"War crimes" become "policy disputes" between hawks and soft-on-terror liberals
Glenn Greenwald tackles my Number One Issue from the Presidential campaign. Via The Daily Kos, which also has some interesting comments to add.
It appears that the media is beginning to put the brakes on any sorts of investigations of the MYRIAD--literally--crimes of the Bush administration. It would 'tear the country apart'. It would 'be disruptive'. It would be 'partisan witchhunting'.
Yet they impeached a President for having a girlfriend. Impeached. Tried to remove him from office. Tried to destroy him, utterly, for the crime of lying to a Grand Jury--something Scooter Libby did repeatedly before HE was eventually convicted.
This entire past eight years is about to slide down the Memory Hole, folks. It's been said before: Americans have the worst case of cultural mass amnesia than any other country.
Why? It helps boost sales, that's why.
Advertisement
This is why Gore Vidal calls us The United States of Amnesia.
Or as some told me the other day, perhaps he was quoting Chomsky: the liberals are the apologists for the conservatives.
November 27, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am more hopeful about this. If Obama came on gangbusters about this, the Bushies would act more guarded. Obama has already said he is going to take a hard look at this and there are members of Congress who are not going to let this go. Remember for 6 years, if the Democrats wanted to call some executive action into question, they would get C-Span to cover a Democrat Committee hearing. Stay tuned and buck up.
If it really starts to get to you run over to Media.Com or scores of other blogs putting together coalitions to petition Congress for redress of grievances. Just like it says in the Constitution.
November 27, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two questions:
1) What good will it do to prosecute Bush for alleged war crimes? How does it help us going forward?
2) Why should enemies that are caught trying to kill US citizens be given the right to habeas corpus in the first place? Just wait til there's another attack on US soil by a terrorist released under the Supreme Court's recent ruling. People will start to have a different view of Justice Kennedy's interpretation of whether we are currently under invasion or rebellion...
November 28, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB, re #2: do you remember Timothy McVeigh, the terrorist that pulled down the Alfred P. Murrah Building killing 168 American citizens in the process? McVeigh had the right to habeas corpus.
Assuming your concern is the killing of US citizens and not the nationality of the killers, what rationale gives the right of hc to some and not others?
The 'terrorists' that have been released so far are actually citizens of other countries that got caught up in the over reach of the US in its War on Terror, and had not actually conducted any terrorist acts. One would assume that actual acts should be a requirement for holding people as terrorists, don't you think?
November 28, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two answers:
1) What will we do if the next Republican President starts using Bush's Unitary Executive policies, with Bush's term as precedent? Do you really want to go through this all over again?
And: The rule of law is the only thing that separates us from downtown Baghdad. If it is now to be let known that the President has no consequences for the laws he's broken, then what's to stop any President from breaking the law? I don't know about you, but I've had enough of that to last me for at least another eight years, if not my lifetime.
2) Suspects are only subject to punishment when they become convicted. They have rights before then. That's all there is to it. It's not perfect, but it sure beats depriving anyone of their rights.
If they're so sure these are 'bad guys'...why can't they convict them? How do they know they're bad guys unless they have evidence to support this?
We need another Church Committee investigation to find out what exactly our CIA is doing, and how they justify calling ANY 'suspect' a terrorist, a bad guy. We just can't lock up everybody.
Finally: If the terrorists wanted to hit us in the time since September 11th, 2001, NOTHING WAS STOPPING THEM. Nothing I could see. You really think stopping us all from bringing liquids onto a plane, et al, is what is making us safer...? Sure.
Pop quiz: What's the expiration date on every one of Rudy Giulliani's credit cards?
9/11. What else?
November 28, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink