This may be premature, but in the event, as seems likely (given the complicity of the Democrats), that an investigation of government crimes, whether prosecutorial or merely in the form of a fact-finding "truth commission", is not launched, perhaps Glenn and Jane Hamsher and their colleagues and like-minded others, should consider setting up a sort of blue ribbon commission on the Web which could articulate charges and set up a fair process to deal with them. It might be modeled on Bertrand Russell's "trial" of war crimes in Vietnam, or else framed in more dispassionate terms.

Of course Obama isn't going to prosecute the current administration; they helped him get into power. DUH!!!!!!

The power structure never wanted McCain in the first place. McCain would have actually been a chance for repentance in the military sense.

Obama was chosen for his "cool temperament"---meaning lack of empathy and attachment---to expedite the next phase of HW Bush's order. Different wars, not fewer wars, with austerity programs at home and a few "generated crises" to justify further losses of civil rights.

Obama is not a centrist; Bush was not a conservative and laid the groundwork for what Obama is to continue---authoritarianism. Don't act like you're surprised---McCain didn't vote for FISA, Obama did.

Obama also wrote in his book that he supports the use of the death penalty for crimes that don't even produce a dead body---he doesn't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, but that it is useful as a outlet for the venting of "community outrage."

You need to look into Bill Ayers more, into what the Ivy Leaguers of the Weather Underground had planned for the 25 million Americans they estimated would be resistant to "re-education." Obama will not listen to any of you more than he does his aunt and uncle from Kenya, any more than he listens to the courts requesting his birth certificate.

If you believe that you have been deceived by Obama, you must be as courageous and outspoken about addressing this situation as you were about supporting Obama as an agent of hope---you do not want his change, believe me.

Drive a rod between the spokes of the wheel.

In the same WP article to which Glenn links, there is this:

Ron Klain has been tapped to be Biden's Chief of Staff. Note the "audience laughter" was at the American Constitution Society.

The term "Truth Commission" sounds incredibly Orwellian. It's an interesting idea in principle; perhaps a less chilling name could be devised.

I agree with you about the "blood tide" that would come, were we to hold our government fully accountable to the laws they subject us to. In the face of shocking corruption and rampant lawlessness, a strict call for justice is exactly equivalent to a declaration of war. I probably wouldn't have the luxury of demanding such a thing if I had children to protect, and even so, it's daunting. People are free to disagree, but I personally believe that insisting that we hold the Bush administration accountable for their crimes is just as dangerous as demanding the mafia be held accountable in Sicily. You're asking for all kinds of trouble, because you're challenging the very foundation of power, illegitimate though it is. Citing a higher power, like the Constitution, provides moral justification, but not physical protection.

Perhaps a pragmatic amnesty for the vast majority of offenders, in return for full cooperation in the prosecution, would be an acceptable middle ground. I like the word "amnesty", too, because it semantically highlights that these were arguably war crimes. Just a little bit of connotation, but a favorable one.

Anyway, these are just the musings of comment-spewers sinking deeper and deeper into the discussion well of a popular blog. I'd be curious to see what a real legal scholar thinks would be the most effective, most useful, and least disastrous route.

when he argued that bush not be impeached because it's too partisan

We're told that AIG was too big to be allowed to go bankrupt.

Now, we're told that lawbreaking and corruption in our government is "too pervasive" to prosecute.

Too much trouble.

Too many folks involved.

All hands on deck.

Man the lifeboats.

Sheesh

I want the yellow background back! And you are right on the money as usual.

'cause as we all know from hearing about the sins of the financial sector, the banks are all FUCKING CROOKS!! Seems to me that if those of true entrepreneurial spirit want to disaccommodate the banks of some of the cash they stole from us . . . more power to them!! That's the American Dream in action!!

I have a question for the lawyers: Congress cannot create an ex post facto law, but it can repeal a retroactive immunity, can't it? That is to say, the crimes were committed when they were illegal, in the interim a law was passed forbidding their prosecution, and now, let's say, the law is repealed by an act of Congress. That repeal doesn't constitute an ex post facto law, does it?

Isn't it interesting how Orwell (or, more properly, the dictatorships he satirized) have made the word "Truth" a "chilling" term?

In any regard, truth commissions are pretty common in countries emerging from repressive systems. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission is probably the widest-known, and its work may have saved that country from tearing itself apart after apartheid.

There's a list of truth commissions here, and at my sig:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission

(Maybe, to make it uniquely American, it can be set up as a reality show: Who Wants to be a War Criminal?)

Common Definition: Cartel (Noun)

cartel - a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service.

as applied to current Fed. Govt.

cartel - a consortium of political entities formed to limit competition by controlling the production and administration of Law.

if you were to read the words "post-partisan harmony" in translation, from a document originally written in say, Chinese, what would you think? That there ARE no more parties, perhaps?

AUTHORITARIAN ONE-PARTY RULE

When you hear and read the words of ANY aspiring leader or government, including Obama and Obama, Inc. you must have the courage to know that what they say is exactly what they mean, and not project your own hopes onto the statement.

When a member of his transition staff says on Meet the Press that Obama must be ready to RULE from day one, you must have the courage to acknowledge that there is a reason why Obama chose someone who uses this vocabulary and thinks in the paradigm in which such vocabulary is used.

Obama called for a civilian security force using compulsory service months ago; this footage was excised from his website and ignored by the press. These plans again materialized on his "president-elect" website, and were scrubbed and modified after his own supporters protested----because he is not yet in office and needs to maintain what is basically enough mob support to stifle dissent.