More on Torture

Aside from pursuing the Bush administration criminally would there be any benefit in writing new law to explicitly prohibit this kind of activity in the future? Much has been said about Bush setting a dangerous precedent and that the executive branch is unlikely to give the power back, perhaps the focus should be on Congress taking its power back by prohibiting this kind of aberrant behavior.

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget

The Borgen Project focuses on fighting global poverty and addressing the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it completely by 2025. An estimated $19 billion would eliminate malnutrition and starvation around the world. Our current defense budget is $522 billion, in comparison.

The Borgen Project (borgenproject.org) provides lots of information about this issue.

I would be all for prosecuting war crimes against Bush. But I just don't think it will happen. There has been ample time and evidence for the Congress to put a choak chain on these people, and nothing has been done. The dem leadership certainly has displayed no inclination to move even a resolution in the matter; they have extended FISA, they have endorsed the Bush view of the Gaza slaughter as we speak, in contravention to the rest of world opinion. As someone mentioned earlier, it may be a hot topic here, but to a majority of Americans, and in the current Congress, it is not on the radar.
.
I agree with Greenwald on civil liberties issues, but his views are certainly not overwhelming accepted (obviously). Joe, I enjoyed the old column about Righteous Bush more than I did the current one.

(T)here are much bigger things at stake.
.
This is a BS argument for inaction. Who would prosecute these crimes? Not Obama, not his cabinet, not the Fed reserve, not the DoD, not anyone who would be working on the critical problems listed. Will government cease to function if Cheney is questioned under oath? So just who will be distracted? The media? -who cares? media circuses happen all the time. The people? -we're more distracted by the latest Britney nip-slip, BFD.
.
IMO, the "distraction" theme is a smoke screen. Our government doesn't want to explore this because many "clean" officials will be dirtied; the media types won't because (1) they're afraid of embarrassment when they'll have to account for their past, (2) you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Boy I have really struggled internally reading my esteemed colleagues(no snark)who post here. And Joe while I know you don't directly interact with us who post thanks for acknowleding those who post and have points of view that are different from yours.
.
First and foremost, Klein and Greenwald should sit down and talk face to face (off the record). You both have more in common than you have differences. Joe, a challenge for you would be to have a on-air dialogue with Greenwald and engage in an exchange of ideas. I would find it useful and instructive.
.
I think common ground could be reached on the concept of a War Crimes investigation and/or Truth Commission modeled after the South African approach. There's no statute of limitations on what took place, so use the next 100 days to address the economy and health care. They inextricably linked to each other.
.
Use that time to complete an preliminary investigation to find whatever documentation still exists about these heinous events.
.
A thought about the US Congress. They are truly a lagging indicator of the change a majority of voters made in November. The democratic senate leader ship are the gang that couldn't shoot straight. They can't even seat an elected Senator or appointed Senator from their own party. The GOP thinks the Bush agenda was reaffirmed in November for the next four years and will obstruct, obstruct, obstruct until the cows come home.
.
Obama must be focused on the economy in the short term and get his agenda launched quickly. The fewer distractions the better. I agree with many of the commenters that you can't just walk away and take no action. However, there is no political will in the Congress or in the corporate media to move forward on a war crimes agenda. Tom Tamm the whistleblower who leaked the internal spying to the TImes is fighting against prosecutors when he should be receiving the medal of freedom.
.
The deck is stacked against a war crimes trial right now. But let's never forget the indignity and inhumanity that was perpetrated by President Bush and his adminstration over the last 8 years. Let's have all the truth come out. Our government instititution do not currently have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.
.
I know I'll face criticism from many of you and my ideas are probably flawed, but that's my pragmatic view of the world right now.

The vision of Cheney in manacles--which, I must admit, sends a thrill up my leg--is far more attractive to the people who run our media than the details of a rebuilt electric grid, which is far more crucial to the future of the planet but is not very leg-thrilling.

This is unfortunately right on. The public bandwidth has to be used very carefully. You *do* want to send the signal that crimes are crimes, and will be treated as such, otherwise we what's to stop high crimes in the future? But unfortunately, as important as this is, it has to be weighed against an agenda that must be carefully planned down to the last detail. If I had to choose between Dick Cheney's head on a pike or fighting big energy effectively and getting global warming under control, it's obvious what you have to do, unfortunate as that is.

Joe-

Regarding your shots at Greenwald, I wonder how you would act if you kept pointing out obvious media timidity and collusion with high government officials, only to watch the cycle repeat continuously? To put it in Greenwald's words: What would a patriot do?

Joke Line, spare me the self-righteousness. You're flat wrong, which you'll never admit because that's just how you roll (see FISA). So just SFTU, please, and move on to the next thing.

It's on, apparently. From Glenn's latest update:

"...Klein makes other arguments in his defense -- including his proud citation to an article he wrote in 2004 condemning Abu Ghraib (courageous!) -- which I'll leave to readers to evaluate [note that, contrary to Klein's claim, the OLC opinion asserting that Geneva protections do not apply to Guantanamo detainees, Alberto Gonzales' memo dismissing Geneva protections as"quaint," and Bush's formal decision declaring Geneva protections inapplicable to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees occurred before -- not after -- Klein's February 4, 2002 Guardian article mocking those who thought there was something to be concerned about with regard to treatment of detainees. Moreover, worldwide horror concerning Guantanamo was common when Klein wrote that article (indeed, it was that horror which he was deriding). Klein's attempt to depict himself as some sort of crusader for proper treatment of detainees is a bit difficult in light of those facts, and given that he wrote: "I would actually prefer [Guantanamo detainees] be dressed in pink tutus"]."

Any response, Joe?

Andy - I don't think there's anything wrong with what you wrote. You're pointing out ugly practicalities that many of us are going to have to accept.

Friar, did you open the liquor cabinet a wee bit early, today? Just asking...

It boggles my mind that anyone who claims to believe in democracy and the rule of law would also claim that capital felonies, Constitutional violations and war crimes should not be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted because it would be "impractical" to do so. There are countries where the law routinely looks the other way when powerful people commit terrible crimes. I doubt Joe Klein would wish to live in any of them.

I would love to see the Bush administration prosecuted but I as Kathy described in #21, there would be unrelenting coverage to the exclusion of anything else. Plus as mentioned in an earlier post by JNS, the Repub whining machine is already in gear and they are far better at their obstruction than they were during the Clinton impeachment.
.
I would favor investigation by something like the 9/11 commission, acting like a grand jury with the testimony available later.
.
The reason I think there should be some accountability is that Cheney, Rummy, et al learned their lessons from Nixon and Bush I and Iran Contra. Those cases were not settled. If nothing is done this time, the cancer that may be in remission for a few years will spring forth even stronger when we have the next Repub president.

Mr. Nice Guy -
_
I was in the middle of making a much longer post and came to the sad realization that nothing I was saying mattered, at which point obloquy seemed to be the only option.
_
Briefly: The evil has already been done. An America which can lower itself to the despicable acts of torture in which we are ALL to some extent complicit - for we allowed them to occur - can never again be worthy of the dreams of the Founding Fathers. We could salvage some sense of honor by trying the major players, both Democratic and Republican, and sentencing them appropriately, but the stain of the last eight years will never wash out.

And, I agree with Andy in his #31.

It will always be easy to come up w/excuses why we shouldn't look into this stuff and who's responsible for it. At the very least we need to come clean with ourselves and look in the mirror and find out what really happened.

Remember the 9/11 Commission? Bush didn't want it and tried to block it. If Obama pulls the same thing re: human rights he's no better.

ivb: "...the Repub whining machine is already in gear..."

It's always in gear, it is always ready to go. Let's, as they say, give them something to really cry about.
And the press will certainly cover war crimes prosecutions nonstop: that's exactly how it should be.
If we turn our eyes from this disgrace today, we'll have to face something much worse 10 or 20 years from now.

One last thing before I go to dinner, I suspect that part of the reason the Repubs are reving up their protests against the DoJ nominees is to distract from the idea of prosecutions and try to ensure that the ones they get in won't pursue. Specter is in full steam against Holder, with Grassley close behind. They are bringing up the Terri Schaivo case (go figure) against Thomas Perelli pick for DoJ #3 spot because he was a lawyer for Schaivo's husband.
.
These are typical of their tactics of making a lot of noise about irrelevancies to distract.

Joe, I think there is yet another practical point about holding this administration accountable for crimes committed:
.
Most Republicans in high office, I'm afraid, would be in jail.
.
We would have to look into Katrina, the current Paulson handouts, corruption relating to Haliburton, all kinds of K street stuff, you name it, they did it!

hla, I would agree, but I think we need new leadership before we can do that. I don't see Reid being the one to lead the fight.
.
But, I could be wrong. /snark

Suppose we let our war criminals off scot-free. What, then, do we do if the mother of an innocent murdered in Bagram travels to Dallas and puts a bullet in George W Bush? After all, prosecuting her would potentially be a distraction as it opens ugly old wounds.
If we can agree to give a pass to anyone who personally seeks revenge against war criminals we choose not to prosecute, then I say, let those war criminals go. It could actually be pretty entertaining.

The fact that TV political gossip shows like can focus only on EITHER justice OR energy stimulus does not mean that the US government cannot pursue both at the same time.

The people who got away with it in the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Senior White Houses were the architects of the lawbreaking in the Bush JR White House.
.
That is the problem with pushing it under the rug. In 2016, if a Republican wins the White House, the people whose crimes are going to be ignored, are going to be high ranking members of the staff.
.
Bush just appointed Elliot Abrams to a 5 year stint on the Holocaust Museum Board. Eliot Abrams! Without accountability, in 2017, our AG could be Addington. Our Secretary of Defense could be Doug Feith.

Of courst there's no way we could enforce the rule of law AND build infrastructure at the same time.
-
It's one thing to say that our country is too corrupt and morally bankrupt to enforce it's own laws. It's another to shrug to then shrug and say, "That's life!"
-
And for someone in the media to argue that we can't do it because the media has a short attention span. Well ...