What About a Warrant?
To start with the easy question: the next V-P will not be of Cheney's mettle or metal in any sense, and nor will their bosses - except in the depressingly likely case of mental or physical capacity - need or want or encourage them to be. Joe Biden still cherishes his reputation as the great commuter, and as for the thriller from Wasilla....
The fetish of "bipartisanship" furthermore ensures that Obama won't want to seem vengeful and McCain will want to "move on". I also, to repeat my earlier misgivings about the state of public opinion, have a tendency to doubt whether any jury would be inclined to convict any American who might claim that he was stretching the rules to go after Al Qaeda or to defuse a "ticking bomb". This in turn might inhibit potential prosecutors.
However, this does not foreclose all options. International law subjects torturers to universal jurisdiction. What if one of those we have been discussing is hit with a warrant? My understanding is that they don't necessarily need to set foot in a country where this might happen. (When I interviewed Judge Garzon in Chile about Henry Kissinger, he said that he could issue a "bench warrant" for anyone if Chile had an extradition treaty with them and/or if a Chilean citizen was involved.
Just to add to the mix.
As always,
Christopher
Oh my goodness! Who let Hitchens stick his big nose in the TPM tent! This Bush water-carrier can go to hell!
September 30, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Camco. Hitchens only cares about the power of the idea and whether or not he's right. He doesn't carry water for any politician or public figure, I don't think. He just picks ideas and fights for them. I think he admits he was wrong about Bush's War (can't site it, but that's what I thought - esp. after the waterboarding video, in particular.)
Hell, who knows. (I just like reading his stuff. Except for that piece about Barack losing a few weeks ago on Slate. That $hit sucked. Obama's winning this "sucker" - to quote W.)
September 30, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Puh-lease. That is such a silly knee-jerk reaction that I see from liberals all the time. I'll be very surprised if you have actually read any of Hitch's writing on Bush.
For something recent, try this for a primer:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/06/16/christopher-hitchens-open-letter-to-george-bush-as-outgoing-president-visits-the-uk-115875-20609205/
Or for a classic, how about this? Hitch on Hardball back in 2000: "He's a man that's lucky to be governor of Texas. He's unusually incurious, abnormally unintelligent, amazingly inarticulate, fantastically uncultured, extraordinarily uneducated, and apparently quite proud of all these things. That's amazing."
This view of him has hardly changed; he's continuously ridiculed him for his Putin comments, he's a co-plaintiff along with the ACLU in suing the government over the illegal wiretapping, etc. etc. etc. Pretty much the only thing he agrees with Bush on was that the status-quo with respect to Saddam was simply untenable. And he also (rightfully) commended Bush for using the words "Palestinian" and "State" in the same sentence.
Just because he doesn't (like so many do) go off on how stupid Bush is every time he gets the chance, doesn't mean he's a "Bush water-carrier."
October 1, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will be content if we can simply have hearings (either in Congress or via some sort of special commission) that gets everything out in the open. It worked for South Africa. International justice would be hugely unpopular and I can see both Democrats and Republicans outbidding each other to denounce such a move by foreigners. I do however think it would be a good thing if an Iraqi (or Afghan) court let it be known that it was willing to prosecute Americans who engaged in torture as they would (and should) have full jurisdicion over matters that happened on their own soil.
September 30, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it a "fetish" or a "feign" of bipartisanship? I think post-partisan Barack is a political stance to get elected by a dispirited and saddened electorate in 2008 looking for some healing.
To fix the country, he will necessarily have to govern from further left than we've seen in 30 years. Regulating these markets and increasing taxes on the super-wealthy is only the first step towards saving American Capitalism.
September 30, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, morals have never been immune from political expediency. Bipartisanship is not a fetish. It is a calculated realignment of interest, in the U.S., the only enduring realignment. Talk is cheap.
October 1, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about the "fiction" of bipartisanship? I'm sick of the word. The Democrats and Republicans are not going to agree on much. We are deeply polarized. The trap of bipartisanship, or "transpartisanship" is that we will fiddle around with issues we can all agree on, while failing to address major issues that are core beliefs, such as regulation/deregulation, environmental protection, 'free-market' policies (uh, more deregulation?) and others.
But back to the point. This has long been my fantasy, that a tortured citizen of a country with an extradition treaty will get US Administration officials indicted. President Obama does not have to "take sides" in a partisan way. He directs the Justice Department to "Obey the law, and respect our international treaties." He is thus insulated from blame for partisanship. He can truthfully declare "I have not taken a position on whether Bush administration officials should be prosecuted. I simply directed the Justice Department to obey the law and honor our treaties. Would anyone have me direct the DOJ otherwise?"
October 1, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
hitchens has added nothing to this discussion.
is he suggesting bush will use the ticking time bomb defense?
the gratuitous swipe at Biden.
bipartisan "fetishism"
gag
go back to the bar.
October 1, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink