Are you for a Truth Commission, or against it?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
19 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
I’ll support whatever mechanism brings the wrongdoers to justice without supplying the GOP with a rallying point around which they can unify their currently-warring factions.
I wouldn’t trust Congress to investigate the whereabouts of a mop in the Burger King broom closet.
No.
The sheer volume of the criminality and its origins in history suggest that a thorough housecleaning is in order. Truth commissions and their results can be distorted and twisted by history. Matters of law take longer to deny, twist and warp.
Once ALL the criminals responsible for the last 8 years and everything leading up to it are in jail, we can use truth commissions for other issues. Like, “who actually shot JFK, RFK and MLK.”
I’m sorry, but Carlos Marcello was nowhere near the criminal that LBJ was, I don’t care what Thom Hartmann says.
I’m for having charges brought and these jokers having to testify under oath before a jury of our peers.
I’m for these folks being treated like any other criminal.
If a truth commission can develop evidence, so be it. But granting immunity to these folks is granting them permission to lie with impunity. They have no shame.
For it. Karl Rove’s ass should have been in handcuffs a long time ago.
Truth commission is not going to put anyone in handcuffs. That’s why it’s not the way to go. These people need to be prosecuted.
Against a Truth and Reconcialation Commission. For a Special Prosecutor
Only if a truth commission would include prosecution.
you can count me among the loyal opposition to the concept of a truth commission. personally, l think all it would provide would be a platform for a lot of drama and face time for the pols and little, if any, closure.
the biggest potential problem is that it would, most likely, grant immunity to those who testify, effectively shielding them from any prosecution now or in the future. assuming they tell the truth…which based on what we already know, would certainly not be in their best interests…therefore opening them to them to perjury and/or obstruction charges. there is no reason to assume that there is any incentive for those guilty of, or complicit in, unlawful acts to cooperate, as opposed to lying with impunity….as noted in tarheel’s comment above…or even to hide behind the infamous l don’t recall.
frankly, we would be well counseled to join the ICC, and allow them to conduct a thorough and independent investigation with the full cooperation of the government and the assistance of a special counsel appointed by the DoJ, including, but not limited to, subpoena powers and the ability to arrest and hold those who refuse to cooperate, and to try those against whom charges are appropriate, in an open court of law …in the hague if need be…because it’s unlikely that justice will be served otherwise.
without a process that penalizes those who broke, abetted, ignored, and bent the rule of law to their political uses, desires, and advantage, it’s nothing more than another layer of lipstick on the pigs’ rotting corpse.
will that happen? not bloody likely. nor are we likely to see an independent prosecutor. this is going to remain a stain on the u.s. for a very long time. at the end of the day it would be “a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”…to paraphrase the bard.
That this question needs to be asked is repugnant in the extreme.
It’s up to you, the rest of the world. We’ve let ourselves down.
Yes to:
truth commission
prosecution of bush/cheney
navy off the coast of Gaza providing hospital/clean water/commerce
nationalized banks
karl rove prime time talk show
fox news only dubbed into japanese
and it is.
But it is more than we are going to get.
The crooks are not going to investigate themselves.
And Obama was not hired to do it either. Decidedly NOT in his job description.
What we will get are a few scapegoats. Maybe even Madoff.
And then a joyous proclaiming: The system WORKED!
And indeed it will have done. But it is not the system you think it is.
PS The Truth Commission worked in South Africa because the anti-apartheid was actually victorious, though tenuously so. Tenuous: Getting convictions in courts of law for the various crimes (torture and murder) that the previous government had committed was unlikely. So: The Truth Commission compromise–admit to what you had done, and gain immunity to prosecution for that crime. Such punishment as there was was the public promulgation of the information. It worked because the wall of silence had developed cracks, and individuals found themselves at risk of prosecution, so confessing became the better bet. It was a bit like turning state’s evidence here in the States, the difference being that a full public account was considered the most important thing, not getting convictions.
(PS)But it was possible at all because anti-aparteid had WON. In contrast, we have not. The possibility of Truth, let alone convictions, was lost back in the primaries, or earlier.
(previous comment posted accidentally)
“No Commission. Prosecute!” is what several prominent Republicans have said. This should give us pause. I have been calling for a SA-style truth commission since 2003. The problem with prosecution is that it is limited to what we know about in sufficient detail to justify at least indictment. A truth commission can and should be a fishing expedition. That was the secret of the South African commissions: you had to tell about every illegal thing you did or knew about. Any omissions and your immunity is gone, and all your testimony could be used against you. If one major figure – Gonzo, Rove, Scooter – spills his guts, it’s over for the rest. If we go straight to prosecution, especially given how clearly reluctant the Obama admin is (a truth commission could be driven by Congress, but not prosecution), the agenda will be strictly constrained, and most of the abuses will never see the light of day. As Dahlia said, either Obama agrees with Bush’s theory of the Presidency, or he is trying to shield America from truths he considers too much for it to bear. I’m betting on the latter – I don’t see how anyone could believe the former and still be an Obama fan – but if so, what we could begin to prosecute is the tip of the iceberg.
I had a conversation just yesterday with my sister-in-law who believed Iraq flew the planes into the WTC because “a lot of guys in the Army I’ve talked to said that”
Ordinarily, I would say we have enough trouble going on right now that we need to move forward. I also think Congress would screw the whole thing up and no one would wind up in jail no matter what.
But for the sake of history and to take one last shot at people like my sister in law to get the record straight and to undo the worst of the policies put in place in the last eight years, then maybe yes we need a Truth Commision.
What we need is prosecutions at the highest level.
What we will get in the Church Committee redux.
Sorry, but there it is.
Business as usual and hope the country does not implode anytime soon.
Too bad.
We coulda been a contender.
Now we’re just a placemarker.
AG
Seeing as Bush, Cheney and company didn’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution, habeas corpus, rights of citizens, rights of prisoners and had made a significant start toward erecting a fascist state, we certainly need a Trulth Commission. Call it an educational experience for rank and file America but we need to get the truth out about these Republican bastards. We owe it to future generations to at least acknowledge the evil that the Bushites represented. That is, if we value our democratic way of life.
“For it or against it” is irrelevant. If you’re still asking that question, you’re delusional.
It won’t be allowed to happen. Period. Too many Democrats are complicit in what Bush did. Leahy will say that he tried. And a few years from now, the Obama administration will release documents that will magically clear Bush of all wrongdoing.
The GOP knows that any smoking guns that the Dems will find will be pointed right at the Congressional Dems that signed off on Bush’s programs. Jay Rockefeller. DiFi. Maybe Leahy himself. Oh yes, and then people will ask “What did Obama know and when did he know it?”
No. This will vanish like smoke and fog into the night.
The historian in me is for it. Any information about real history is better than no information about history.
The activist in me is against it. If we can’t prosecute people for crimes we are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of mini fiefdoms, and that’s a terrifying proposition.
Where there is probable cause to believe that crime has been committed, there should be charges and prosecutions. Failure to prosecute crimes empties the claim that ‘No one is above the law’ of meaning and punks us all.
If a Truth Commission functions as a fig leaf to cover our contempt for law or our cowardice or both, I am opposed.