I read Bob Burnett's excellent and timely post yesterday over at HuffPo, entitled "Bush's Day of Reckoning." I recommend reading it in its entirety. The topic is whether or not to proceed with criminal investigations of Bush, Cheney & their ilk over torture and any other violations of the Constitution. Bob does point out that incompetence is not a crime and focuses on things like ordering torture or illegal spying on Americans, which are crimes.
He points out that Congress will not take the lead on prosecution because they rolled over for Bush & Cheney at every opportunity. So, it comes down to Obama to take the lead on cleaning up the US Government, its checks & balances and the Constitution. In other words: the rule of law.
(Cross posted at The National Gadfly)
Bob brings up the two current trains of thought on the matter.
There are two schools of thought about what to do about Bush's misconduct. One, reflected in the writing of former Bush legal adviser Jack Goldsmith, argues that while war-time decisions sometimes are erroneous, there has been a historical pattern of shielding the decision makers -- from Abraham Lincoln through Ronald Reagan. Goldsmith contends that whatever abuses Bush committed have largely been corrected. And, to enact harsh judgment on decision makers would curtail their future performance, particularly officials gathering intelligence in the CIA and Justice Department.
The other school of thought, represented by Georgetown law professorDavid Cole argues that the federal system of checks and balances was broken by Bush and cannot be reformed, "unless we are willing to account for what we did wrong in the past."
Certainly, these are the common conversations. Bob comes down on the side of the latter, and so do I.
I want to comment on the first view because of its pervasiveness and the greater societal ill that it points to: a lack of accountability replaced by bravado and deception. The dilemma seems to be that if we hold our chief elected "executive" to the letter of the law to which the office is intended to uphold, then no one will be able to do the job correctly for fear of punishment. Or: "How can we expect hire a President, if he/she is obliged to obey the law?"
As described, it is a problem tilted toward allowing an executive in leadership free reign for the greater good of attracting good leadership. At this point in my life, when someone hands me a problem couched in terms that lead me to only one answer, then I feel like I'm being set up.
My immediate response was to state: "Bullshit!" After that lengthy oratory I asked myself some questions:
- Is the Constitution broken? Did it overlook some needs such as torture or spying on the country, in its construction? This argument would have us assume that such is the case. As far as I can tell, the only parts of the Constitution that are broken are the parts that were introduced to screw the public and shift power to the President to do whatever the hell he wants.
- Is there another solution, not listed in the article above and not talked about much either? If a President is not surrounded by people that can advise on how to obey the law, that is the real problem. How do we keep that from happening? Replace the President. Harass the President to choose the right path and the right advisers. The answer is that in a nation of over 300 million people - there is always another alternative.
- Who is responsible for what? The voters choose a President. The fault is ours. We can no longer pretend as if we choose someone every four years and we're off the hook until next time. Our President is our responsibility. Our If we want someone that will honor the rule of law AND perform the job at the same time, then we have the responsibility of electing one. If we are 'duped' into selecting a President that cannot or will not follow the laws of the land, then it is within our means to remove that person from office. I'm not saying that it's easy, but I am saying that it is doable.
- Should the accused set the terms for their own indictments? Should Presidents and/or their representatives (lawyers, paid staffers, media shills) or the GOP in this case, tell the public that it is for our own good that we don't pursue criminal charges against them? I hate it when someone fucks me over, then tells me "Don't worry about it." The answer is No. It is not up to Bush, Cheney, McConnell or any other politician. It is up to the Justice Department to investigate, or as Bob describes: a Torture panel. Either way, the rule of law must be obeyed and served.
What arrogance! The arrogance of the American 'executive' mindset from the last 30 years is one that brags of dynamic, aggressive leadership in pursuit of profit. The gunslinger mercenary with a negotiated contract, laced with performance incentives and golden parachutes sold to shareholders (or voters) as a person that can bring them huge gains of success. Our economy and politics (often intertwined) are polluted with numerous examples of this thinking. We know them by the many names they are sold to us "free market advocates", "deregulators", "corporate raiders", "capitalists", "mavericks" and so on. Of course, when their raping and pillaging is exposed, we have other names for them "robber barons", "embezzlers", "thieves" and my favorite "criminals".
We are living in the ashes of the "greed is good" sales pitch. The promise of 'trickle down' prosperity for us, if we choose self-serving, ruthless leaders who are paid well and immune from prosecution. It has decimated our economy and stripped millions of people of wealth, transferring that wealth into the pockets of lawbreakers, liars, murderers and thieves. As Bob quoted in his second point, the rule of law has been broken. The machinery of the law has been broken by deliberately breaking the law. The law, as it was intended is to create a level playing field - a meritocracy where all people have a chance to create a life for themselves. We have now an Executive branch that looks for ways to exempt itself from the rule of law.
The rule of law is not some 'issue' for the President to contend with. It is THE defining purpose for that office. The President is sworn to uphold the Constitution and to defend it from enemies, both foreign and domestic. The Bush era may come to be known as the 'Disaster Presidency', not only for the issues of Katrina, 9/11, Iraq & Afghanistan; but for the wholesale assault on the rule of law, public trust and the common good. The disaster of our Executive branch has been a long time coming.
However, the issue is before us now to hold our departing President to account for his deeds, his lies and his crimes. No threat from GOP legislator, President or media talking head is to be taken as the best course of action. We are not so bankrupt of choices as to be forced to allow a criminal to lead us and defend the rule of law. We are already worse off because we gave in to this threat over the years.
To paraphrase something I have heard in AA and regarding the office of the Presidency we might well say: "There is nothing so bad that breaking the law won't make it worse."
For the highest office in the land, accountability is not something that can be replaced with bravado and ruthlessness. It is only accessible with submission to the rule of law. The law works for everyone (especially Presidents) or it works for no one.
- gadfly