" (she might have been right there, too, but only if you use the sense of "fix" that means "to rig a game")

You know, I love my mom, but if her response is typical of Democratic views, the Democratic party is as corrupt and broken as the Republican party. This is why I often mention the "r-word" (revolution) and talk about third parties; it seems that our government is well and truly broken. We've come to a point where the old boy network and appearing civil and "nice" and "nonpartisan" whenever possible, have rendered topics like murder and torture and illegal spying irrelevant.

Mom has said outright that the Clinton impeachment has scarred her; she saw how the tools of politics can be used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon, and now she thinks we should never go down that road again. I've tried to convince her that the situations are not equivalent -- that screwing an intern is not the same as killing 100,000+ people -- and that removing a corrupt, murdering, lawless administration is in fact the entire PURPOSE of impeachment and other political censuring mechanisms, but she refuses to budge. She doesn't want an endless cycle of political retribution, she says.

Oy.

We truly are on the other side of the looking glass; it's not just the politicians who buy into this bankrupt placatory outlook, it's "normal people."

Where do we go from here? Canada?