The Way Forward on Holding the Bush/Cheney Administration Accountable for its Crimes
-
dlindorffWant to meet our members? Click 'Join' above!
By Dave Lindorff
As someone who has spent nearly three frustrating years actively
advocating the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President
Dick Cheney for their many crimes and abuses of power, I have to admit
that not only did it not happen, but that the likelihood of their being
indicted and brought to trial now that they have left office is
exceedingly slim.
While both men are clearly guilty of war crimes, and have in fact
admitted to willful violation of international law and the US Criminal
Code relating to torture and treatment of captives, and while Bush has
admitted to the felony of willfully violating the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), and while a good case of defrauding Congress
could be made against both men with regard to their claims made to
justify the invasion of Iraq, not to mention a host of other crimes
large and small, I think it is clear that the new administration of
President Barack Obama does not want to be seen trying to put the
president and vice president in the slammer (where they so deserve to
be). For better or worse, Obama has decided to pursue a less
confrontational politics in Washington.
That said, I would argue that there can be a good case made, both
legally and politically, for the convening of a Truth &
Reconciliation Commission, which could put all key people in the last
administration on the stand and under oath and klieg lights to explain
just what they did and why.
Of course, such a commission, if established by an act of Congress,
would on one level amount to letting off the hook people whose criminal
actions have led to the deaths of over a million people, including over
4500 Americans in uniform, to the torturing of hundreds and perhaps
thousands, and to the undermining of the constitutional rights of all
the people of this nation. And yet, it may be the best way to establish
just what the extent and nature of those crimes were, who was harmed,
and how to avoid such reckless and criminal behavior by a president and
an administration in the future.
Furthermore, if properly constituted and empowered, such a commission could still lead to prosecutions in the end.
Here’s how it might work: The commission would call administration
officers, whether former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld or Vice
President Cheney. Under oath, they would be asked what their roles were
in, say, the authorization, promotion and covering up of torture. If
they answered truthfully, they would be immune from prosecution for any
crimes they admitted to, but the world would know for all time what
they had done. If they refused to answer, or if they were to lie to the
commission, however, they would be subject to possible indictment for
contempt or perjury—charges that could place them before a judge or
even a grand jury.
Moreover, if lower-ranking members of the administration, called
before such a commission, chose the route of coming clean about their
role in administration crimes, it would both provide evidence that
could later be used to prosecute higher officials who might refuse to
appear and testify before such a commission, and at the same time would
tend to create a public sentiment in favor of prosecution. A key to the success of such an approach is that the enabling legislation would have to hold out the possibility of prosecution for those who refused to participate, or who lied to the commission.
A truth & reconciliation commission would have to be authorized
by an act of Congress, I believe, because only Congress could offer the
necessary waiver from prosecution for a capital crime like torture in
which victims have died, as is the case with the torture that US
military forces and CIA agents have engaged in over the past eight
years. But the new Congress should be willing to support such an act,
because, far from being retribution, the truth & reconciliation
process, which was used in South Africa, and which has been used in
other countries recovering from past criminal rule, could be presented
as a way of getting out the facts, and of restoring the country’s
international reputation, without trying to put anyone behind bars.
Moreover, I think that the vast majority of the American public
wants to see some kind of reckoning made with the past eight years of
secret government, official lying, and criminal actions by many of the
top officials of the land.
If South Africans can respond to generations of a criminal
apartheid regime and a police state with a truth & reconciliation
process, so can we in America.
It is, after all, the truth, not the punishment of criminals, however heinous, that sets us free.
___________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book
is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now
available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39249';
digg_title = "The Way Forward on Holding the Bush/Cheney Administration Accountable for its Crimes ";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n As someone who has spent nearly three frustrating years actively advocating the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for their many crimes and abuses of power, I have to admit that not only did it not happen, but that the likelihood of their being indicted and brought to trial now that they have left office is exceedingly slim.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';
- dlindorff's blog
- |
- Login or register to post comments
- |
-

- |
Top Actions
-
23,210 of 30,000

-
42,758 of 60,000

-
94,686 of 100,000

Comments
You want to be "set free"?
Are you in prison, Dave?
I want to deter similar acts by future presidents, so for me the question is what will accomplish THAT.
Nope
No I’m not, but I am thinking about what might be doable, and I don’t see a prosecutor on the horizon, and I’m not into tilting at windmills. (Been there, done...etc.)
Furthermore, I think, after a recent conversation with Barb Olshansky, that a well constituted and legally well constructed T&R commission could accomplish the goal of detering future presidents (the shame would be awesome). It could also lead to some lower-ranking people bringing out info that would force the top guys to either testify truthfully or risk indictment.
Thing about a T&R is that there are no grounds for refusing to appear.
And if anyone is caught lying, that is an easier prosecution case to make—both to bring and to prosecute successfully.
Argue with me.
Dave
Don't mind me...
I hear the laughter of a character named...
Sancho Panza in the background.
Gee Lootie, could I share your popcorn? This may get interesting.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Sure, no problem
I have plenty to go around. Buttered or caramel?
Dave...
...is incorrect.
;)
Jim, is that...
singular or plural?
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Y...
...ES.
I'm selling tickets...
and I don't have many left...
Who...
...you calling yellow?
LOL by the way!
These were not arguments
I would expect better of the readers of this site than what we're getting here.
By the way, for those who want to talk tough about prosecution,let me remind you that there were many in South Africa who were outraged and dismayed that
the new government of Nelson Mandela chose to go with a truth
commission rather than a sweeping roundup and prosecution of apartheid
era criminals. However, the work of the truth commission was
impressive, and accomplished much. It's not clear what a prosecution
approach would have succeeded in accomplishing.
In our case, we have had zero success with impeachment, and are not
likely to have any more success with gettiing a special prosecutor. The
new administration, whatever its fine words before election, has
clearly decided it doesn't want to be seen as aggressively trying to
put the last administration behind bars. I think it's wrong-headed, as
do most readers of this site, but that is the reality we're faced with.
I'm suggesting a way that could be sold politically, since I think
most Americans would like to find a way to avoid a repeat of the last
eight years. And if such a commission were properly constituted and
enabled, it could nonetheless lead to prosecutions, if the top guys
proved unwilling to cooperate fully and honestly.
I'll have you know
that there are no expectations of the reader. We can only interpret what you write. If we have misinterpreted things to read that you and your blogger friend were going to fist city, I suggest that it was because of something you posted.
I'm just here for the show. When does it start?
Frankly Lindorff, what worked in S Africa will not work here...
for a couple of good reasons. One was that S Africa was a nation of laws--the problem was that it was 'whose' laws and what those laws did protected as they were by a sizable force of militants. A Mandela-sponsored 'truth commission' would be more effective than street fighting between the various groups: Blacks, Dutch, and the English who inhabit the country.
We are having marvelous luck with impeachment here--the majority of Americans AND the Constitution mandate impeachment. Our problem with impeachment is Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid. Yellow-bellied snakes the lot of them.
Bushco is no more likely to go along with a wussy Truth commission than they would go along with any other attack against their illegal tyranny.
Those of you who suggest anything other than impeachment being effective have been smoking too much of that funny weed.
The only effective means we, the people, have is impeachment--that is if we choose not to have repeats of the criminal acts that have been allowed over the past 8 years. Nothing else will serve us in any way.
If you wanna play nice with criminals, that is your business. If you want to end the infection of criminal government practices, then impeachment is the only miracle drug around.
For 8 years, we have played the 'nice' game. It hasn't worked. It won't work. All playing nice has done for us all is give us a sandbox to feel important in.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Impeachment will not...
...come first, and for the reason you cite grinch: spineless "leaders". I'm seeing cracks however. Maybe the "damn" is in danger ;) At this exact moment, I see a truth commission as either a distraction OR another crack.
"Gentile" "innocuous" "ole man" Republican Dennis Hastert, SOLD Impeachment as no big whoop. That it was only a minor thing. That it meant almost nothing because there would have to be a trial anyway, so nobody should worry.
For Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid, a truth commission is about all I can see them being able to SELL. Sad.
Regardless, shit is going to be forced on "our" Dems. I'm guessing they'll be rooting for commissions rather than something with an edge, but I don't see this situation as contained yet...........for either Dems or Repugs.
UN?
The other night I caught just the tail end of a report about the head
lawyer for torture at the UN saying that if the US didn't go after
Bush, he would. Does anyone know about this?
JD
Holy Cow: Top Dems Are Serious
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." ~ Theodore Roosevelt