but if we have actual investigations, with actual consequences, there won't be enough republicans to staff the next republican administration. not only that, but david broder might write something mean about democrats.
Posted by Turkana at December 19, 2008 06:05 PMIn each of these issues there is the large issue in the background, when do we lose the form of government to which we believe we are adhering?
Hermann Goering, usually described as Adolf Hitler's right-hand man, was hauled before the Nuremburg Tribunal at the end of World War Two and charged with war crimes. Everybody does it, he told the German-speaking American military liaison Gustave Gilbert, and the leaders' mis-representation of the reason for going to war is the same everywhere.
" . . it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
In his book Nuremburg Diary Gilbert recalled dissenting at this point in the conversation, "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Charming, isn't it, the faith the U.S. citizen had, in 1946, in the Constitutional provision, that only Congress can declare war!!
The provision has been a dead letter since 8 December 1941, sixty-seven years now.
So, given that we can all agree how an significant provision of the Constitutional form of government we believe we enjoy has been ignored for the better part of a century, how about the idea, even more fundamental than that business about the war-declaring powers of Congress, that all of us a re equal before the law?
How about the doctrine enunciated by Richard Nixon in the interview with David Frost, "If the President does it, it's legal."?
Is it not the case that we are in fact a tyranny if that doctrine is adopted? And has it not been adopted, self-consciously and repeatedly? Did the sitting Vice-President not repeat this week that he approved torture, and does not worry about his vulnerability to legal redress?
Posted by mmeo at December 19, 2008 07:34 PMSo, let's follow the alternative. No investigations, no accountability, no indictments, no criminal prosecution, and no enforcement of the rule of law or protecting and upholding the the Constitution of the United States. Is this what our representatives in Congress are willing to do? Is this what President-Elect Obama would support?
I will live to see history repeated, but on an even grandeur scale if we just move forward without justice for crimes committed. Only next time, we might not survive as a Democracy.
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2008 07:37 PM
You all know what to do. Contact Congress.
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2008 07:39 PMand President-Elect Obama.
Posted by Judith at December 19, 2008 07:40 PMWell, the chief problem is that 46% of Americans (Palin voters) are deadset against the slightest accountability for the premeditated lawbreaking by their criminal party's leaders, and they hate the American system of government passionately.
I believe that most "independents" and and very large number of Dems also disapprove of actual accountability for lawbreaking by the executive, be it for torture or illegal surveillance. That leaves about 20% (the progressives) who think that exucutive lawbreaking needs to be punished---way, way too few to matter, and we have no Lib'rul Noise Machine to push the issue. Add in the fact that Americans are no longer idealists in any sense, and you have the reality of the situation.
So executive lawbreaking will go utterly unpunished just because of the political make-up of the country (via "conservative" manipulation over decades).
It will be a miracle if even some commission is set up. Then you will at least learn what crimes were committed and can have your intellectual curiosity satisfied and get your history straight---but "truth" no longer matters to BushAmericans, nor does "justice".
We are a failed nation who has thrown its proud enlightenment legacy into the reeking cesspool of "conservatism". There may be some official "talk" (drowned out by the Repub Noise Machine) about the "situation" of Cheney's massive intentional lawbreaking. There will be precious little "action". Deal.
Posted by euzoius at December 20, 2008 03:06 AMEuzoius, unfortunately your probably right. Nixon was forced from the Presidency for doing far less than Bush, but 30 years ago, the Constitution, truth and rule of law mattered to most Americans.
A new Bush/Nixon will emerge, and the cycle will be played out yet again. It is just a matter of when.
Posted by Judith at December 20, 2008 07:35 AM
As a change from reading Noam Chomsky (why is he never mentioned here?) on the misdeeds of American foreign policy, I'm reading "Unpeople" by Mark Curtis, about all the horrible things which have happened as a result of British foreign policy, whichever party was in power. We (or our government) enthusiastically supported the delightful Idi Amin when he seized power, and continued to supply him with arms. Well, you see, the man he ousted, Milton Obote, was a bit lefty, and was likely to nationalize various concerns and affect our business interests. Margaret Thatcher was great pals with General Pinochet, long after we all knew what he was like. Don't worry, folks, governments are the same all over.
Posted by Colin at December 20, 2008 01:32 PMColin, Noam Chomsky has been mentioned here several times.
Posted by Judith at December 20, 2008 02:35 PMGlad to hear it. Obviously I'm not on the ball. As a matter of fact, I find it quite heartening to think that Chomsky has been able to have a career. You'd think a right-wing administration would have found an excuse to oust him from his position.
Posted by Colin at December 20, 2008 11:34 PM