Cass Sunstein, at Netroots Nation 2008 in Austin last July, opined that prosecuting Bush Administration officials for torture and other crimes would be wrong because it would "criminalize policy differences". Eric Holder then echoed the same phrase during his confirmation hearing in January. Writing at DailyKos, Kagro X responded to that and had a few things to say about how it actually "politicizes crime".
I’d like to extend that theme and come at it from a different angle.
First, there would be no need to "criminalize policy differences" with the Bush Administration if the policies themselves were not crimes. Torture is not a policy difference, it is a crime. Wiretapping without a warrant is not a policy difference, it is a crime. And so on, for extraordinary rendition, outing covert agents, wars of aggression and so forth.
But let’s look at one of the Bush Administration crime areas more closely. The Bush Department of Justice became a "legal hit-squad" where prosecutions were carried out based on political calculations. They even went so far as to fire US Attorneys who would not play along with this plan. They perhaps hit their apex in this process when they prosecuted Don Siegelman, the governor of Alabama. This was a true case of "criminalizing policy differences", as they chose to cook up false charges in order to remove him from office. There were no real crimes on which to prosecute Siegelman. This is a true miscarriage of justice and has led to a severe loss of public confidence in the Department of Justice.
To complete the inversion of logic here, now note that since there are indeed crimes that have been committed by the Bush Administration, when there is a call not to prosecute because Bush was the President and he and his minions were acting "for the good of the country", this is actually a call to inject a political consideration into the decision of whether to prosecute. This would completely throw out John Adams’ statement that we are "a nation of laws and not of men", because it means that the decision on whether to prosecute, in the face of clear evidence of criminal behavior, is based solely on who committed the crime. That is "politicizing crime" in the worst possible way.
President Obama, when pressed on this issue, after saying that he prefers to "get it right going forward", does finally get around to saying that no person is above the law. To prove that that is the case, a system for prosecuting Bush Administration officials must be put into place where prosecution depends only on whether a crime has been committed and those responsible can be identified.
If we allow the crimes to go unpunished, then we have inserted a political decision into a prosecution process that should be free of all political influence. A political decision not to prosecute a known crime is just as corrupt as a political decision to prosecute false charges. Attorney General Holder will not have left the Bush DOJ abuses behind until he undertakes prosecutions of the Bush crime spree. Our Department of Justice can only regain its stature as an independent enforcer of the law by prosecuting these crimes.





29 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
Jim !
Holder & Obama have no choice but to prosecute … anything else is dereliction of duty.
no .. policy differences are simply policy differences .. but when one’s “policies” constitute violations of the laws of the united states .. and the abrogation of treaties we are signatories to it’s quite a different matter ..
if and when we investigate .. indict and prosecute bush and company .. it won’t be for politics or for “policy disputes” .. it will be because we can prove they have violated the laws of the nation .. those same laws which they were sworn and duty bound “to see faithfully executed” .. not muddied up .. obfuscated and deliberately worked-around ..
if one establishes “criminal policies” then the party formulating the policy is involed in a criminal enterprise ..
they knew what the law was and they deliberately violated it .. with blatant intent .. and now they are trying to weasel out of their just desserts ..
no sale here .. investigate .. indict .. go to trial .. if they can convince a jury to let ‘em off .. so be it .. if not .. and the judge mitigates their sentence ..so be it ..
but in our system “no one is above the law” and letting them walk because they are “high elected officials” establishes a two-tier system of justice .. which is anathema to our principles ..
i don’t care what the talking heads or the pundits or the political class has to say about it .. we have the obligation and the duty under american statute law ..and international treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute violations of our laws ..
“who” the perp is ..or their supposed motives has nothing to do with “the law” …
Thanks for this post, Jim.
At a minimum, we need pieces like this to be part of the historical record.
Hopefully, though, even more will happen, and there will be criminal investigations.
Hi, Petro. Let’s hope they take that duty seriously…
We can be certain that nothing will happen if nobody pushes for it.
That’s right. And you’ve had some good results before, when you’ve pushed a topic. It’s also important that the voices doing the pushing are intelligent and that they can write cogently.
co-gently is the last theing we need ..
imo .. we need to strap ‘em [the torture team] to a chair and slap them around for a bit …
“politisizing political differances”
interesting redefinition for “prosecuting criminals”, they sure are creative with their poetic license aren’t they
you had me at:
I see a strong new voice rising from the left and his name is JimWhite.
Rather, there is a call not to prosecute because Bush was a Republican President. Democratic presidents enjoy no such immunity as Bill Clinton found out.
The bottom line is that Bush and his minions committed war crimes. They should be prosecuted,each and every one of them,irregardless of this idea of moving ahead. Nothing would warm my loins more than to see Rove,Bush,Cheney,Rice,Card,et al being paraded in orange jumpsuits to their war-crimes trials. To be followed by felony crimes. In my 50+ years on this earth,I have never seen such disregard for laws covered up with lie after lie as I witnessed in the absolute worst administration in United States history.
Thank you, Jim. Without excess wordage you have wrapped up the case. IANAL, but if I were on a committee to decide this issue, your argument would win me over.
From you past postings I know that you do let the DCers hear from you. Please send your diary to Pres.Obama, Michelle Obama (she’s a lawyer and can persuade), AG Holder, the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, and anybody else that can be inspired to weigh in to return our country to true Justice under the rule of law.
The disease of crime has so infected our country that, if the scalpel of Justice is not skillfully applied to the crimes in our highest offices, we can justifiably call our president simply The Godfather of a grand Mafioso.
In my opinion, the Obama administration will stand or fall on this single issue.
I wish there was someone in our country with enough gravitas, who when they spoke out on this issue, would shame the media into abandoning their deliberate distortion about this. Maybe even a group of people who are so respected that the idea that prosecuting crimes is somehow criminalizing policy differences is never talked about again.
Well said as always Jim.
Excellent. The title is so perfect, the post itself was almost extraneous. Thank you.
Policies are unpunishable. And, thus, a president can obtain immunity for a crime by making it his “policy.”
Most excellent post, Jim.
Bush et al. do indeed need to be prosecuted. But the Obama administration also needs to be pressured to discontinue the objectionable policies of the Bush administration that it has, so far, continued.
Great piece, Jim. I’d expand a little on what wigwam said, in that it always seems to be Republications that have so many of these “bygones” issues, because, for whatever reason. they find the regular Presidency too confining, and need more. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush (s) all systematically abused their power, each time more brazenly and with less consequence. Now they consider a dictatorship their birthright, and have no intention of attempting to govern openly and under law, nor do they intend to let Obama fully function as President, in the same way they harangued Clinton into basically becoming a moderate Republican himself. They have mastered the art of authoritarian intimidation, and Dems fall for it any time.
Amen! Great piece.
One thing that I think has to be added to the discussion: prosecuting crimes is doubly necessary when the criminals act in the belief that power equals impunity. Falure to prosecute reinforces their belief and insures that they or those like them will try again.
We need to make examples of Bush and Cheyney. Lawful trials, whatever their outcome, will deter future politicians. Anything less than trials, including “truth commissions,” sets a de facto precedent. Such evasions may seem expedient and comforting for the moment, but they will have their reward eventually, in some future American Pinochet.
In fact, Bush and Cheyney are themselves such a reward. Nixon was never actually impeached and was pardoned before his crimes were established at trial–all in the interests of putting unpleasantness behind us. Afterall, it was said, Nixon won’t be doing it again, so why bother? Well, strengthened by the precedent, others did it again: Reagan and now Bush and Cheyney. Each one has taken the country that much closer to the ultimate expression of power and impunity: dictatorship.
Nor should we shrink from trying the little guys and the “good Germans” who “just followed” criminal orders. We need to make an example of them too, both in fairness to those that refused, perhaps at considerable cost, and as a way of stiffening the resistance of others going forward. A criminal general can’t get very far if discipline holds and the troops refuse illegal orders.
Every Republican president since Eisenhower has been involved in crimes against the Constitution and/or pardon such crimes.
Pour encourager les autres.
Exactly, wigwam. Our oh so polite habit of sweeping Republican constitutional outrages under the rug all these years has left us with a rug we can’t see over, let along walk on. And they salivate for more even bringing back the old conspirators to do the work. I suspect that the fruit-fly lifespan of media memory might have a bit to do with this, I would add snarkily and, I’m sure, unnecessarily.
Yes. The Republicans remind me of high school football coaches who will keep running the same play over and over until the other team makes them stop. That’s what is going on here. Until we stand up and make these guys follow the law, they will just keep doing what they want. So far, they have been right in their feeling that they are acting with impunity.
The more I think about this subject the angrier I get. To trivialize the righteous outrage of the American people over the torture of detainees as a mere “policy difference” is a crime all by itself and yet another instance of the banality of evil.
Why “from the left”? Would Bruce Fein have said it any differently? Or Bob Barr? This is just Criminal Justice 101, isn’t it?
Jim is right on target. If a policy violates the law, it’s still a crime.
In fact, if it is indeed a policy, that proves premeditation, does it not? and doesn’t that mean that the policy-maker, and the ones who carry out the policy, are engaged in a criminal conspiracy?
Thanks, JimWhite!
Bob in HI
Criminals should not acquire immunity simply by making their crimes into a policy.