Conason’s Lost Truth About Reconciliation
Joe Conason has a new piece out in Salon that is enough to cause sane heads to explode. Noting that, like math, bringing accountability is hard, Conason biliously opines:
Here we have no such consensus and no revolutionary government with the power to mete out retribution to vanquished foes. What we have instead are the unrepentant officials of the Bush era, who continue to justify their misconduct as critical to the nation’s survival. We have a new administration, immured in a world economic crisis, that recognizes conflicting imperatives of accountability and cooperation. And we have a responsibility to explore how the nation embarked on "a dangerous and disastrous diversion from American values," as Leahy put it.
Is there a way for President Obama to pursue that responsibility without inflicting vengeance or humiliation? Perhaps he ought to consider the creation of a presidential commission whose aims would be purely investigative — and encourage the participation of those implicated in the abuses of the past by promising a complete pardon to anyone who testifies fully, honestly and publicly.
With that gesture, he would acknowledge the importance of uncovering the facts, no matter how ugly, while magnanimously binding up the nation’s wounds. He could leave the issue of criminal prosecution to international authorities that can act without any partisan taint. And he could seek truth without vengeance.
Conason waxes romantic about Sen. Pat Leahy’s much ballyhooed truth and reconciliation plan. Here is the money quote from Leahy:
We could develop and authorize a person or group of people universally recognized as fair-minded, and without axes to grind. Their straightforward mission would be to find the truth. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts.
That’s right, another blue ribbon commission that is going to solve our difficult problems of governance. Yeah, that is going to work out well because, you know, such things always do. Paging Lee Hamilton to the blue ribbon phone. The problem with Leahy and Conason’s commission is that there exists a body of law, both statutory and common, for a reason; for it to be the rule and for the rule to be enforced. Conason wants to be "magnanimous" and "pardon" and "leave the issue of criminal prosecution to international authorities that can act without any partisan taint". What a totally perfect bunch of tripe. Hey Joe, exactly what "international authorities" are you referring to here? And how are these "miscreant" defendants going to be rendered to justice by said international authorities? Is Conason saying he supports extradition of Americans to the Hague or other loci of international justice? Because if he isn’t (and trust me, his shallow babble doesn’t) then this chatter about international justice for the malfeasants is horribly idle.
Oh, and one more thing, when Conason notes that he and Leahy’s claimed brilliance is founded upon
using a process modeled partly on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of post-apartheid South Africa
it ought also be noted that not quite everybody considers that process to be all that wonderful, even in the tectonic change scenario where it is supposedly appropriate. From yesterday’s Washington Post:
But the ruling also stirred debate about how to deal with history in a young democracy that depicts itself as a miracle built on the notion of forgiveness. In a country where many blacks remain poor and many white perpetrators walk free, it is a question on which even the widows of the Cradock Four do not agree: What is best for reconciliation — digging up the past or letting it lie?
"We have had trickle-down reconciliation in this country," said Piers Pigou, a former Truth and Reconciliation Commission investigator who now directs the South African History Archive. "There’s been an absence of commitment to those issues because it’s likely to raise a lot of hard questions."
The main protagonists of the Bush/Cheney regime effectively reverse engineered our laws and Constitution in order to gut them of all meaning and effect, so that they could impose their demented whims of dominance and submission on the nation and the world. Their crimes are more than the violence of man on man that hold forth in truth and reconciliation commissions; the crimes of Bush and Cheney rip at the very heart of who and what we are, and were founded to be, as a Constitutiional democracy.
The half baked blue ribbon commission of Conason and Leahy will not address the heart of what has gone on, and it will never bring valid accountability for it. Good governance and the maintenance of the rule of law is hard, especially when truth must be spoken to power. Difficulty is no excuse for failure.
“…universally recognized as fair-minded, and without axes to grind.” Where are we going to find people like this, since anyone who has read any news in any format for the last 8 years, is registered to vote and did so in the last election, or has expressed an opinion on anything at any time is going to be viewed as someone ‘with an axe to grind.’ I think we need to just face the facts – these are criminals who need to be brought to the bar of justice. Period.
In this country,
used to beno one is above the law.Rule of law, not men!
Of course, unless you are white, rich, powerful, Republican.
–This country cries out for justice in illegal torture, spying, and abuse of power.
Yeah, but let’s at least admit that real justice about something like this would be a genuine first and won’t be achieved. Sorry, but I think Leahy’s commission may be the only route that can work in the universe as it is currently constructed.
Nevertheless, I agree that the crimes need to be addressed and restoring law is crucial.
We have a criminal-justice system perfectly capable of handling the investigation of war crimes. We do not need a T&R commission. We need justice, and although you won’t hear the Villagers talking about it, a majority of the country agrees.
DIGG was open when I got there.
Just how long ago did these cussed ‘commissions’ replace Grand Juries?
…The Warren Commission (Specter’s magic bullet cleared that up nicely), The 911 Commission (carefully avoided asking the questions that would have revealed inconvenient truths), The Iraq Study Group (Carlyl Group in disguise).
These ‘commissions’ appear to me to be in truth concealments of facts and evasions of the law, not revelations of the real story. The Great Ones will never admit to or allow the sheeple to ‘know all’ about the more than 8 year rule by The Dark Side.
They are also ridiculously slow and lugubrious. The moment is now, while there are still crimes able to be prosecuted under statutes of limitation. We also owe a duty to the international community, as well as to ourselves and our future generations to redeem what we stand for.
ah, bmaz! we agree!
and so does obama! no man is above the law. we’ll see how this unfolds; no need to condemn someone for not getting on the bandwagon when in truth they might be ready to provide more than ample horsepower for it. when the time is right.
i have a feeling the notions of such a commission are being tossed around to test the waters, trail balloons, as it were, it’s only been a few days since the latest polls came out showing only a third of the populace felt we should walk away, roughly divided on how to go about an investigation.
no one wants to misstep, so each move is careful and laden with question marks. and i think (on this we may disagree) proceeding with extreme caution here is highly appropriate.
meanwhile, rawstory has landed a quick interview with luskin, who says the W-WH is no longer supporting executive privilege, so that won’t play into the negotiations. and he says rove won’t plead the 5th. see? all we needed for this to happen was for ew to go on vacation.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0216.html
p.s. i’ve always found conason a bit bilious, myself. lost interest in his opinions long time ago. but this one takes the cake.
I’m sure Conason had a good game plan for how to put together that commission and make it apoltical too, didn’t he?
The fact is that we are not a nascent or emerging country and the model for emerged countries is Nuremberg, not South Africa. Did de Klerk ever tell the truth during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? I don’t think so, most don’t think so, but it’s not as if there were any consequences.
Since the Republicans want to play Taleban, though, why doesn’t Conason buy into the new, Pakistani solution?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..s_pakistan
We just declare a part of the counry subject to imperial rule and the other part not?
Aren’t these nifty, ez, solutions more fun than law?
3 – Exactly. When did our courts become off limits to Executive branch criminals?
With Cass Sunstein’s admonition not to “criminalize political behavior”, perhaps?
As you know, Mary, I think the converse applies, and certainly as regards the behaviors of Bu$h CO.
Glenn Greenwald has more here.
In a rational legal system, “crimes” are not crimes because of who does them. They are crimes because of what they do to society. Individuals have other recourse through personal liability or breach of contract claims. Society as a whole is at risk because of the behavior we deem criminal. That’s what justifies our using the awesome power of the state to investigate, prosecute, imprison or “judicially” kill you. The abuse of that power is the sum and substance of George Bush’s crimes.
Republicans and the DC pundit class that are aligned with them (nearly a redundant description) are complicit in the Bush excesses. It is likely that individual senior Democrats are as well. Complicit by silence, cooperation, enabling, approving, protecting.
Pundits, their media platforms, and most especially the conglomerates that own them benefited wildly during the reign of George Bush. Entire industries, mercenaries and private intelligence services exist because of them. Others benefited enormously when Bush chose to ignore laws, rewrite them in favor of private concerns, or immunize actors for violating them. Their pundits are returning a small favor in exchange. It’s what friends are for.
The question is how many Dems want on that gravy train and how many want to run a government in the interests of the governed. History says the latter happens only when the governed are in your face.
I just don’t understand the logic here. There seems to be no understanding of the whole concept of “immunity”. If you’re still subject to “criminal prosecution” by “international authorities”, then you don’t have “immunity”. And that’s what the Truth Commission advocates don’t seem to realize. The South Africa model worked (to the extent that it did) because it dealt with crimes that–as horrific as they were–were committed within South Africa. That isn’t the case here. We’re talking about international war crimes. If Germany had offered immunity to everyone who worked at Auschwitz after World War II, provided they just showed up at a committee meeting and told everyone what they did, do you really think the rest of the world would have honored the deal? (And don’t knock the Holocaust comparison. The difference is one of scale, not of kind. We repeatedly tortured people to death. There’s no getting around it.)
Exactly what I meant with this sentence:
So many faults to find with Conason, so little time…
We really do need to do a better job of teaching physics in our public schools. Conason seems blissfully unaware that one simply cannot escape one’s frame of reference. How one perceives the consequences of an action in the world depends entirely upon their frame of reference. On a rotating body, does a speeding bullet follow a straight path or a curved one? It depends on your frame of reference. I suspect Conason’s notion of a “fair-minded” person may not be the same as mine, since we are clearly viewing the world through different frames of reference. The entire premise is a false one.
Presumptuous, much? Who is Conason to say what is required to bind the nation’s wounds? I can guarantee you that without following the proper process for investigating and prosecuting criminal conduct, the wounds to our Constitutional framework, will not be healed.
Yes! The answer to Hitler was Nuremburg, not “truth and reconciliation.”
Which has had more impact on International Law and Justice? Nuremburg, or any of the Truth and Reconciliation commissions? In historical perspective, Nuremburg was a watershed; all the T&R commissions have essentially added nothing. Am I overlooking something?
Bob in HI
Oustanding. Law through the lens of projectile motion! And you are quite right I might add!
Thanks ; ) All the MSM bleating about fairness and impartiality was really starting to stick in my craw. Although those are laudable goals to be sure, what constitutes fairness and impartiality depends on the eye of the beholder. It’s why the MSM reporting has been so crappy the last several years. They are so convinced of their own objectivity, they are blind to their own biases, their own axes to grind as Conason puts it.
If Conason starts from the point of view of letting bygones be bygones, then someone he would consider fair and impartial, would by definition not meet my criteria of following the rule of law wherever it may lead. It’s a bullshit premise and it’s time to start pointing that out to the yahoos cheering away on the T&R bandwagon.
phred said, “I can guarantee you that without following the proper process for investigating and prosecuting criminal conduct, the wounds to our Constitutional framework, will not be healed.”
Depends on one’s definition of healed. Isn’t it fairly obvious to most that a plan exists, and has been working, to destroy the USA? What better method than to wrap the Constitution up in knots? Along with the economy etc. of course. Yes it is much more convenient to blame our troubles on an accident of incompetent govt, or an unfettered Offense Dept.
Realistically, it is impossible to “bring the perps to justice” given the folks currently in decision-making positions. Sad but true. I hope I’m wrong on this.
I think the bureaucracy is soul searching for remedies in a complex era in which congress has shown greatest alacrity to move when headlines are available to augment the next campaign’s coffers. Suppose Dawn and Marty find the draft memos T E Flanigan penned for Bybee, during the fleeting three months Flanigan worked on the project before returning to work for Tyco. Flanigan had stays at Greenberg Traurig, as well. And Abramoff, a liaison with Tyco. Seems a nexus exists. Leahy and Levin sometimes have a sporadic depth which often is beguiling; in a letter from ACLU to Specter and Leahy in 2005, Flanigan’s nomination to a senior post in DoJ was the object of opposition. Levin’s SaSC committee’s heavily redacted executive summary of the US government migration thru a series of research memos developing a torture paradigm omits entirely Philbin and Flanigan. For now, I do not trust Sunstein in the slightest; let him produce at OIRA; he has the post from which to effect a modicum of healing. I see what the Bush administration took as their easy course to responding to a stateless attack on the social fabric as akin to one of the residues of the eras in which European monarchies were fading from dominance, although the aristocracies remained landed gentries. It took difficult work from within reforming what then were equivalents to modern bureaucracies to effect change; and the first to pass the finish line, started more wars; typical of politicians. Sunstein has said a lot of worthwhile things, but even when Cheney issued the Rovian defiant claim that the only way to stop terrorism was to obliterate it entirely both domestically and abroad, with the 1% doctrine, Sunstein demurred, seemingly preferring to remain silent. However, I like his attraction for statistical evaluation of effectiveness of statutes in other realms. The graphic in the diary is apt, there is little in that chasm to provide restitution or vision of a way forward. Let the folks in office now show they mean reform by their appointments and actions, by their contributions to the federal register, and by encouraging congress to evaluate ways to strengthen safeguards so there is less likelihood a real totalitarian opportunism could take hold in some cranny of the bureaucracy in the future. There is a current academia-ExJudiciary memo circulating proposing to weaken the Supreme Court, which, in my opinion, is ill advised; it would provide some immediate catharsis, at a cost which would be unfathomably disastrous a generation from now, even though Jack Balkin is among those who have signed onto it. I got links, which may add later.
11 – yeah, and where was the backatcha that someone should have tossed him, to also not politicize criminal behaviour? Oh well.
Of course the biggest problem of all is the one that gets glossed over by Conason et al. If you want to talk, perhaps, about domestic spying, you could maybe begin to spin a bad argument for a truth and reconciliation commission.
But when you are talking about massive programs of picking up and arranging for the torture and detentions of people from not just the US, but around the world, combined with occupations of two countries under rules that specifically suspended the Geneva Conventions and allowed for massive civilian punishments —
— who is going to be sitting at the truth table for them?
How do you hold a truth and reconciliation commission and get cooperation on the truth front from all the countries invovled? Or reconciliation with the many victims, lots of whom are still not only unaccounted for, but apparently subject to the Holder/Kagan/Graham doctrine that someone who was “suspected” can be locked away forever?
It’s one thing to reconcile the US population to the fact that their gov lies, but how, exactly, are the Kurnaz, Errachidi, el-Masris, etc. or the orphans in Iraq or refugees in Jordan and Syria and Iran supposed to get reconciled just bc we had a pow wow?
Isn’t it inherent in a truth and reconciliation commission that you have not just the criminals running the show, but also the victims? How does a US commission address all the many and multinational Bush victims?
Perhaps Leahy needs to be queried as to how the victims might participate or even, as you say, have a hand in running the ‘commission’.
I think we shall simply chalk it up to Manifest Destiny, pat ourselves on smugly the back, and righteously (we are supremely good at that) move ‘forwards’ …
Actually, we, you and I, did say, right here, at FDL, in direct response to Mr. Sunstein, that America must not allow politicians to politicize criminal behavior.
But we are at the point where the main attribute (beyond deafness) of the Political Cla$$ is their ability to compromise on every single principle that finds its unhappy way before them.
One of the main factors propelling the 9/11 Commission was the group of widows and other family members that hounded Congress into moving forward. Perhaps we need an equivalent group of families affected by Bush Torture Inc.
I wonder if the 9/11 Commission might have been better conceived as a Senate Select Committee, with equivalent subpoena powers and the ability to refer for prosecution any apparent crimes? One important difference is that the 9/11 Commission did not conceive its responsibilities to include accountability and justice. Any equivalent Senate Select Commission should have accountability and justice on its agenda.
Bob in HI
Jonathon Turley sure has been stepping up to the plate on the accountability issue
“follow the trail of evidence wherever it may lead”
http://blueherald.com/2009/01/…..wn-012809/
Jonathon Turley on the truth commission
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/….._0211.html
The old Union Gents, and many other regular folks are waiting, watching, pushing and praying for justice. Especially for those who have died in a war based on a “pack of lies”, those who have been tortured, for the “vindictive”outing of an undercover agent, undermining our justice system. There is absolutely no way to truly move forward without holding those responsible for these crimes accountable. Unless our Reps want our nation to continue to rot from within.
The whole world is watching and so are old union gents and my children (all in their 20’s) along with their friends.
Obama, Holder “no one is above the law” Prove it. This is not about “vengeance” this is about the rule of law, integrity and justice
Bob@17 Just apply those standards across the board. Is that so much to ask? Can you imagine saying to the families of people who were murdered by Hitler’s killing machine…we just want to get to the truth…nothing to do with holding anyone accountable. Horseshit.
Dead, murdered, tortured,turned into refugees is all the same whatever the number
Contrast the smoke screen that pursuing justice would mean pursuing vengeance (in terms of war crimes here at home) with the Australian case, where the justice system is protecting a fire-setter from people who would lynch him, given the chance. Justice exists both to investigate and lawfully prosecute in addition to protecting a criminal from unlawful mobs.
I think we need to turn this whole issue around. And make it akin to how Australia is handling the fire-setter. You don’t say, ok we’ll forget about this because many citizens want vengeance. No, you say, we must protect the accused from mob violence, but we must assure the nation that justice is done, that the accused is accorded every protection but that societal norms and laws are satisfied.
It is a red herring that justice = vengeance.
We can’t allow the meaning of justice to be twisted by republicans, allowing for torture when they are in control and jettisoning the rule of law for the very control they abused!
Steams me no end!
Part of the problem though is that the same folks who are most adamant in protecting BushCo from their crimes are the same ones who look on our justice system as an opportunity to bring revenge. These are the people exemplified by Bush and his record of executions, locking folks away forever in prisons with no educational training, no drug treatment, no nothing.
Hey. Turns out we have a provision for precisely that in the Constitution.
It’s called Due Process.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Bob in HI
Gentle correction: Suspect. Not criminal yet. Otherwise we’re in Red Queen land.
I think the proper solution to this problem depends on what exactly we are trying to fix. If we just want to know what happened, then sure, Truth and Reconciliation or independent powerless commission… but if our goal is to stop the executive from doing crazy, illegal shit all the time, the law has to have some teeth! Slaps on the wrist won’t work. This is why executive power has grown so much… the executive branch just kept calling Congress’s bluff.
We need to reinstate a Buck-stops-here mentality to the executive branch by making people responsible for actions. If the president really thinks that extreme action is necessary for the safety of the nation, he needs to take action knowing full well that if he is wrong he will be prosecuted. Not only will it make the president think twice before action, but it will increase the quality of men who seek the office.
As I read the Constitution, this is how the executive branch was intended to work anyway… but modern constitutional interpretation tends to side more with Nixon (if the President does it, it can’t be illegal!). I just don’t think that telling people that “history will judge you poorly” is enough of a disincentive against abuses of power.
The question then is whether we believe that the Obama administration is devoted to the principle of hemming in Presidential power to roughly pre-Bush-II proportions. Yesterday Gregg Craig clearly said no, they intend to forcefully defend all powers of the Presidency. Was he accurately representing the President’s policy? We’ll see.
Don’t forget that the Conason piece also totally distorts the USA/Gallup poll to support his position when it does not. Jim White, myself and others have posted quite a few comments on the Conason piece pointing that out. Jim also sent an email to Conason to have him correct his piece. When I last checked earlier today Conason had made no such correction. Glenn Greenwald also made mention of the error on the poll information. Evidently Conason is either on his death bed and unware of what is happening or he is content to let his readers continue to read incorrect material. as long as it supports his own view. Quite frankly, the longer he fails to fix the info the more inclined I am to believe that he doesn’t give a hoot if he gives his readers wrong information.
Quite frankly, the longer he fails to fix the info the more inclined I am to believe that he doesn’t give a hoot if he gives his readers wrong information.
It would seem that Mr. Conason has an axe to grind, of some sort.
Leahy:
I believe this is what’s known as a jury.
Bingo
How stupid, we can’t clean up our own mess so ”international” players are going to enforce our laws for us?
Jesus they got Clinton in a shame and nothing happened.
Say all they want about 23 percenters talking smack – but they got nothing.
In this case turn up the rug and there is tons of shit under it.
I bet Bush stuck boogers under the reolute desk.
Questions from the peanut gallery (raises hand):
(1) What is the origin of “truth and reconciliation” phrase? I so intensely dislike it. And now you’ll tell me it was originated by Abraham Lincoln.
(2) Conason used to be a semi-regular on Al Franken’s “Air America” show. He was usually interesting and relatively on target. What happened to him?
(3) How are all y’all?
I read about one third of the 17 pages of remarks awhile back there at Slate, and they were unrelenting in their mockery at the stupidity and cluelessness of this blog by the normally sensible Conason…he got a good butt-whippin’ by all there…with hardly a murmur of support!
Something’s very very wrong, they aren’t the kind of crimes that laws were made to redress or prevent. Ordinary or even powerful people can’t commit crimes like that. Justice seems inadequate, punishment petty.
he got a good butt-whippin’ by all there…
Yes, and he will no doubt see it and think to himself, “look, the far left and the far right are both attacking me so this proves the piece really hit the sweet spot.”
I think war crime tribunals should be limited to interns and blue dresses. /s
I did so NOT enjoy some batshit crazy talk show host on Tweety’s show making a claim in so many words that torture is self defense and by god if someone comes into his house he’s going to shoot them dead. shooting in self defense is a far cry from the unnecessary cruelty of torture. FGS.
dosido,
I have sworn off tweety because he is all about obfuscation.
Remember, there can be no rational, reasonable discussion with irrational, unreasonable people.
Thanks for this post, bamz. Jane hit it hard this morning but it needs to be trumpeted long and loud.
Can the citizens themselves prosecute, without the Justice dept?
dosido…it sure seems that type of behavior is what really gets their justice juices going. Lying about WMD intelligence, starting unnecessary wars, torture in our name, undermining DOJ, oh and did we forget energy policies set up behind the curtain. Investigations into blowjobs gets them going.
the very reason the criminals were in the adiministration is becuase they were never prosecuted for their crimes in previous administrations
cheney/rumsfeld/wolfowitz were already responsible for fabricating data to undermine nixon’s detante and bush would have never ever been elected had his father been brought to the bar of justice when he defied his president (reagan) and congress, instead selling arms to the terrorists that brought us to our knees
OT – Luskin advises Rove: Your immunity is not absolute.
OT – psst, bmaz
Stevens prosecutors removed
Of course, the big enchilada is the heinous war crime of sending our troops off to kill and be killed in Iraq on a lie. Exculpatory evidence re: WMDs was willfully supressed. Also, we intentionally bombed Iraq’s infrastructure into rubble so it couldn’t be repaired with Soviet-era parts but rebuilt with gold-plated Bush campaign contributors parts and labor. The list goes on and on.
I have to profoundly disagree with Bmaz and many others here. I simple don’t believe a relatively few legal proceedures against just some of the obvious sinners in the Bush Administration gets us where we need to go. And in the end, that is less about putting a few choice folk in jail, but achieving a political/cultural understanding of what disasterous things they did in the broader sweep of history, and above all why. I do not believe that the straightjacket of limiting evidence to what can be produced in a trial, given the normative court rules, achieves the end of what and why.
I too dislike the term Truth and Reconciliation — it is not my model. I prefer essentially American models, Sam Ervin’s Watergate Committee followed by the Rodino’s House Impeachment Hearings, or going back historically, Senator Tom Walch’s hearings on Teapot Dome in the 1920’s, or even Truman’s series of hearings on waste, fraud and abuse during World War II. All of these processes allowed for prosecution after facts had been established in their larger contexts, people who either lied or did not cooperate were tried, convicted and served time — but at the same time, and outside the rules for admissibility of evidence and testimony at trial, in all these cases the general public came to understand the deep flaws in political culture as well as the individual bad acts for which accountability was demanded. You need both, and a few trials will not produce what is needed now. Good Lord, they would be in Federal Court and could not even be televised. Whatever the process, it has to get us to the point that no one admits to having voted for Bush — just as after the Ervin Hearings, the polls showed that 75% of the voters claim to have supported first Humphery and then McGovern. Ultimately, in our system, a bad leader and leadership style and content is the responsibility of those who voted for it.
This is all very simple. the bush regime committed crimes against humanity, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people. They deserve nothing short of the maximum punishment under the law – justice and the rule of law demand it. They committed their crimes because they are psychotically disturbed people prone to sadism and certifiably disconnected from reality. Failure to at least prosecute them guarantees that future republican administrations will engage in even worse criminality, criminality the likes of which our Constitutional government will not likely survive.
fwiw, I agree with you. And I note that in the lynch mob crush to condemn Conason — whose track record really does deserve a tad of respect — which is so very typical of this place, no one besides you has even bothered to acknowledge his most fundamental point, which is that this may be the only REALISTIC way we’re ever going to get to the truth AT ALL.
But hey, what’s a little realism and restraint when you can tear out the throat of a guy who was a consistent voice of reason and progressivism throughout the last eight-year nightmare.
Sara, unless I misread you, you also appear to favor prosecutions:
Conason stated point blank there should be a complete pardon. It appears to me that you are in favor of what most of us here favor, you just want to get there by a different route. Am I mistaken?
Like Sara, I simply don’t see that legal cases will help people understand what occurred. There needs to be a larger, better scoped process that precedes indictments so that people understand the ramifications for their own lives.
For instance, they need to understand how and why:
– torture placed American military members at greater risk of violence, and how prosecuting Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo, etc for criminal conduct actually makes uniformed military safer.
– the Abramoff-Rove-Norquist trio and the lobbying in DC are a symptom of absolute corruption and the ease with which third parties can gain control of government (including its military, diplomatic, law enforcement, and surveillance resources).
– how the ‘revolving door’ culture of DC: think tanks > Hill staff > academics > media > private security lobbyists are all playing musical chairs in DC and therefore bad ideas flourish because the knowledge that matters in DC is about social networks, not about technical, scientific, or research content… how did that lead to gutting the Constitution? Did Douglas Feith view his DoD position as a stepping stone to a hefty lobbying contract or a fluffy Think Tank spot? Of course he did; how does that factor in to criminal conduct?
I could go on, but… I’ve made my point.
If there are trials only, then people will not learn what they need to understand in order to insist — from the depths of their hearts — that the corrupt structure in DC be torn down and better structures created.
In an interview on Morning Joe today** Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame let the cat out of the bag: Congress is barely functional. He’d come on to discuss Hillary Clinton and said right off the bat: Clinton and Obama both figured out in a very short time that the Senate is a dead end. As Pres and Sec of State, they have a lot more latitude to get things done. And much of their modus operandi involves going around a completely dysfunctional Congress.
Chuck Todd hopped in to point out that Congress – as an institution – is completely overwhelmed in the 21st century. It’s system of seniority actually elevates ’seniority’ over all other qualifications.
So ’seniority’ trumps brains.
‘Seniority’ trumps fresh ideas.
‘Seniority’ trumps innovations.
‘Seniority’ trumps skill.
‘Seniority’ trumps courage.
‘Seniority’ trumps integrity or ethics.
‘Seniority’ trumps creative approaches.
I despise and detest Bush, Cheney, and their accolytes.
But that begs the question: how was Congress so easily punk’d by them?
How was it that they installed their Parallel Government in DoD so easily? So fast?
All the legal cases that need to occur won’t answer those questions.
Until those questions are answered, we’re going to have a repeat.
In the 21st Century, Congress has to change — as an institution. I don’t mean recklessly, and I don’t mean radically. But it must move with the times.
All one had to do was watch Tom Coburn, and Mitch McConnnell, and Kyl last week on the floor of the Senate and think: We. Are. Totally. And. Completely. Fucked.
This is systemmic, and Bush and Cheney are reprehensible.
But this is a systemmic, deeply rooted problem.
Simply having a series of court cases will not address it.
Comment is too bloody long — sorry, bmaz 8(((
** Yeah, I know… what was I doing watching that? Sigh….
Yer quoting freaking Chuck Todd to me as authority for something??? Yikes.
Okay, since I’ve gotta be #1 on the Shit List for this thread, I can only say that I take Chuck Todd’s comments as a ‘tea leaf’.
We’ve been pounding the keyboards at EW’s about… 3 years now…?
Now, finally, Bernstein’s saying: Clinton has to be relieved to be out of the Senate. And he as much as said: Obama got to the US Senate, took one look around, and quickly realized that if he wanted to make change the US Senate was not the place to get it done.
And Todd is not only agreeing, but he’s adding more evidence as to why Bernstein is correct.
The frankness of this discussion comes after last week’s embarrassing GOP caterwauling on the Senate floor, and IMHO it’s a good thing.
However, it also underscores why Mary @76 makes a sequence of absolutely brilliant points. (If Mary reads this, I have one request — PLEASE put your comment into an Oxdown Diary!! A lot more FDLers need to read it, IMHO.)
Sara, I understand your point. If all things were equal and fair, I would agree. But they are not, and I have absolutely zero faith that any useful commission, or process underpinning it, will be created. I think it will be another bogus “bi-partisan confabulation of the usual “bi-partisan” suspects that will be spoon fed a limited and cherry picked evidence set and/or will agree to constrain evidence and/or findings amongst themselves, to produce the equivalent of a harshly worded letter that holds nobody really accountable for anything. Just like the worthless 9/11 Commission and ISG ended up.
You and your readers have already pointed out the inanity of Conason’s position, bmaz. I’ll just add my voice to the chorus here. “Truth commissions” are seldom about the truth. They have none of the intellectual rigor of scientific study or a courtroom. They’re the McDonalds of truth – a little nutrition and a whole lot of fat.
chorus indeed.
Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Wonder how George Orwell ever predicted FDL.
If you don’t like this place, why are you hanging around?
same reason Jane and bmaz are hanging around Conason.
thanks for your continued support. Say good night Gracie.
apparently determining the truth has become mutually exclusive with convicting criminals. When did that happen?
conosan is a douchbag
we don’t need to ”Bind our wounds” by covering our shame with a bandaid
we need TO HEAL THE FUCKING WOUND
and criminal prosecutions are the medicine for the CANCER ON AMERICA
don’t forget the story about blind acorns finding the occasional squirrel
Bottom line for me is truth+justice > truth >> nothing. But put Cheney, Addison, Gonzales, Yoo, et. al. in a courtroom and what happens? They 1) lie through their teeth; 2) invoke executive privilege/state secrets even if denied by the judge; 3) plead 5th amendment protection even if granted limited immunity; 4) stall and grandstand and evade; and 5) contract selective amnesia. Does any of this help? Maybe they do a Judith Miller for contempt. So my scenario is offer them a choice of the regular courts or limited immunity in exchange for sworn testimony- no lawyers whispering in their ear, no sidebars, no 5th amendment – live on cable. Would they take the option? I’d guess not, but just having the process might be a bit salutary.
But but but I want to see Leahy say to Cheney, ‘Fuck me? Fuck you’.
The Republicans ought not get their hopes up that their torture, and that of their allies, will go away in time for them comfortably to return to power without losses in their ranks.
The Guardian has an exclusive about the British franchise of Cheney’s Tortures ‘R US:
It affords no one comfort, but British prisoners have apparently been freed. Republicans kept theirs locked up so as not to spoil their electoral prospects and to keep themselves out of jail. So far, Mr. Obama is obliging.
ever seen what a jury does about defendant behavior such as you describe ???
put em in front of a jury
it didn’t work for scooter
I don’t think America is going to excuse the bushbots for anything
but let’s find out …
After eight years in the political wilderness, Joe Conason can now count himself amongst the Establishment Mouthpiece Sycophants Society.
Not once does he consider the fact that without prosecutions, the Obama administration becomes Accessories After The Fact to BushCO war crimes. Not once does he consider that without prosecutions, these dirtbags will go home, lick their wounds and come back to do even worse things in about eight years. Instead, he follows his fellow travelers leads in mentioning the economy, as if that somehow has something to do with whether or not the ruling class is even remotely accountable to the law of the land.
If Joe Conason can justify singing Kumbayaa with a bunch of torturers, I suppose he can justify anything at all.
He isn’t even inside the government, yet he’s already being corrupted by power. How pathetic is that?
a few letters short of an alphabet soup.
“Sara, unless I misread you, you also appear to favor prosecutions:”
Yes — in the manner that Halderman, Mitchell, et al., finally were tried in Federal Court in DC — but by the time they were convicted and sentenced to jail, we had a darn good understanding of the Narrative of Watergate, and Nixon was long gone. Congress was also primed to legislate by the time they were convicted, even though their efforts fell short. Presidential Records Act, the Freedom of Information statutes, the War Powers Act all emerged because of truths uncovered during Watergate, even though they now need to be revisited and vastly improved by being made Cheney-proof.
I too appreciate Conason. In terms of reporting and following up on it, he did supurb duty at the time of the faux impeachment of Clinton, and during the Bush Years, he clearly followed through. I think he understands that this is less a choice between black and white — Trials or some sort of high level investigative Commission, but it is a both/and proposition. One can hold complex and detailed hearings first, with subpoena powers and all — and then those who lie, or don’t cooperate can be referred for prosecution if the necessary evidence is available and could be introduced under trial rules.
While I believe if the votes are there in the Senate there should be a strong move to declare Torture, Lying to start a war, and political use of the DOJ and other agencies crimes with clear penalities — I think there are many other things the Bushies did that may be even worse, and are not so easily captured in a Trial. People know this, but they don’t know the particulars. Political/Ideological use of the SEC, and other financial regulatory agencies strikes me as something we need to know much more about, and much of what they did may not have actually been criminal, nor was it actually done secretly. But look at the mess they made — internationally as well as domestically. We need the whole picture. Who profited from their flagrant abuse of the Financial Regulatory Systems? Getting at the exact timeline for Torture memo’s will not get us to an understanding of the Collapse of the Financial System. You see, I want all this stuff investigated to the extent that even a casual viewer of TV has the full picture. I also want to lay the groundwork for a much stronger reformed Financial Regulatory System that can’t be fucked up by the likes of Bush/Cheney.
I am not all that concerned whether or not Obama undertakes to sponsor either Trials or Coherent Investigations — his job now is to fix things, and I want him focused on what he has to do to accomplish that. His plate is now heaped to the breaking point, and I am not about to add to it unless investigations lay the ground for more fixing.
Dangit, this is a great post, bmaz, and I couldn’t be around today to join in the fun. Thanks for tearing apart the so-called “ideas” in the Conason piece.
If you like this, go check out Jane’s at the mothership. If you like this, you will really like hers too.
Yeah, I loved it, too. I came here from there. Glenn’s post today was great, too. After many of us hammered for several days, Conason has finally changed the passage in the article where he originally twisted the results of the Gallup poll on crimnal prosecutions vs. investigations vs. doing nothing. No explanation from Conason or from Salon, just a whole new first paragraph of the article, many hours after the comment thread was closed.
That’s pretty cowardly behavior in my book…
55 – ” no one besides you has even bothered to acknowledge his most fundamental point, which is that this may be the only REALISTIC way we’re ever going to get to the truth AT ALL.”
I disagree, but that is probably in part bc there have been multiple discussions here already of the truth and reconciliation approach. Still, to address that, Conason never bothers to describe WHY a T & R commission is a realistic way to get to the truth, and the truth is that it is not.
Let’s start counting the reasons. First, you have to have a mechanism to appoint a commission. That means starting basically from scratch, outside our normal and normative institutions, to put together a process. Is it going to be done by legislation? Funding? How does all that get put through a Boehner/Pelosi/Reid/McConnell Congress? Do it as an outgrowth of just the judiciary committee? Oh yeah, Hatch and Graham will be so much easier to deal with than Boehner and McConnell. Uh huh. Or wait – maybe we do it solely by regulation and let the Exec branch structure and administer – that sets the right precedent and insulation, right?
Second, you get past all the time and money and fighting issues to get a process for the commission established. Set it’s mandate. That’s right- start trying for that. Is it lies into the Iraq war? Torture? Politization of DOJ? Renditions? Reparations? Lies to Congress? Violations of Exec Orders and laws on classifications? On domestic propaganda? Find a coherent mandate and set it.
Third, staff it – for the mandate you’ve given it, without politicizing the staffing. In that – go find anyone who was happy with the 9/11 commission and couldn’t have foretold the outcomes.
Fourth, give it enforcement powers – you know, like Congress has? Do you really think you can have Congress create a commission whose enforcement powers will be better than those of its creator? How will it compel testimony – via a justice dept that is already actively defending the non-prodcution of information in court proceedings? This alone is a topic that could go on and on and on.
Fifth, what prevents further destructions of evidence during the interim as this is being set up?
Sixth, what is the carrot for truthfulness about crimes such as killings by torture and torture, when those crimes are international crimes? Esp where the commission of the crimes and the victims of the crimes are multiational? Do you have the CIA agents currently being tried in Italy confess in the US to the committee? Um, then what about other countries – we aren’t talking here about a normal, intra-country T & R, we are talking about a host of different nations involved in the conspiracies and complicity with the crimes (if a CIA agent tells “the truth” to our commission about what a MI5 agent did with them, then that opens up criminal issues for not only the MI5 agent in Britain (or the country of the location of the crime, or of the nationality of the victim, etc.) but also for the CIA agent in Britain.
I could go on and on, but any thought process that this would be a “realistic” way to deal with things is very Pollyannaish IMO. And any thought process that a T and R process will help the country is not only wrong (did the Church commission prevent what Hayden and Bush pulled off, even WITH the resulting criminal legislation incorporated in FISA???) IMO, but also misperceives the victims in large part. Our reconciliation isn’t an internal issue – it is an international issue. We have harmed so many countries in addition to our domestic law.
I could understand a T & R commission for something non-mainstream criminal, like for how the Iraq war was instituted.
But for the rest, you use an unwieldy, to-be-constructed process that will be politicized at every front while clocks tick on the establishment, SOLs run out, evidence is destroyed, etc. and where the actual criminals have so many international considerations for their crimes (and there are so many issues of diplomatic relations involved with our co-conspirators in torture crimes at the nation-State level, that there is flat out no incentive for truth-telling in one forum bc it does not protect in all the other possible forums where that “truth” can be used for criminal charges. We, the US, are not the world court to hand out worldwide immunities for the crimes we initiated.
But yeah, right, the problem is that no one is giving Conason his due.
great analysis & synthesis!
Mary, every single point that you make here is brilliant — absolute bull’s eyes all the way down the list. Your #2 is probably the one that worries me the most.
When I look at this clusterf*ck left behind by Bush — and I completely agree with oyu that it’s complicated by the ‘global/international’ ramifications (!) — one of my concerns is this: “how are people who are functionally illiterate (in the US and elsewhere) going to process information about courts, laws that are obscure to them, and the minutia of legal procedures and competing legal strategies?”
My experience and the research that I’ve read suggests: They. Won’t.
Then add another layer — like the insipid, nonsensical blather the MSM generated in having GOP Congresscritters on the teevees to talk about the Stimulus Package, while the articulate Dems were not allowed near a microphone. If the MSM can’t explain the damn Stimulus Package, or even point out that the GOP had its head completely up its ass in terms of sane economic theory, what kind of information will the public receive?
Because… let me put it this way:
1. Having lived and worked among people who are still living in ‘tribes’, or ‘clans’, their ideas about ‘justice’ are pretty much absent of written laws, or written legal codes, or criminal justice systems. For them, it’s about the elders meeting to discuss the outcome of what will happen to Member X (in extreme cases, cutting off all further communication and not allowing them into the group ever again).
Now, given what I see of news about Pakistan and Afghanistan, what are the odds that anyone watching from those places could even begin to follow the intricacies of a legal trial? Of ‘attorneys’? How could they ever begin to believe that the US in a nation of laws and a system of justice?
Why would they believe that America stands for anything but grabbing whatever the hell we please? Why would they trust us?
This is where I believe that Sara’s perspective is critical.
People need ‘a story’, for lack of a better term. They need to see The Big Picture.
Short term, unethical behavior always seems to pay off.
But long term…. that’s when Lady Karma swings into action.
For at least 2,000 years, people have listened to stories as long as the Iliad, which was probably told aloud over ten consecutive nights.
The Troubadours were oral storytellers; night after night they played their lutes and sung of paramours and cads.
Lordy, even Shakespeare rhymes because that made it easier for the casts to memorize those witty, long passages.
You are exactly on target in every single one of your analyses and concerns.
I hugely respect the comment, and the significance of the problems that you point to.
At their best, blogs have the capacity to ‘leverage’ different perspectives and points of view.
I (obviously) didn’t pursue law. But I understand that there are people in this nation in jails and prisons who do not read well enough to understand the laws that put them there.
Now extrapolate that to a completely different culture, and add onto it huge portions of populations in a country like Afghanistan where as many as half the adults are probably illiterate.
From a foreign policy perspective, what a nightmare (!).
But how would they ever have any reason to trust, respect, or believe the US if all they see are Bush, Cheney, and the rest of those highly paid swine having rich attorneys bullshitting the media (see any of EW’s analyses of that sh*thead Luskin)? All they’d see is that rich people pay to avoid having anyone, anywhere, ever call them to account.
The world is getting to small for that.
If my hunches are correct, and we’re looking at a situation where those of us who are Americans want to believe that this nation can be restored, then every bit of my experience and background convinces me that this needs to be a two-phase process:
First, do the commission because you have to figure out ‘the story’. And that’s why your analysis is so important — you point out that getting that phase done is nearly impossible. But I’m convinced that without it, the courts and law phase – let alone life sentences for Addington and a few others, will really not be possible.
Second, the law phase. And sorry, but Nina Totenberg may be able to explain it to the NPR audience, but my slim grasp of Islamic law suggests that this is where it is absolutely critical that Phase One occur, so that people who have no history of our type of criminal justice system can follow the main points.
I realize that very few believe that Bush could ever be brought to justice, let alone Cheney, et al.
It’s not even rational to believe it possible.
But I remind myself that grass grows up through concrete, a black man was elected President, and that miracles happen in the strangest of ways every single day.
The world is simply too small for the monstrous actions of GWBush and Cheney to go unpunished in a civil society.
But explaining why and how that happens is a huge, complicated task and if it’s screwed up, then I fear that the misperceptions and distrust will only be compounded internationally.
Man, I’ve gotta be at the #1 spot on bmaz’s Shit List for two comments this long in one week, let alone on the same thread… sigh….
(In my defense, thin as it is, I hope that my interest in adult illiteracy brings some info that no one else has tossed into the complex mix. As for Conason, his “It CAN Happen Here” is superlative.)
Okay, agree. But 2 nits: Shakespeare’s casts spoke blank verse, and the Troubadours were codifying very sophisticated, secular allegories in their service of the Cult of the Virgin.
Wow! Good catches!
Humble thanks for correcting my inaccuracies.
Blank verse: meter, but no rhyme. Shakespeare wrote it, spoke it, left it for us all.
Troubadours and the Cult of the Virgin… I’m willing to take your word for ‘codified’, but no confirming recollections come to mind. I always think of them as carrying on the spoken traditions, as with ‘bardic memory’ — telling episodes night after night, “Arabian Nights” style (’No sire, I shall not leave your lovely fire and good wine until I’ve finished the entire story cycle, which I will guarantee must last at least all winter, as I’m damned if I want to be out on foot in the snow…”)
Useful mainly in considering Mary’s excellent point @76: how in hell would you even make sure you had the correct scope, funding, staff, and strategy for a good, in-depth investigation that people could follow easily…? Big challenge.
Ayoi…!
‘Codifying’ isn’t my word of preference (though I mean it), I would really mean ‘transforming’. The troubadours used Christian and Church imagery transformed into ‘courtly’ and passionate behaviors (and they transformed old Roman texts). (In another related sense, Soul music transforms Gospel music’s ‘Jesus’ into ‘Baby’.) Yet there was a code of behavior they described, and later, Shakespeare’s Cassio and Desdemona know the code, but Othello and Iago don’t know it. Oh, and btw, you’re also right: when Romeo and Juliet meet, they exchange the parts of a Petrarchan-style (rhymed) sonnet in English!
It used to be that people learned about things after they happened, from reporters, couriers, or historians, but not while things were happening, except when they went to the theater.
Lovely. I’d not thought of the theater in that way, viewing early Shakespeare as adaptations of medieval Mystery Plays, but those were still moral tales. (I thought ‘current events’ were told via Punch N Judy.) And yes, those Troubadours were all about codes of behavior.
I fear that we now have ‘Hector with a cell phone, and Achilles with an antiaircraft missile’. Tribal hatreds, with high tech weaponry. And note that neither Hector nor Achilles were literate; they, like some today, are of an oral culture.
Alas…
RHGreen, look what happened to the French aristocrats.
Never wise to think oneself immune from the laws of nature, demographics, and social change, eh?
Surely Leahy knows that much?
most people don’t understand that shakespear was as much about political commentary as it was about entertainment
and technically, willie never wrote anything
it was the actor’s job to know his lines …
Yes, readerOfTeaLeaves sounds like Ulysses in Troilus And Cressida when he chides Achilles for not respecting degree, priority, and place – Essex wanted Elizabeth’s throne.
Shakespeare’s name appears as one of the players at the Globe.
Sara, thanks. I really like your point about the T&RC.
rOTL says:
Might help the jury too.
I’m thinking Leahy wants to know the truth, and speaks for a lot of older Americans, including my Dad. Dad was sobbing (something I’d never seen) on election night. He knew that America would have been lost had McCain won. I don’t blame Leahy for wanting to know the truth even if he doesn’t live to see the punishment. He’s worked his ass off.
I don’t know which would be faster, trials or T&R, but if we could get some questions answered quickly, and prosecute Bush/Cheney later, that would be okay with me. The entire world needs to know the story.
Isikoff is on with Rachel. Now an MSNBC correspondent…
Well, dialogue such as we have here, initiated in this case by bmaz, and contested by Sara and Mary, among others, is what keeps me coming back for more. Mary @ 76 pretty much nails it, ISTM, but where do we go from there?
I like what Sara wrote @ 51:
“Teapot Dome” became a byword for government corruption and venality. The problem here is with Sara’s observation that “in all these cases the general public came to understand the deep flaws in political culture as well as the individual bad acts for which accountability was demanded.” But for this to happen, there have to be extensive and thorough hearings, which have the time to develop, proceeding in parallel with the prosecutions and trials. But this process of public understanding cannot be assumed: it requires a public debate as well as public attention, and that probably won’t happen unless we keep making the requisite noise.
The Libby trial was instructive. It got enormous coverage, and put FDL on the Media map. The press paid full attention– after all, if CNN is telling people to go to FDL for details on the day’s events at the trial, the media is paying attention, and the public is paying attention.
The best time for a T&R commission is after the prosecutions and trials have played out. Then one can survey the landscape, see where the gaps are, and continue the process of public understanding. However, a sense of timing is crucial: The T&R Commission needs to be rolled out just after public interest in the trials and prosecutions has peaked. If Congress was doing its job, it would set up a Senate Select Committee a la Watergate or Church to probe the gaps.
So, I don’t think the issue should be to prosecute OR do T&R. I think we need to get Congress to do the job the Constitution meant it to do. For 8 years, it has been AWOL. Perhaps it has been an 8-year hangover following after a hyperactive Congress attempted to trump up an impeachment charge against Clinton. Some kind of drunkard’s remorse has seized control of Congress, reducing to whimpering and sniveling. The whining and handwringing has got to stop!
Watergate worked well because (a) the Special Prosecutors Archie Cox and Leon Jaworski did their jobs well, with tenacity, and (b) Ervin’s Senate Select Committee filled the gaps in public understanding and helped to frame the narrative.
That’s what we need now.
Bob in HI
Uh… I’m missing something here. There is an assertion on the table that the American people will learn more from a T&R commission than they would from trials. Leaving aside for the moment what a false choice that is, why in the world would any actual perp tell a T&R commission any more than he or she would tell at a trial?
Hey all, just thought I’d say hi. trying to catch up, be back in a while.
mutters to himself…rooting around in the kitchen…any booze in this joint, he wonders…
Sorry to hit and run but AP has article– Despite Obama pledge, Justice defends Bush secrets by Mike J. Sniffen. At TheRawStory.
This sounds like old news. Any nuggets in this?
Bob in HI
Nope.
For what it’s worth ACLU exec. dir. Anthony Romero stated ” This is not change, President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged” on his promise to end “abuse of state secrets” blah blah.
Oh, it is all valid, it is just not particularly new or news to most here. The article does lay out the pitiful stand being made so far by the Obama Administration. Hopefully that change will kick in soon; but, on this subject, not so much so far.
By the clock on the wall I’d guess it to be about EPU time.
When Leahy came out with his call for a truth commission, he spoke of the pointlessness of prosecutions as “seeking vengeance”. Leahy was a prosecutor, and one cannot help but wonder if he now considers his efforts in that regard as merely a seeking of vengeance. My guess is that he would want to insist that without penalties, the law would not function to give order to society. I should ask him about that.
Somehow I get the idea that he and Conason have friends that would be caught up in the prosecutions, and wish to find a way to avoid the implications. Not unlike French aristocrats at the time of the bloody revolution, our lordly class think punishments are for the masses.
Maybe those same international authorities could run our elections, too. Hey, can we get a real TV station like the BBC while we are at it to show “the series”?
What department/agency had the slogan, “The difficult we do today. The impossible may take a little longer”?
Marines? NASA?
As the slogan indicated, you are absolutely right. And equally compelling, difficulty is no excuse for not doing the right thing.