Truth, Justice, and the American Way
Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 04:29PM No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
Prairie Weather inspired this week’s post. I have been unsuccessfully trying to write about what may be a vast, unexamined record of wrongdoing from the administration, and a brief exchange started by PW finally got me unstuck. Stuart Taylor Jr. has argued for pardons, Cass Sunstein agrees and Victoria Toensing has added (via) her own dubious logic to the drumbeat. A consensus has developed among political and media elites that no good purpose would be served by enforcing the law(!) and so for the sake of a smooth transfer of power and a calming of the political waters in the capitol we must let it all pass.
On the face of it I am vehemently opposed to ignoring criminality for the sake of comity. There is no position outlined by the pro-pardon group that is the slightest bit compelling to me. Sunstein’s belief that “I don’t think it’s appropriate at this stage to attempt to impeach two presidents consecutively” is completely absurd. At what stage would it be appropriate? If one party impeaches a President in a fit of cheap political grandstanding is his successor inoculated against it? What kind of crime would it take for Sunstein? Has anyone heard specifics? All I’ve heard so far are banalities along the lines of “any crime has to be taken quite seriously” and “are we in favor of immunizing people who worked in the White House in the last eight years from accountability for criminal acts? I don’t think anyone should be in favor of that.” Thanks, professor.
Toensing’s warning that “[i]f we don’t protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances” is outrageous as well. “We” do not need to protect people - the law does that. One of the signal achievements of this administration has been successfully advancing the notion of a patriotic duty to break the law. If the President “asks” individuals or businesses to do something plainly illegal out of loyalty to America then they may do so (even if they have access to an entire department of lawyers who could tell them they are breaking the law). A simple appeal by the President trumps the law, plain and simple. This is the concept of good faith that Toensing advances, and is euphemistically reduced to “taking chances”. What she describes is the absolute authority of the dictator. As for Taylor, see Andrew.
The crux of the problem is that the Republican party has come to view the law as entirely political. When Congress passes a law, or a President follows it (or doesn’t), or the Justice Department enforces it (or doesn’t), or the Supreme Court rules on it - these are all political footballs to be kicked around, not fundamental building blocks of a functional society. In other words, lawless, ignorant, contemptible hacks are fine as long as they are OUR lawless, ignorant, contemptible hacks. The collapse of integrity and wholesale politicization at Justice is not a problem in and of itself; it only is a problem if a Democrat does it. (The fact that they vote along party lines on these issues when they don’t walk out entirely should be all the proof you need.)
In an environment like that we will never get a full and satisfactory investigation. Every step of the way some GOP loyalist will cry foul and insist the REAL politicization is the belated enforcement. If we want to bypass all that maybe we should take up PW’s suggestion of “giving the country clotheslines laden with dirty linen and encouraging the voters to smell the stench and make up their own minds.” Or as John Mecklin put it, “[u]ntil we know the entire story of the conduct of the war on terror, a new story — with America reassuming a believable role as a guarantor of human rights — can’t really begin.” We could get a much better idea of the full truth by granting immunity and compelling testimony with a threat of perjury hanging over it.
I have to admit that such a scenario is in a way extremely unpalatable to me. Crimes have already been committed and a good part of me would be outraged if I knew that we were forever giving away the opportunity to see justice for them. But the question may come down to, would you rather have some justice with some truth, or no justice with full truth? And would you rather have maybe a handful of convictions that are forever criticized or a full toxic dump of truth that even the most rabid partisan will not approach? And wouldn’t the existence of such a thing, one way or another, create a justice of its own?
UPDATE: Today is the anniversary of Richard Nixon’s resignation, and the Accountability Now PAC is sponsoring a “Money Bomb” to mark the occasion. Please consider donating and making your voice heard, even if it only seems like a nominal amount. There is a greater difference between zero and one than between one and a million.
Reader Comments (13)
Perhaps every last political appointee of the Bush administration should be pardoned. Then for the rest of their lives they can be referred to as "pardoned felon." The information will appear in their obituaries, so we'll have frequent reminders of the vast criminality of this rancid stew of Constitution-defilers for decades to come.
But nah, I want to see at least a few dozen of them in prison first.
The political appointees would have to be convicted of felonies and THEN pardoned before they would be referred to as "pardoned felons". You can't pardon someone who has been convicted of no crime.
Clarification: I absolutely view most of the Bush appointees as criminals. There is more than enough evidence in the public square alone to convict them, but they've never actually been tried for any crime so they can't be pardoned without admitting guilt.
Jim, as I understand it a pardon can be issued preemptively - i.e. before even being CHARGED with anything. I'm pretty sure it requires an admission of guilt though (but I won't swear to it).
And the compliant and enabling press loves the political football game and pushes it and enlarges on it at every chance it gets, 24/7...as long as it turns people's eyes away from the real problems...
Republicans, the new magicians...they make your problems disappear!
What a relief to read this commentary! Though I have to comment that you may have missed much of the crux re impeachment. Namely, the democrats with the authority to carry out such procedures may be liable themselves for war crimes prosecution. In addition, it's not a matter of -- do you think they should be held accountable either/or, yes/no ? -- rather, the watershed we have reached is part of a broader shift into totalitarianism. Impeachment or no impeachment, in my view, there's a lot more horror to come.
rlynn78@hotmail.com
Jim Crozier:
They don't have to be convicted of anything to be pardoned. Don't forget Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon!! He was never convicted of anything, yet Gerald Ford pardoned him.
Joe Klein's Conscience is correct, as usual. Caspar Weinberger was also pardoned without being convicted and without admitting guilt.
I realize that technically it may be incorrect to refer to people who have never actually been convicted as felons, but I'm going to do it anyway.
They should be granted pardons only for those crimes that they ask for pardons for. That is, let them make a list of all the crimes they have committed and then submit that to the next president for a pardon. Where necessary, require them to elaborate the details (like, where did you bury the bodies). Any crimes they do not list on their request for pardons, they do not get a pardon for and can face charges.
I don't see how blanket pardons will result in "the whole truth." As opposed to "some truth and some justice" coming out of criminal prosecutions. The stain of Nixon being a corrupt usurper of the constitution has been tied to Republicans for a long time. It has faded somewhat in recent years because not everyone remembers it. But I don't see Republicans fessing up to everything and having the stain be more lasting by having two of their administrations basically saying "yep, we did it. we're evil. we don't care about the constitution. in fact, shredding it for money and power is a party plank." No party in its right mind would ever let that happen. It could be the death knell of the Republican party. Just like vampires, we'll have to drag them kicking, screaming and fighting like hell into the sunlight. But it won't be pretty, or easy.
Dan, I think you misunderstood my "dirty linen" comment. When you're dealing with White House (and congressional) crimes, the first part of the process is inevitably political. The outcome I want is a full understanding on the part of those who are angry at the implication that their guys committed serious crimes and that prosecuting them is not "merely political." If the people who supported Bush/Cheney and other perps don't get it, then a prosecution won't succeed and will lead to endless recrimination. To insure that justice is done and seen to be done, the job has to be done deftly. (Mecklin sounds as though he thinks there may have been extenuating circumstances so he'd rather wait until god knows when to prosecute, hoping perhaps that Bush and Cheney were saints after all.)
I'd like to prosecute soonest. Yours and my levels of righteous wrath here are very much the same. The difference lies in my nervousness with putting the prosecution in the hands of Democratic leaders in Congress who have shown themselves to me, at least, to have been remarkably inept and weak in most other tests of their competence. Not to mention their probable complicity in at least some of the criminality. But maybe I'm swayed by my admiration of many of those who were involved in the Nixon proceedings: there were remarkable people on both sides working to get that man out of power and fast. But our generation has to work around a majority consisting of weak Democrats and a minority of Republicans with the morals of jellyfish and the viciousness of ... well, there's no comparison in the animal world that comes to mind.
Creating a steady drip-drip of revelations which (finally!) engage both the media and recalcitrant right is probably how it must be done. It will require, also, that we demand a great deal more from our presidential and congressional candidates rather what I hear from some: "Just get enough Democrats in Congress and Obama in the White House and everything'll turn out okay." Not! That's wishful thinking/damagingly naive.
I'm reminded of the long, slow, agonizing, frustrating, and horribly angry process of changing enough minds in South Africa needed to dissolve apartheid and pave the way for power-sharing. Our job should be easier, but not that much easier. The hard-edged, angry political divisions and the manipulations of political (and judicial) processes which created the political and cultural shifts we're up against began decades ago. It'll take a while to straighten things out -- and we can expect a lot of frustration and dismay in the meantime. No quick fix.
Thanks for the clarification, PW. Don, a grant of immunity and compulsory testimony would be hard for Republicans to argue against. Who's going to fight learning the truth?