Alex Blaze

Don't drop a "Mission Accomplished" sign yet

Filed By Alex Blaze | January 20, 2009 7:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: Barack Obama, Bush administration, George W. Bush, international, international relationships, left, prosecutions, torture, war crimes

I hope that people get the celebration out of their systems today, because the Obama administration isn't going to be one long party.

Mission-accomplished.jpgThere's a lot of pressure coming from various parts of the Democratic Party telling us to be quiet and enjoy the fact that our president is not longer the douchey, idiotic son of a country club conservative, but is instead one of the most respectable prominent Americans in recent memory. That's great, but we can't stop there.

One of the reasons there was such a groundswell of support behind Obama's campaign was the hope that he would end the lawlessness of the Bush Administration. And while he's given strong indications that torture, politicizing the judiciary and the Justice Department, domestic spying, and indefinite detention are going to stop, that's simply not going to be enough.

He's going to have to prosecute the lawlessness of the Bush Administration or we're not going to be able to honestly say that everything's changed, especially since Constitutional and international law couldn't be clearer on the fact that the mission isn't accomplished until the lawbreaking has been fully investigated and until those people found to have violated international law are put in prison.

It's shocking how much the mainstream punditocracy has turned against the idea of any prosecutions after Bush leaves office. While the US wouldn't be saying the same thing if another country's president, prime minister, chancellor, or leader left office and was not prosecuted for war crimes, the US has decided that, once again, it's the exception to the rules.

But there was an interesting development Sunday from Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Indeed, that's a good question. The US pushed for the UN Convention Against Torture which specifically requires that leaders who authorize torture be prosecuted. Glenn Greenwald lays out the case for why this is, in fact, binding US law, and that every single excuse that's being floated as to why Bush Administration officials are off the hook - that it's unpleasant and uncivil to prosecute law-breaking, that we need to "move on," that it would be seen as about grudges and partisanship to prosecute clear and confessed violations of US law - is specifically mentioned as invalid exceptions to the Convention.

Legally, there's no way out of investigations. These abuses of power have to be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate. I'd suggest reading Glenn Greenwald's entire post, it lays out the case pretty cogently.

The idea, though, seems to be moving over to the fact that these sorts of prosecutions will make the US look bad, which is laughable on face. I remember when the story first broke about the black sites set up by the US in Eastern Europe to torture people - I was in the teachers' lounge in Lorient, France, and the conversation focused entirely on how the US tortures. There was a few "I know that not all Americans support Bush"s thrown in every now and then with a look towards me. But you could tell what they really meant.

The point is that this isn't a secret to anyone except for a large part of the US population. You can't blame some people - our journalists have done an exceptionally poor job at informing US citizens about actually material issues instead of who's giving whom a blow job.

As was pointed out over at Harper's this morning, Europe is expecting prosecutions. If Barack Obama is serious about changing the policies of the Bush Administration, this is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. Indeed, ignoring the abuses of the Bush Administration would be, in and of itself, an act of law-breaking, and a strong signal to countries we want to influence that American exceptionalism is still in tact, that the old paradigm of arrogance and cowardice (that is, fear of submitting to the same rules that bind everyone else because we would have to, intrinsically, give up some power) is still king in the US.

Ultimately, though, prosecutions should be about making sure that these crimes never happen again. With every president pardoning the sins of the previous administration going all the way back to Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon, it's no surprise that Dick Cheney's been going on the teevee and admitting to having broken the law. The thought of being prosecuted isn't even on his radar.

We say that punishing wrong-doers with jail time is about reducing crime, and while that doesn't work for every type of crime, premeditated crime that is devised by committees that pushes the limits of law enforcement over several decades is the exact kind of law-breaking that will be deterred with jail time.

This isn't a criticism of Obama, but a call that he take these issues seriously, and a call to all the rest of us to avoid thinking that, on the most fundamental problems that face this country, any problem that faces this country, the mission is accomplished. Our participation in democracy doesn't stop on election day, and it doesn't stop on inauguration day if the person going into office is amenable to us.

As I wrote yesterday, the effects of the Bush on politics aren't over. We'll be seeing his direct influence for years to come, perhaps decades (if we don't play our cards right). And the last thing we'd want is for Obama to be complicit in the continuation of these policies. It's a lot of responsibility for one person, but I think he's up to the job.

But what the transfer of power does do is change the landscape upon which the game is played, but if we think that we can stop now and leave the promise of change up to Obama, and Obama alone, then we're seriously mistaken. We have a responsibility (to Obama, if we want to think about it in those terms) to apply pressure to move him to the left for the next eight years.

Indeed, it's the only way anything's going to get done.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Marla R. Stevens Marla R. Stevens | January 20, 2009 7:50 PM

Impeachments of the smaller players first need not tie up significant legislative floor time as most of the procedings save the final vote can happen for the bulk of them in what are essentially subcommittees. And impeachment is important to protect the next generation. Consider, for instance, how much of the worst of the BushCo elite were Nixon staff who were not impeached then because they were considered to be too-small fish. But successful impeachment prevents future government service.

Well, I think we lost our chance at impeachment as soon as Pelosi was names Speaker, not that I know of anyone else in the House who would have done it. I'm hoping for actual prosecutions in a court of law.

And you're right, these folks have been around for a while. And every time a chance to prosecute presents itself, they get away and they repeat their offenses. If there was a drug dealer, perhaps, who was involved in major drug busts since the 70's, was never prosecuted because it would be too "divisive," and then spent the last 8 years involved in one of the largest and most violent drug heists in the history of the US, I don't think that these people who want Bush admin folks to get off the hook would be singing the same tune.

The Lesbian and Gay Band Association were great in the parade... and the baton twirller - fabulous.

The group behind the LGBA were The Azalea Trail Maids. GAWD, they were so gay!


I think they're a great band too, Storm!

Let's face political realities. I don't think we have a fillibuster proof senate. Without it, there's no way. We also don't have time, given the mess that psycho boy left. Even if we did prosecute, there's a chance of large backlash from the South.

No one's talking about the Senate. They're talking about a CJS investigation that would be part of the Justice department.

And there's a large chance of a backlash from the South on anything we'd attempt to do. But that doesn't mean we should attempt to do nothing.

You're right that we could bypass the Senate with the Justice Department. But we won the election because the economy was tanking. If we try to go beyond that mandate, there could be serious problems, not least of which could be a media backlash. You were probably too young to appreciate the character assisination against the Clintons. But trust me. It was horrific.

I suppose there'll be MSM backlash against anything Barack does outside of the economy. Even there, he's expected to cut taxes, throw some money at shovel-ready programs, and leave it alone. Oh, and those tax cuts have to go to the rich because then he'll be accused of using tax cuts as welfare.

The only other things he can do are beef up Afghanistan and eliminate social security, if he wants to keep the media happy.

I understand how bad their character assassination will be, but I don't think that he can just sit tight and ignore everything to keep them happy. There's got to be another way around that.

the us could hand it over to the international criminal tribunal and agree to support the findings.

"We", do not have to do anything, but cooperate with the ICC when it comes down to investigating and prosecuting the crimes of the Bush Administration.

The international community should be the ones to go after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other neo-cons. The crimes commited were against humanity, not just americans. the conventions broken were international in scope so let the world bodies created to enforce the laws handle the case.

I can see that, but the ICC is supposed to be the court of last resort, if countries fail to prosecute their own war criminals. And the US would never extradite to them, which means that Cheney, et al., would have to leave the country, probably to Europe or Japan, to be arrested.

But they should still be worried, I suppose. And to all those people who think that these trials would embarrass the US, what if Dick Cheney were arrested during a trip to the UK and tried at the Hague? That'd be even more embarrassing for us.

Robert Ganshorn Robert Ganshorn | January 21, 2009 2:22 AM

I am still surprised that Bush did not grant himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all others who participated a blanket presidential pardon before he left office. He had that ability, was he just too embarrassed to do so? I truly expected his moral bankruptcy to guide him, but I was wrong.

Clinton's pardon list got scrutinized and dissected, but Bush's? The "special prosecutor" looking in to "Whitewater" spend many tens of millions and cost the Clinton administration an ongoing distraction that was totally political in motivation.

It is an odd calculation about use of time and ability of the American public to concentrate in an instant information age. There is only so much that can be taken in and so much time to do it. With regret, "the things I would like to see" are subordinate to "the things the country desperately needs."

"We have a responsibility (to Obama, if we want to think about it in those terms) to apply pressure to move him to the left for the next eight years."

I agree! And part of that pressure involves working on our own bedraggled agenda as well (what's left any more, I sometimes wonder?).