« Select quotes from progressive bloggers on Rick Warren, Obama's invocation choice | truthseeker77's Blog | Bush administration moves to prosecute torture »
Mainstream columnist Ruth Marcus: Law-breaking Bush officials, including Cheney, should not be prosecuted
Ruth Marcus writes a piece in the Washington Post today in which she has the audacity to justify doing nothing against Bush officials who broke the law during his administration, including (and she mentions him by name) Dick Cheney, who recently admitted to being involved in torture:
I'm coming to the conclusion that what's most crucial here is ensuring that these mistakes are not repeated. In the end, that may be more important than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.
One leading progressive blogger finds the argument absurd and puts forward an analogy:
Glen Greenwald, today:
Glen Greenwald, today:
Much more important than punishing murderers or getting caught up in protracted disputes about prior murders is the need to prevent murders from occurring in the future. Therefore, we ought to abandon our quest to impose punishments on people who get caught having murdered someone. To expend resources trying to punish murderers is to squander vital resources on the past, to waste energies that could instead be more productively devoted to preventing future murders.
There are too many important challenges we face to waste time bogged down litigating past murders. Let's allow murderers to go unpunished so that we can move beyond the past and concentrate instead on the more important priority of minimizing the number of murders in the future.
Advertisement
It is truly astounding that someone would suggest letting these criminals go unpunished.
The first order of business is to prove who did what and then prove that what they did was wrong. Only a trial can enable that to occur. In the court of public opinion, there are plenty of Zom-Bushes either convinced this Administration did nothing wrong, or that they should be given a free pass because it was for national security. The crimes need to be brought to light. This is for the sake of the American public because we all know that regardless of how the trial ends, Zom-Bushes will probably deny it was wrong to their death. As examples of this, you have already probably thought of would be G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, to name a few.
December 21, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, fer crissakes, it's RUTH MARCUS! She's been spewing bilgewater like this all over the WP's op-ed pages ever since she hired on. Her opinion and a buck will buy you a $.50 cup of coffee.
December 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Oh Really ??
Well ... good for her. She has her opinion and I have my own.
Paraphrasing the words of my late Great Grandfather Admiral Jonah. D. Wail... "She's as full o' crap as a Christmas Goose..."
~OGD~
December 21, 2008 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but your grandfather got thrown off the boat. And the crying over his favorite bush? What was that all about?
December 21, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the end, that may be more important than punishing those who acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right.
Why bring it up? Stalin and Hitler and Mao, at times, acted wrongly in pursuit of what they thought was right. Hell, Genghis Khan and his brother Don too.
There are nefarious drug dealers who only wanted to put their sibs through school.
This is meaningless.
Good post.
December 21, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mainstream?
December 21, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
My answer to Ruth Marcus:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/12/blown-away---by-a-letter-to-th.php
December 21, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only Marcus had indeed advocated what you seem to attribute to her. But she didn't. She advocated taking the larger view over petty notions of revenge.
Greenwald makes the obvious joke, but his comments are misguided outside of humor. Is your post intended more as a comment on G or M? "intent" is often a key factor in many criminal prosecutions and can distinguish excusable homicide from a life sentence for murder.
That said, I feel strongly that public servants, and especially elected ones, must be held to a higher standard than private citizens. The comparison of Carter's pardon/amnesty for draft dodgers to those for government servants of the people was Reagan' excuse, and Reagan was morally wrong to use that excuse even if it covered his ass well enough at the time politically speaking.
I would also point out that pardon before conviction of a public official short-circuits the Justice part of an investigation and prosecution. Reagan may have been right to pardon Felt et al AFTER THE FACT. The country NEEDS an investigation (one which Obama has promised us, and maybe more than what he promised too).
The larger view I can allow for Marcus here is the moral and Constitutional view. If Marcus had openly advocated for immediate pardons I would oppose that. But again, she didn't.
December 21, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
eds writes: "If only Marcus had indeed advocated what you seem to attribute to her. But she didn't. She advocated taking the larger view over petty notions of revenge."
I think that this takes the wrong view. Our system of justice is based on the idea that punishment serves as a deterrent. We don't allow the victims of a crime to determine what that punishment will be, because they may very well want punishment for the purpose of revenge. Such punishment, based in emotion, can be disproportionate to the crime.
There is nothing pettily revengeful about society's desire to see criminals punished, because that punishment serves a deterrent effect, and such punishment is seen by society to be a just payment for transgressions against the society.
Bush, Cheney, and their supporters would like to see the issue framed as a matter of "petty revenge." By their own admissions they have confessed to crimes that are punishable by death or life imprisonment. What is more, I think that the history of their behavior suggests that at one time they tried to hide their involvement. Does anyone remember the rank and file that were tried and imprisoned, the so called "rotten apples" of Abu Guhraib. These soldiers were allowed to suffer for following what we now know was established policy. (I realize that they would still be considered guilty under precedents established at Nuremberg, but the precise degree of guilt may be different considering the whole picture.) In any case, the desire to hide and obscure is usually a good sign of criminal intent, don't you think?
December 21, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jack,
You completely missed my point. She's not saying "don't investigate". She's not saying, "don't prosecute." It's not legal advice she's offering, but a larger viewpoint in which to proceed as needed, perhaps with prosecutions perhaps not. You and others here are reading stuff into what was cited, which stuff isn't there.
Here is the target quote again:
The larger point IS more important, except to those for whom revenge is most important. But it doesn't rule out prosecutions etc. Is it important to punish, say, Cheney, but allow such things to happen again?? Only someone out for revenge would say "yes" while someone who thinks as she writes here could say "Of course not, both could be important."
December 23, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This woman is insane... let's just stop holding anyone accountable for anything and instead focus on making sure no crime ever happens in america again from here forward... no consequences will surely be incentive for everyone to do what is right????
I, however, believe that consequences are absolutely necessary so that we do not repeat the past and the consequences should fit the crimes.
Thanks for the post.
December 21, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trial? Ha! We'll be lucky to get a dimwitted bipartisan commission.
December 21, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink