On justice and TGWOT: immunity and impeachment
There are (at least) two big issues of justice that separate the liberals from the conservatives when it comes to The Global War On Terror™.
The first is impeachment. Many of us would like to see Bush and Cheney impeached for their actions over the last 7 years. Even so, most of us who feel that way don't believe this to be a realizable wish. We might applaud Kucinich acting as Don Quixote, but ultimately realize that it's just not going to happen. We are very eager to forgive Obama (and/or Clinton) for not pursuing this.
The second is telecom immunity. Remember that immunity is about forgiving past criminal actions and not about preventing future ones, although with all questions of justice, these are related. Again, most of us are against telecom immunity (both civil and criminal). However, many of us (myself included), aren't quite as eager to overlook Obama's differing stance on this one. Why is that?
I think that most of us who feel this way (i.e., with the contrasting opinions on impeachment vs. immunity), it really boils down to whether we think this was a necessary compromise. Most people who are defending Obama think that it was. Most of us who aren't so quick to defend don't think that it was. So, whether than it being so much a question of ethics (else, why would we be so ready to forgive his lack of support for impeachment?), it really boils down to a question of pragmatism. Was it really necessary, and how sure are you of it?
I don't think it was necessary, even on the civil side (as I understand it, criminal prosecution is still open), but I can't say I'm even 80% sure of it.
So, although I think he made the wrong call here, it's not the same crushing blow to my opinion of him that it seems to be for some people who also think he made the wrong call here. As usual, part of my purpose in posting this is to find a middle ground where we can at least agree to disagree without getting lost in hyperbole.
The first is impeachment. Many of us would like to see Bush and Cheney impeached for their actions over the last 7 years. Even so, most of us who feel that way don't believe this to be a realizable wish. We might applaud Kucinich acting as Don Quixote, but ultimately realize that it's just not going to happen. We are very eager to forgive Obama (and/or Clinton) for not pursuing this.
The second is telecom immunity. Remember that immunity is about forgiving past criminal actions and not about preventing future ones, although with all questions of justice, these are related. Again, most of us are against telecom immunity (both civil and criminal). However, many of us (myself included), aren't quite as eager to overlook Obama's differing stance on this one. Why is that?
I think that most of us who feel this way (i.e., with the contrasting opinions on impeachment vs. immunity), it really boils down to whether we think this was a necessary compromise. Most people who are defending Obama think that it was. Most of us who aren't so quick to defend don't think that it was. So, whether than it being so much a question of ethics (else, why would we be so ready to forgive his lack of support for impeachment?), it really boils down to a question of pragmatism. Was it really necessary, and how sure are you of it?
I don't think it was necessary, even on the civil side (as I understand it, criminal prosecution is still open), but I can't say I'm even 80% sure of it.
So, although I think he made the wrong call here, it's not the same crushing blow to my opinion of him that it seems to be for some people who also think he made the wrong call here. As usual, part of my purpose in posting this is to find a middle ground where we can at least agree to disagree without getting lost in hyperbole.
