Glenn Greenwald on the Two-Tiered Justice System
Glenn Greenwald on "moving on":
Under all circumstances, arguing that high political officials should be immunized from prosecution when they commit felonies such as illegal eavesdropping and torture would be both destructive and wrong [not to mention, in the case of the latter crimes, a clear violation of a treaty which the U.S. (under Ronald Reagan) signed and thereafter ratified]. But what makes it so much worse, so much more corrupted, is the fact that this "ignore-the-past-and-forget-retribution" rationale is invoked by our media elites only for a tiny, special class of people -- our political leaders -- while the exact opposite rationale ("ignore their lame excuses, lock them up and throw away the key") is applied to everyone else. That, by definition, is what a "two-tiered system of justice" means and that, more than anything else, is what characterizes (and sustains) deeply corrupt political systems.
That's the two-tiered system which, for obvious reasons, our political and media elites are now vehemently arguing must be preserved.
Think about that. We are a nation of laws. Do elected officials legally get to decide where and when they apply, or do they get to offer a sweeping exemption to the members of a selected class? (Remember, there are already specific laws requiring prosecution of torture.)
We are not a banana republic. The law is for everyone, yet ordinary citizens (many of whom haven't harmed anyone but themselves) receive swift, punitive sentences. Why not politicians?
And honestly, I don't care what else this administration accomplishes. If they fail to hold responsible the people who have so abused the law to serve their political agenda, they will have failed miserably.
this country narrowly avoided a real uprising on 11/4. if the republicans had won i do believe we would now be living in chaos.
basically, i think the people have seen enough.
we have seen the blatant corruption. clearly, laws have been broken.
if there isn't a reckoning of what has transpired over the last 8 years, i do believe the anger that was submerged on 11/4 will rise again and a whole lot of things(and people) are going to get torn to pieces.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If President Obama doesn't prosecute war crimes(torture)I WILL NOT vote for Obama in his 2nd term ,and I mean I don't care if he fixes the economy, stops the war, implements universal health care,etc!If Obama doesn't prosecute war crimes then Mr Obama is also a war criminal!
obama will do none of the above! hes a one term president ! and if america servives the next four years jebs waiting to take up the slack! americans are stupid enough to put another bush back in office!
Amen, brother. If there's no penalty for committing such crimes, what's to stop anyone from breaking them again? To my mind, ensuring that prosecution occurs is much more important for our long-term stability and security than any attempt to address economic issues or change our standing among the other nations of the world. We cease to be the U.S. of A. and become an oligarchy if our laws do not apply equally to everyone.
I couldn't agree with you more. Maybe, if we were to impose the laws on everyone, our economy wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. Unfortunately though, we have sent a signal to all powerful people in this country that they can do whatever, whenever, and to whoever. It's sickening. I watched that Enron documentary the other day, and it was just insane what these people get by with.
You just nailed the essential issue.
I've said numerous times before that police, prosecutors and judges should be held to a higher standard of law than the citizenry because they are supposed to uphold the law and to know better. Instead, the inevitable response by most is that those who enfore the law need to "be above it" so they're not defensive in enforcing the law. Instead, being "above the law" leads to corruption and laziness.
The same goes for politicians trying to put themselves out of the laws reach. Not prosecuting George Putz would be a betrayal of what the revolution was about - accountability and equality under the law.
Amen, brother. If there's no penalty for committing such crimes, what's to stop anyone from breaking them again?
Maybe a deep sense of morality and a belief in the intrinsic the value of all people, whether gained through non-literalist interpretations of texts from older religions or through humanist views or through the exercise of cold logic.
What? Stop looking at me funny and muttering things about Cheney and Darth Vader.
Cheney learned from his Nixon years not to admit to anything and to charge ahead regardless of the laws because "we" are the law. Even Nixon was more honorable than this administration.
The punishment should be much more severe for these people in my opinion. When decisions are made in enormous power structures, they have very far reaching consequences for a bunch of people. Yet, these elites can do horrible things and not even have to worry about ever seeing any consequences. I wonder what would happen if I were to perform an extraordinary rendition on someone, then torture them? My guess is I would be sitting on Death Row.
While I agree that we really must prosecute the crimes of the previous administration, we can't simply explain away the '2-tiered system' as one wherein the powerful are allowed to skate because of who they know or the power they possess. The truth is that prosecuting these criminals will be a HUGE effort... HUGE... which means we really need to look closely at the cost/benefit analysis of such an undertaking. With the economy in the toilet, two wars raging, an ineffective Congress, etc..., would we really be best-served by prosecuting the previous administration, right now?
Again, I'm not suggesting that we avoid the prosecution... just pointing out that it's a bigger decision than simply applying the law equally across all citizens. That sucks, but it's true.
... to commit murder while the recession is ongoing and then claim it would be a financial burden to the city and state to actually try me.
Yeah, that'll work.
something you did in the past and we need to look forward.
with no evidence whatsoever, that your act of murder actually saved the lives of others.
If your argument works, you'll be killing again
your attorney wrote you a letter saying it was ok for you to murder.
wrote a secret letter, but you cant show the court... cause its a secret.
Then they will have to have a secret trial with secret charges and then frog march them secretly to a secret prison for who knows how many years because it will be a secret.
I've got a few neocon names to suggest......
it's a huge undertaking that we need to undertake. Cost/benefit should not be a factor in this. It all has to do with, is this a nation of laws or is it not?
And I wish they'd make up their minds cause if we're not a nation of laws, I got some crimes I've been wanting to commit.
But if you did, your ass would be in the legal system so fast you wouldn't know what was going on. Court, probation, fees, all that stuff that us normal folk have to do when we commit a crime.
the "it's-ok-to-commit-crimes without consequence" rule only applies to wealthy, well-connected Republican politicians.
I'll change my name to FilthyBush
... the W.
George F.W. Bush ...
that dipshit Gov from IL was kicked out, no court on what he did,just on what was said. Now we go to that asshole senator in alaska, 7 felonies, convicted. did the senate kick him out, no, they gave him a standing oveation for several minutes, whitch was aganist the senate rules.
I hear and fully acknowledge what you are saying, but when we are talking about difficulties in doing the right thing versus making the choice to actually do that thing, we are really talking about accepting an expedient of the moment in favor of known and enduring principle; we are talking about choosing an expedient in lieu of principle, because - in the immediate short-term, the expedient presents an illusory appearance of practicality. But every single last time that we as a people have avoided principled action in favor of an easy expedient, it has - without exception - come back to haunt us, and the negative consequences have invariably long outlasted the people who chose the easy way out, the path of least resistance.
It is impossible to barter away principles in favor of easy expedients without also paying a dear price in the future for the illusory "practical" benefit that such bargains promise to gain in the short-term.
That's one of the reasons enduring principles are accepted as enduring principles. In the long and short term, it is the principled actions that are the sole, true practical choice, because the principled action avoids dissipation of energies, the waste of time that can never be restored once spent, the attendant injustices inherent in the choice of most expedients and the inevitable harm of negative consequences inherent from such choices. Principled action is what we instinctively call "doing the right thing". And yes, it's invariably the difficult path. But, really, what are our other choices?
Susie
I couldn't agree more. Greenwald is right -- if Obama refuses to lend his political weight to the prosecution of the Bush administration violators of American law, the system is hopelessly corrupt and America's greatness is over.
And just a note. The bailout of banks and financial institutions instead of prosecution of those at the helm who cheated and defrauded millions of Americans to the tune of billions of dollars is yet another instance of American corruption. They should have been removed from their positions and criminal charges brought against them if the government was going to try to rescue them from collapse.
America's future rides on what THIS administration does to root out widespread government corruption -- it will continue if not prosecuted.
...should be held responsible to correct the illnesses of a Country that has been lying to itself since it's conception? Nation of laws my ass. This Nation has played hide and go seek with it's own Constitution invoking it when convenient. Did schools intergrate after Brown v Board? Did Jim Crow end after the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Remember Reagan saying the U.S. never negotiates with terrorists? There are innocent people all over the world who can attest to "America's greatness".
L&L
While there are ALWAYS those in any civilization who seek to cast aside its law and order, and societies have always been slow to change, America's greatness has been the Constitution. That is our greatness, our system of government.
Never before has it been so openly held in contempt and defied by an American president's administration. With the support of so many of America's lawmakers. We have become a nation of men and the interests of the wealthy and powerful, not laws.
To reiterate, I believe that if the Obama administration refuses to prosecute the Bush administration lawbreakers, it then openly harbors terrorists, spits on the Constitution, and our greatness is ended. We won't recover.
...all of his home grown criminals big and small? This Nation has had a long history of harboring(and honoring dispicable criminals, eg. J. Edgar Hoover). We need to be more honest and less selective concerning our history.
is the truth. The bold type above is probably the most important lesson for the day. Thank you "LeftandLeft" for bringing this conversation back within the realm of reality.
L&L
America certainly has some terrible cancers in its history, so I agree with you about that.
But for Americans, given our past prosperity and the accompanying greed and criminality that has been set loose, our ONLY hope is to maintain a constitutional government if we are to survive as we want to survive. The Constitution is ALL that stands between us and anarchy, for people will not tolerate being abused forever, and they will eventually revolt.
It's easy to criticize America's historical transgressions. They are numerous and SHOULD be criticized. But maybe we should also remember that some (maybe many) human beings are aggressive, power-hungry, rapacious, thieving, and murderous in the face of attempted constraints. Much of it is obviously cultural and religious, I think familial, too. America admires "macho men", assigning some kind of silly sexual prowess aura around them. These qualities certainly don't derive from our "better angels", one might say.
The point is that in American culture at least, there isn't much standing between aggressive, power-hungry, rapacious, thieving, murderous hordes and the rest of us. There are two solutions. Brute strength that results in killing or the law that attempts to administer justice, as imperfect as it is under such aggregated layers of prior rulings. This is the priciple set forth by the Constitution, and once that's gone, all those terrible criminal acts that you mention (and I could add to them) become the rule for everybody, not the exception.
...is especially true when you consider how much of our laws are derived from precedent. The precedents that will be established by allowing the crimes of the Bush regime should be sobering to anybody who reverences the rule of law.
Did you ever notice how many precedents serve to whittle away our Constitutional freedoms? These precedents can be set by judges OR by those who knowingly refuse to challenge illegal actions, as it appears Obama intends to do.
by those judges who should know what the right thing to do, but won't because they have becomeintellectual bondslaves to an anti-Constitutional ideology...like the current crop that occupies the majority slot of the Extreme Court.
So, the nation inherets the accreted consequences of those who are either too corrupt or who lack the moral courage to do the right things.
IF, it hasn't already ended. It is very possible that it has. I think the only thing that will save this country, if this is the case, is a massive popular movement. I also think that that is why we are all hoping that Obama does something, because he rode a massive popular movement into the White House.
The odds are against him though. If you think about this country and how we have all of these institutions named after people like Carnegie, JPMorgan, Rockefeller, and all the others. These guys were all a bunch of rotten crooks and this country praises these guys.
... I'm leaning towards your take. We're too late. A battle for the Constitution would be laden with evangelicals insisting that their holy text is the sole basis for law, freedom, and morality.
now that is some scary shit there. Boy wouldn't that be the backfire to end all backfires.
It's amazing how morose you can get after eight years of a frat boy who has lived a privileged life and thinks the Constitution is 'just a goddamned piece of paper.'
I strongly believe in Clarence Darrow's view - that we can only be free by protecting the other man's freedom. I am free only if you are free.
.. the line that I am defending the line between church and state in order to protect the right of my evangelical conservative southern christian friends to practice their religion as they see fit. I get a lot of blank looks, some get very angry, most think I'm kidding, and maybe one in ten comprehends I'm sincere. Muslim friends get it right away.
Once the bible literalists realize it's not a joke, and they aren't the majority country-wide .. oddly maybe they'd back the left on that issue, its really not far from libertarian. Hard part would be convincing them you are sincere, since most non-deep south democrats spend most of thier time insulting, baiting and hating this crowd.
..For the first time in history, all the usual suspects have had their first opportunnity to act without restraints on their behavior, and the results for the nation have been calamitous. The harm will be very long lasting. They've gone way too far this time; they have pretty much screwed their own pooch. Obama has given himself the out he needs to do the right thing, to go against all the considerable pressure he will be sure to face: his DoJ pick will be able to orchestrate the actions that need to be taken, independent of Congressional obstruction. When the time comes, Obama will, if he chooses, be able to do what needs to be done, because there will be no choice, and it will be politically untenable for other politicians to obstruct the process. I'm predicting 2010 is going to be a bloodbath year for Republicans at the polls.
for all our faults, and corruption and inherent injustices, our history has nonetheless been marked by being engaged in the long-term struggle to become just, to live up to our highest ideals. The cultural committment to that struggle, no matter how halting has been our progress at dark and shameful times in our history, has been one of the enobling characteristics of our nation. The criminal and irredeemably corrupt Bush regime marked a water shed change in our national thinking, in that we knowingly walked away from our historical national committment to remain engaed in the struggle to realize our highest ideals. An when we did that, especially if that act of malignant and premeditated negligence is allowed to stand, the nation ceased being American. It became something else and something much, much less. To let that choice stand, is to accept the death of this nation. These are not small potatoes we are playing for.
very well put.
was that far out of line with his Republican predecessors. Wasn't President Reagan illegally selling weapons to domestic terrorists in Central America who opposed a democratically elected socialist government. Weren't we supporting fascist regimes in Chile (and for that matter across much of South America).
Doesn't America bear responsibility for supporting regimes which caused their own citizens to vanish into the night and fog? Do you really believe that rendition was invented by Bush II and Cheney?
I admit that the past administration really seems to have reached previously unheard of levels of incompetence and malignancy, but that's a question of degree.
If there is a choice between (1) bogging down the current administration in attempts to prosecute Bush and his cronies and (2) making legal and administrative changes to make it harder for future governments to follow where Cheney led, the second might be preferable. I'm not sure the choice is this stark, but I'm concerned about sacrificing the possible in pursuit of the ideal.
Good point. Bush "just" took his predecessor's work to it logical end.
But, IMO, this is a whole lot more than mere sacrificing the achievable for the possible. The stakes are too high to accept mere expedients, in this case.
is a very good point. The only problem that I have with it is that, no matter changes you make within the system, if there are no consequences for crossing the line then the changes are worthless. I think we can and should do both.
What "legal and administrative changes" do you think would work to make it harder for the lawbreaking to happen again? This was the tactic that the Bush administration used to break the law, not make it stronger.
Should we stop requiring negative consequences for lawbreakers and instead focus our energies on making legal and administrative changes to ALL law so the crime "doesn't happen again"? Criminals may or may not stop their criminal behavior because of negative consequences, but we know for certain that if there aren't any, they certainly won't stop.
There's a thread over at Bruce Schneier's blog touching on the flawed thinking of "The Mumbai Terrorists used Google Earth ... therefore, we should ban Google Earth."
Harsher, more punitive laws aren't necessarily the answer.
But we do need a system of laws that is respected by both sides and which has the capability to deal with these kinds of transgressions (and transgressors).
Though I prefer to see Bush raped in prison for the rest of his life I think a more fitting punishment to any public servant that abuses the trust of the people is banishment. Nothing complicated, just revoke their citizenship, put them on a raft on the coast, give em a good push and say good luck and good bye.
Let that threat hang over the head of anyone who runs for office.
that is a good one. bush would just go to his ragheads to live.
Lord Ishido's fate from Shogun.
Bury the bastard up to his neck in the town square. Let anyone who wants to come by, pick up a baseball bat and take a swing.
This has been going on for a long time, the good thing is more people are waking up to class injustice thanks to blogs and forums.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
... it's that people haven't been paying attention, or that they simply haven't had a readily-available voice, which blogs and social networks provide.
that you are absolutely right. We don't HAVE to have our news spoon feed to us from the same guys that are committing or, at the very least, aiding in committing these crimes. Unfortunately, there are many people who still are oblivious to the wicked ways of our system.
... that, in typical human fashion, we allowed the availability of news to replace the effort of educating ourselves.
There was a notable speech by Edward R. Murrow (at an RTNDA dinner) where he opined that television must inform, educate, uplift ... or it's just lights and wires in a box.
have said it better myself. We have to make an effort to learn about things on our own and form conclusions. Otherwise, we are just asking to have the wool pulled over our eyes.
... but as St. Ronnie liked to say, "Trust, but verify."
One of the downsides of immediacy has been the speed at which misinformation can spread. Take, for example, the plot to board planes in London and blow up planes ... a mention of gimmicked sports-drink bottles became 'using a popular sports drink,' and that stayed in copy for DAYS. The arrests were being portrayed as affirmation that the Bush Administration was doing the right thing with their cowboy attitude and illegal wiretaps, when the truth was that Scotland Yard had been working the case for over a year.
I'm not hankering for the old days of flying your film across the Atlantic before you can run the story, just asking that people consider that convenience and immediacy are neither neutral or necessarily beneficial.
I didn't know that about Scotland Yard. Also, I agree that "that convenience and immediacy are neither neutral or necessarily beneficial", but the key to these sites is in that they are a powerful tool to fight the social isolation that only benefits the power structures.
Not only that..SY was really pissed that Bush blew their ongoing investigation by exposing it for PR purposes. That stupid move blew their covers.
but most Americans think they are doing exactly that
by changing the TV channel to watch a different newsreader every night. Many people don't realize that ALL of the MSM are owned and controlled by a couple of giant, global conglomerates, who present the news that is is their best interests, not ours.
This is part of the problem we have resulting from the dumbing down of our educational system over the past few decades.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
the guy who lives next door thinks Obama started all this shit.
I think more tiers have been shed than that.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... a vale of tiers?
... a veil of tiers?
... crocodile tiers?
the justice system has way more tiers than just two. The more money you have, the more access to justice you have. While the truly powerful may have their own top tier to themselves, the rich (as opposed to the filthy rich) have more access to justice than the middle class, who themselves have more access to justice than the poor.
In criminal law, there is a huge disparity between drug sentences handed down to poorer, often visible minority defendants and the sentences for white collar crime (which is often not even investigated). In civil law, since lawsuits are so expensive, the poor are often simply frozen out of the system entirely since they cannot afford counsel.
But what makes it so much worse, so much more corrupted, is the fact that this "ignore-the-past-and-forget-retribution" rationale is invoked by our media elites only for a tiny, special class of people -- our political leaders -- while the exact opposite rationale ("ignore their lame excuses, lock them up and throw away the key") is applied to everyone else.
Thing is, a "everyone else"--crack dealers, car thieves, emmbezzlers-- cannot plausibly make the claim that they did their evil deeds while trying to 'defend' the country.
Which is the implicit defense of the abusers of the Bushevik regime.
They can claim an 'ends justify means' defense. Nobody other than cynics like me would call 'bullshit, and who ever listens to me?
If there is a law for the situation, it should never be broken without consequence. If the law gets in the way of the country's acts, get rid of them. But then expect everyone to have the right to do that now.
No one person should be an exemption to the rule. No matter their intent, the law is there for a reason.
n/t
In spite of that, we must do what we can to see that the law is upheld. That when it is violated there are consequences for even and especially for the powerful and political elites.
OBTW - I listen to you all of the time.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
...just some, those with the correct despotic credentials. If you are a just and honorable politician who actually works for the People and upholds your trust to the Constitution, you are subject to the full weight of laws. You are even a fitting target, in such cases, for relentless persecution.
We are not a banana republic. The law is for everyone, yet ordinary citizens (many of whom haven't harmed anyone but themselves) receive swift, punitive sentences. Why not politicians?
When has it been true that the law applies equally to all?
Examples, please???
in theory, never in practice.
For one thing, lawyers are expensive and good lawyers even more so.
I know from personal experience that if the son of someone well-to-do (for example, the son of a slum landlord) and the son of someone with no money are arrested for the same criminal act (breaking and entering and theft over $5000), the first accused can get off with a voluntary fine (paid by daddy) while the second gets time in jail and a criminal record.
Perhaps those in power would take notice that the average American people have become a little disturbed about them (average Americans) always having to suffer the consequences of their actions when those in power go on their merry way despite their illegal offences, if for instance we as a group say, for example, we will not pay our taxes until we are satisfied that everyone (rich, poor, politicians, corporations, bankers, etc) are being treated the same. It would take organization ,but I bet it could be done.
... is that the corporations also control those things we depend on for sustenance and stability. Food. Fuel. Banking services. Hell, they own our homes, cars, and our children's futures.
Push comes to shove, and you'll find a lot of people will back down, because the illusion of creature comforts is preferable to stripping that away, even to depose the tyrants and slavemasters at the top.
when that good fight comes, hopefully enough people can dig-in, cause shit will get real ugly, real fast.
... to learn either locksmithing or gunsmithing, because those will be skills people will have a need for.
It's more likely, however, that I'll look towards running an underground schoolhouse. (Unless the feds raid my house and burn my books.)
should be done. I mean enough is enough. Our childrens futures are being robbed from them.
How about starting with David Vitter and then spreading out from there? There are so many law-breakers to choose from that all of D.C. stinks like Vitter's diapers!
I have to disagree with Susie on a few points. I think the U.S. is a "Banana Republic" and it is because it's a "Nation of Laws". The violation of your man-made "laws" can be made to look justifiable. If you were a "Nation" of morals could anyone ever justify violating what is considered to be moral by most people on this planet? Could anyone violate those morals without, at the very least, paying a personal cost in lower self-esteem and, if the moral violation well known, paying a heavy price through ostracism? When you violate the "law" it's not that big of a deal because you're violating scribbles that were put on a piece of paper by some clown that you don't respect because his/her paycheck is a result of immoral behavior and whose job is to threaten with violence, which is also immoral. Most of your life is lived on a voluntary basis and that area of your life works well. Why not make your whole life work well? Let the government die, you don't need it.
problem with that is that morals are relative for the most part.
I think there is a consensus on this planet as to what is REALLY right and what is REALLY wrong behaviour. Minor opinions on right and wrong are easily dismissed.
I have to disagree. There is quite a disparity on what "morals" are. This appears to be a smokescreen to promoting certain religious views.
And who is the person/group who decides what "minor" opinions are? What percentage is "minor?" 5? 10? 49?
to each person. Some people have loose morals and some have firm morals. What is the standard? If you swindle me in an investment deal, and there is no law making it illegal, maybe your morals are Darwinian (only the strong survive) and you think that it is okay to swindle me if you can. Laws, to me, seem to cut through the conflicting morals of different people.
Imagine swindling someone when only your reputation is at stake and there is no "law" to "punish" you and put an end to it. How do you suppose that would work for you?
who's morals do we go by for that? I get what you are saying, but there are to many gray areas in life. Consider the case of Genarlow Wilson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_..., where an older high school kid was arrested an imprisoned for having sex with a younger high school kid. Apparently a bunch of people thought that that was immoral, but also just as many thought that it wasn't. So which morals do we use? And what about civil cases where both sides claim that they are right. Or what about corporations and their externalities, hurting a certain group of people is okay if there is a net benefit.
A lot of this is complicated stuff and we need legal system in place to deal with that stuff. The issue here is should anybody be above that legal system.
There are no universal moral absolutes...
So you would murder someone if you thought you could get away with it?
Bush did. Those are HIS morals. You want to adopt his?
Do you REALLY think there are any moral absolutes in the world?
How far do you think Bush could get with his morals if he didn't have the guns of government at his disposal?
Yes, I think there are moral absolutes. Ask yourself if there is anything that you absolutely will not do. Please dont't bring up the anything-in-self-defense argument because self-defense is moral and you know it.
Suicide. Sure, it's against the strictures of the Catholic Church (you're supposed to go straight to hell) ... but does my unwillingness to commit suicide mean I've bought into a meaningless pack of Christian drivel, or is it my intellect telling me there's a better way than to open my veins and bleed out?
I think you're missing that even if there was some default 'murder=wrong' setting in man, there are ways around it that have nothing to do with being a high mucky-muck in government.
And, incidentally, if the Iraq War was launched on false pretenses, it's morally wrong. But if our troops are shot at and threatened by insurgents, it's morally right for them to hose the insurgents down with machine gun fire. Which moral absolute takes precedence?
virtue
You are conflating what YOU believe is moral with what the rest of the world believes is moral. There's no agreement anywhere. The moment you try to extend your own "morals" and make them law, the more opposition you'll have to something you believed was possible (how could reasonable people disagree about what's moral?).
The only problem with your approach is that it does require concensus. Law doesn't require concensus, just a recognition of principles observed through history that have worked to guide people toward living well together with or despite their differences.
... then abortion is wrong, the death penalty is wrong, sending soldiers to fight is wrong, insurgents fighting back when their country is invaded is wrong ...
There's no default moral setting for humans. We don't pop out of the chute understanding that murder is wrong. We acquire these values through education, and as part of an understanding amongst ourselves that these values make living in our society better. (And even then we can be wrong.)
In fact, more often than not, you'll hear the evangelical types say things like, "I'm sure we all agree that x is bad."
It's a flawed argument that implies that if you DON'T agree, you are morally and/or intellectually suspect.
It's not that there is consensus, which is the same no-thinking-allowed approach of the religious right, but that having made a determination, we can work together to approach problems.
Even from a Biblical standpoint, the question of good vs. evil was always a tricky one. Adam & Eve bit into the apple, and it took away their innocence. It's NEVER been as simple as black and white. You have to think, and you have to exercise not only wisdom, but temper justice with mercy.
It's a matter of exposing nonsense such as "Adam & Eve. Many people are afraid to expose religious and statist nonsense because they think that their lives depend on going along with it. After they've invested in that crap it's difficult to let it go.
... touch on what I said about morality as an active process of thought, as opposed to absolutes that require none?
touch on what you said about morality as an active process of thought. I think you're right on the money. I just don't see "consensus" as being a "no-thinking-allowed approach".
You and I are engaged in this thing called rational discussion.
Consensus for the church means 'we all agree because it says so in our holy book' and you're not allowed to disagree, or you're a bad Christian.
You will see prosecution of B. Hussein Obama for Obstruction of Justice.
... parrot Ann Coulter.
That would be "President Obama," "President Barack Obama," or "President Barack Hussein Obama."
After 68 comments it looks like Obama will not be able to get away with "I want to look forward and not backward." There are too many of us patriots who want to see the criminals of the past administration pay for their crimes so that in the future people in power will not think they can get away with blatantly breaking laws that they do not agree with.
I would go even further and say that if he fails to act, he will come to be held as one of the complicit, as an accessory after the fact.
... qualifies as accessory after the fact.
If Obama had been on any of the committees that were briefed in and/or gave their tacit approval to interrogation methods, yes.
.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/u...
Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Prognostications are just fantasy, since many factors are involved that we can never know about. But I can imagine a future where Obama is judged to have been a weak and ineffective president despite the promise of his candidacy and election. His stimulus plan fails. All the promises he made regarding citizen benefits fail because the economy fails. He refuses to prosecute The Bush criminals. The best that might be said of him is "He was a decent man, but he failed at the presidency trying to create bipartisanship, which was a futile effort in America at that time in history. Instead his presidency was a failure because he refused to lead America in some tough choices that only a partisan effort could achieve."
As I say, prognostications are fantasies, and nobody knows what the future holds. Certainly not us, and certainly not politicians. But right and wrong don't shift and change, and a clear understanding of and commitment to Constitutional government is our only hope for survival as a nation.
Lock the scumbags up...
Break the law GO TO JAIL Doesn't matter who the fuck you are...
LOSERS!!!
I think the main reason for us being where we are now has to do with the fact that we let ford pardon the original republican criminal and that was enough to show the rest that they to could get away with murder and malfeasance without repercussion.
It spawned a whole brood of greedy, selfish, and ruthless back stabbers intent on making themselves rich at taxpayer expense.
Your tax dollars at work for them.
GHW Bush was deeply involved in the Nixon administration, though he wasn't particularly qualified for the jobs he held under Nixon. But his father, Prescott Bush, was initially a Nixon supporter. There is some mystery surrounding what Prescott Bush's involvement with Nazi Germany meant at the time and whether his lawbreaking tendencies were passed on to GHW Bush and GW Bush. There seems to be a cadre of rather murky figures that have shown up in the lives of all three, replaced by others who show up in the succeeding generation of Bush politics. GHW did not hold his father's cadre close but he did hold on to Nixon's cronies, at least the ones who stayed out of jail. It was a dark blend of characters who revolved around a set of less than honorable principles and each other, from Prescott Bush to Nixon to GHW to GW, all overlapping and tending to strengthen the MIC and defy the law.
The point is that it isn't just the link to Nixon that reveals the problem. The link goes farther back in time to Prescott Bush and runs thickly through "behind-the-scenes" forces. That tapestry has far more details than most of us are aware of. GW's neocons fit right in.
Oh ho ho, I beg to differ...
... bananas are the perfect food, as some evangelical types maintain (because it fits the human hand, etc.) ...
... and we are a Christian nation ...
... then what's wrong with being a banana republic?
As long as you don't use it in an elementary school class to explain the mechanics of condom use.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I was just about to type the same thing.
It is nice to have the problem pointed out by nearly every man, woman and child in the country but until the nations acts in a quick and decisive matter to prosecute those that feel they are above to law, it will remain business as usual.
Illinois may be viewed as having some problems but not with the prosecution of corruption in a bipartisan manner. Illinois has put 5 out of it's last eight governors in jail and possible one more to follow soon. Had the federal government been as proactive in application of our federal laws Nixon would have been the first President to be impeached and convicted of crimes.
Regan would have been impeached and convicted for Iran Contra.
McCain would have been convicted for "pay to play" or "obstructing the investigation" for the "Keating 5".
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would have never served out there first term.
It isn't like Democrats haven't had our opportunities to correct these problems. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neal let Regan off and Pelosi became a co-conspirator with Bush when she decided she could disregard the Constitution and "take impeachment off the table".
Lets not dispair yet, the Dems have another chance come Monday if Rove doesn't comply with the suppeona at the House Judiciary Committee. Lets hope the next time we hear the term "looking to the future of justice", it is in the context of watching "Karl becoming acquainted with his new BBF & cell mate Buba" in the federal lockup.
As a last resort to bring bipartisan justice to Washington, we might annex Washington to Illinois an watch the fun begin. :)
1lt
if he signed on to the International Criminal Court and accepted its jurisdiction.
"And honestly, I don't care what else this administration accomplishes. If they fail to hold responsible the people who have so abused the law to serve their political agenda, they will have failed miserably."
I couldn't agree more Susie!!!
I wholeheartedy endorse this post. In fact, I said much the same at Newshoggers in a post three days ago that I decided not to crosspost here because I wasn't entirely sure of its reception.
Regards, C
Well put.
I really, really hope everyone from the MSM can now break the trance, and start talking about the many eledged Bush crimes again. Maybe most TV anchors are slow and not near as smart as Olbermann and Maddow, but the sooner they get on with it the better for us, and for them too i suspect - i'm getting sick of listening to republicans whine about Obama. Give them something new to whine about please!
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Comments are closed on this entry