A Nation Of Laws

Over at Politico they have a debate going centered around this question, "Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush administration officials for detainee abuse as the NYT and others have urged?" My question is, "How could they not"? Republican operatives love to tell us that America is a nation of laws. It is what elevates us above every other country of the face of the earth. Is anyone asking if federal officials should consider prosecuting Casey Anthony in the death of her daughter Caylee? Is anyone asking whether officials in New York should consider prosecuting Bernie Madoff for ripping off all of his investors? Of course not. That is not to say that either one of those people are guilty of their crimes, I don't know and neither do you. But if they investigate and find pretty strong evidence that says they are guilty there is no way that anyone would say that they shouldn't be prosecuted for their crimes, so what makes our President any different? What does it say about America when we hold the lowest of our citizens to a higher standard than we do the highest? What does it say about our country when we even entertain the thought of NOT prosecuting our President if there is strong evidence that he committed a crime? And how do we regain our moral standing in the world when we push for prosecutions of war crimes every where in the world except in our own backyard?

I was intrigued to see what the response would be from some of the people on the right to that question. I was amused but not surprised to see several responses like this one:

Such prosecutions, warranted or not (and on balance, I don't believe they are), would distract and diminish the new Administration in a manner similar to what would have occurred had the same Bushhaters been successful in getting the Democratic Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. Congressional Republicans learned that lesson the hard way in the 1998 elections after they tried to turn Clinton's lying ("perjury lite") and cheating (on the future Secretary of State) into vengeance. If I were the RNC I might be saying, "go ahead, make my day." Dirty Harry is the only vigilante who ever kept his badge.

And besides, Eric Holder is demonstrably better at handling pardons than prosecutions.

I just have a hard time taking this argument seriously. How exactly would President Elect Barack Obama be diminished by the Bush administration being held accountable for the actions? Its almost presumed as fact that they would be found guilty and that shines a light on this kind of thinking. You rarely people even try to argue the point that the Bush administration did not commit prosecutable offenses. So where does this thinking come from about prosecutions diminishing the next administration? Obviously it didn't do anything to hurt George W. Bush because even after he stole the election in 2000 he still was about to push through his agenda and do pretty much whatever in the hell he wanted to. And where was this reluctance to prosecute crimes when Ken Starr was on his witchunt of Bill Clinton? Am I supposed to believe that its right to prosecute a man for getting some head, but wrong to prosecute a man for crimes against the constitution and international treaties? Please, give me a break. What ever happened to "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time""? And what does this tell you about a Republican party that tries to own the mantle of being tough on crime?

Recently on MSNBC's "Hardball", Chris Matthews had Christopher Hitchens and Mike Smerconish on to talk about the Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainee abuse which pointed the finger at the Bush administration and Don Rumsfeld as being the party's responsible for authorizing the abuses. It was a lively discussion where Hitchens made the case against torturing detainees for information and Smerconish made the case for doing so. It seemed to me that Smerconish's whole rationale was that the end will always justify the means. Then last night, again Tweety had two guests on to talk about the report. This time it was Congressman Jim Moran and Congressman Duncan Hunter making the case for and against torture and for and against prosecution of the administration for detainee abuses. But the meme in support of torture remained the same. Congressman Hunter focused on some unsupported story about information supposedly obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that helped stop some unknown terrorist attack. Another thing that both Smerconish and Congressman Hunter did was ask Tweety and the other guests if they would torture someone if an attack on America was imminent and the detainee had information about it. On both nights both Matthews and the anti torture guests had no comeback to that question. Well I for one do. I just might torture someone to stop an attack on America but I would also then after resign and expect to be brought up on war crimes. You see it is a terrible strawman question because the truth is there is no way of knowing if someone actually has information that you can use until AFTER they give it to you....or don't. But it really doesn't matter because the premise of the question is would you be willing to torture in any circumstance. Well torture is a war crime period point blank. There is no ambiguity in that fact. So if the new GOP talking point is "we did it but it was necessary" I say fine, let them say that. But what they are also saying that they committed a war crime and they should be prosecuted for it.

Actions should have consequences. If someone threatens my family with bodily harm its highly likely I will beat their ass. But when I am done I shouldn't be surprised when I get hauled off to jail. Yes I was defending my family from a potential threat, but I was also breaking the law by assaulting that other person. Whether the ends justify the means has no bearing on whether something is illegal or not. If torture is a war crime and it is, then torturing no matter what the situation is breaking the law. Just the other day Vice President Dick Cheney admitted in a televised interview that he helped to formulate and authorize torture. Hell I welcome their admissions now and their attempts to justify them, because at the end of the day they are still admitting to war crimes.

If I admit that I killed a man because he threatened to kill me, I be get prosecuted.

If I admit that I tortured a man because he had information I needed, I will be prosecuted.

If I admit that I kidnapped a man for what ever reason, I will be prosecuted.

So tell me why George Bush or Dick Cheney or Don Rumsfeld should get any better treatment than me.