I actually don't think making President Obama do this is a good idea. Now, wait. It's not that it isn't just a great idea, but a necessity, one of the demands of justice that we can't hold back.
But there's more to this than that: it isn't a President's job -- unless you want a unitary and all-powerful executive, that is. Isn't that one of the things we've been bitching about since December 2000?
Releasing the information the Bush administration refused to release, giving the American people an inside view of just exactly how un-American, indeed how anti-American, the previous administration became in its conduct of the war and the treatment of the prisoners (detainees? more weasel-wording. More of the w administration's bushwa. These people -- some of them more than 80 years old, some of them children by any civilized measure, were PRISONERS. That the Bush administration denied them the status of prisoners of war is just one more mark of disgrace on its highly-decorated, completely dishonorable escutcheon). This the President can do, unilaterally; this the President is doing.
But there are limits (as there should be) to what he can do alone. Unlike the Kos diarist who suggested that the prosecutions are Congress' job, I don't see it that way as (solely) a defense against resurrecting the GOP on the wings of claims of partisan attacks on the Bush administration. I see it that way as a declaration in actions -- louder than words, more important than words -- of necessity: bringing the legislative and the judicial branches back into balance with the executive branch.
The Constitution set the government up that way. If we want to return to Constitutional government, if we want to live up to our own demands that the Bush incursions be rolled back, the way to do it is to take the information provided by the Obama administration ... the evidence ... to the jury: the people.
Let the people call upon their representatives to represent their interests. Let the representatives hear and heed the voices of the voters who elected them. Let the process take place the way it should, according to the rules that predate 9-11-01, according to the laws that predate the Bush v. Gore decision (debacle that it not only was but brought forth across the world) by the United States Supreme Court.
Better yet, MAKE THEM DO IT.
- Sarah's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
it is up to us
to repeat as often as necessary that we have an obligation to prosecute war crimes committed in our name and that should we fail to do so than we ourselves become war criminals.
It is DoJ's jobs
So, it's whoever decides to take on the duty, be it the president or Congress. I don't think it'd be accurate to say or imply that it isn't his job. It'd be more accurate to say that both would be in their rights to call for an investigation.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Maybe
it isn't Obama's job but he could take the lead on the issue and he's not. Congress seems to follow his lead so there won't be any investigation or prosecution of any of this according to Rahm today.
My understanding is that this is Holder's call -
NOT Obama's, which makes one wonder why it is that there seems to be quite an effort to let everyone know that Obama does not think anyone should be prosecuted for anything - not the people who approved the policy, not the people who wrote the memos that justified it, not the people who carried it out.
So, who's really being unitary here? Where the hell is Holder? Sitting on the sidelines waiting for his orders? Taking notes?
This is going to sound awful, but I have to wonder what we would be hearing if this were all coming out under a Republican president - would our Democratic leaders be at all up in arms? Because the other thing that worries me is that the Dems in Congress are also taking notes on what their dear leader does not want them to be even thinking about doing.
Leahy's already said that unless he can get some Republicans to sign on, there's not going to be any Truth and Reconciliation Commission, because it would just be considered a witch hunt. What I don't understand is why it couldn't be considered, you know, elected representatives doing their fucking jobs for a change.
I could not be more disgusted. Or frustrated.
the problem is the evidence leads straight into the White House
Unlike Abu Ghraib, where there was a buffer of plausable deniability between the Executive and the military, this trail of obscenity leads inevitably to the top of the Executive. If everyone tainted with the evidence so far available were to be charged, we would have the spectacle of a Secretary of State, an NSC director, two CIA Directors, an entire OLC and probably an Attorney General, the Vice-President and President Bush himself all being brought up on charges and forced to stand trial.
For myself, I think that is the right course of action. The lot of them should have to answer for what they've done, in the matter of torture and for other crimes as well. But I can also see why the new President would be reluctant to pursue such a course of action. There simply isn't any way any president of the opposing party could actively back investigations and avoid charges of engaging in partisan politics. That shouldn't be enough of an impediment, in my view, to stand in the way - but it isn't my ass in the Big Office chair or my call to make.
With enough public pressure, Congress can find a way to take up an investigation. With enough public pressure, Obama may decide his chances for re-election will be substantively enhanced if he gives Holder the green light to set up an independent counsel and steps aside to let events take their course. With enough public pressure, many things are possible - and without it, many right and proper things will never occur.
What won't happen, both because of his cautious nature and because of not-irrational political considerations, is an Obama-led move to prosecution. That said, he is a Democrat - so he is malleable. Unlike a Republican, with sufficent duress he will give ground and try to find a way to compromise. The easiest way for him to do that is to simply get out of the way and let others do what needs doing.
What's that line from Franklin, about what the people's responsibility is in this contract with government? "A republic, if you can keep it."
Our Limits
I'd also like to add that we (the people) have limits, too. In fact, we are more limited (at least in the short-term) in what we can do than the other two parties we are discussing, here.
There are quite a few issues where I'd gladly rhetorically and fairly lay at the feet of the people their responsibility and culpability as being of prime importance. At least in this case, I don't think this is one of them.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...