No surprise that the Washington Post happily published this piece of Establishment CYA by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey. I swear that for the people that live inside the Beltway there is no crime abhorrent enough to warrant investigation, let alone prosecution, so long as the president is responsible for it. Issue orders to rape prisoners by instrumentation? No problem. Politicize the Justice Department and falsely imprison your political opponents? Big Deal. Use federal resources to spy on peaceful war protesters and on journalists and other American citizens without court-approved warrants? Who cares? Blatant perjury before Congress? Is that something to complain about? It’s as if nothing could ever cross the line. Look at this bullshit…
Attempting to prosecute political opponents at home or facilitating their prosecution abroad, however much one disagrees with their policy choices while in office, is like pouring acid into our democratic machinery. As the history of the late, unlamented independent counsel statute taught, once a Pandora’s box is opened, its contents can wreak havoc equally across the political and party spectrum. If, for example, al-Qaeda is nothing more than a criminal conspiracy — as some have claimed for many years — President Obama’s charge sheet has already been started. By authorizing continued Predator missile attacks against al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he has directly targeted those “civilians” with deadly force. That is a war crime.
Obama and the Democratic Congress are entitled to revise and reject any or all of the Bush administration’s policies. But no one is entitled to hound political opponents with criminal prosecution, whether directly or through the device of a commission, and those who support such efforts now may someday regret the precedent it sets. Claims that the Bush administration abused presidential powers have been thoroughly reviewed by several congressional committees, and the Justice Department is capable of considering whether any criminal charges are appropriate. If H.R. 104 or a similar bill is passed by Congress, Obama should nip in the bud this recipe for a continuing political vendetta and veto the legislation.
How about this? Instead of pretending that the Bush administration obeyed the law and respected the Constitution, why don’t we face facts and have a full accounting. And how about the Obama administration just respects the law and the Constitution so we don’t have to worry about prosecuting them when they leave office? Is that really so hard?
“policy choices”
Breaking international treaties and basic standards of decency and morality, spying on citizens, etc., are just hard choices all administrations have to make, I guess. They’re saying, some presidents may choose to break the law more obviously than others but that’s just a policy, nothing that should be investigated or criminalized. I bet they wonder why Nixon had to resign. Authorizing burglary isn’t nearly as bad as authorizing buggery, now is it?
Simple idea – very, very, very hard to practice under certain circumstances. If you have faith that Obama is a good/law-abiding person, you might consider his flip-flop on this sort of stuff as an indicator of such a circumstance.
<tinfoilHat>If you go for the idea that the ‘real’ reason for all the Bushite militarism was to prepare for an inevitable collapse of world order (AKA ‘Fire Sale’), then Obama might have to allow/do some nasty things he doesn’t want to be prosecuted for.
As far as my scorecard goes, a ‘Fire Sale’ IS the one justification that doesn’t require unimaginable evil, stupidity or both and accepts all the actions that contradict other publicly-stated reasons.</tinfoilHat>
What most people don’t understand is that the Washington Press corps is deeply embedded in Washington, to the extent that they go to dinner parties with these criminals. They probably engage in illicit behavior with them (cocaine is hardly a Hollywood phenomena).
So the press doesn’t want anyone looking at the criminals in DC for fear that their buddies will not only be ratted out, but might sling a few accusations their way as well.
It’s a deeply corrupt culture there, which is why they close ranks so quickly when any investigation is threatened.
Interesting that these same voices had no problem with the prosecution of Saddam after he was out of power and harmless, nor, in fact with literally ripping his head off. Somehow his “policy choices while in office” justified pretty much any “hounding with criminal prosecution”. But then he wasn’t one of “us”, was he? I guess that’s what’s meant by American exceptionalism.
It was actually some other dude’s head that popped off, but your point remains the same.
Come on folks. This is the opinion they had when Clinton left office,,,,,oh wait. Never mind.