Obama's pragmatic choice: Prosecute the criminals or be Whitewatered!

[JackRiddler]

Machiavelli says:

There are those who mistakenly believe that pragmatism means avoiding a treatment of the many crimes of state, war crimes and violations of the Constitution commited by the outgoing regime. They call themselves realists and moderates and say investigations, prosecutions or truth commissions will bog down the new administration in a focus on the past, when it's "time to move forward."

First of all, this is wrong. When justice and truth are secondary, no republic, no democracy will survive. When crime pays, criminals receive new incentive.

Second, it's unrealistic. Pragmatism should not be confused with a cowardly push to sweep it all under the rug and pretend it never happened.

Has anyone been paying attention the last 30 years? What do you think the right wing reaction will be to a "post-partisan" "moderate" "time to move on" program? Anyone remember 1993? Clinton was all about moving on, after succeeding to another famously criminal government.

What happened then provides the pattern for what will happen now:

They will dig up every minor piece of bull they can sling at members of the new administration. Sooner or later, something will stick; we live in a country where "real estate" and "financial sector" are synonyms for low-grade corruption. Or something else will catch the media's attention as a decent spectacle. And off we'll go: everything will revolve around some bullshit about someone's sexual affairs, or how they took a payoff when they were dogcatcher, or some insult.

The beast that brought you the recent disasters is still running free, people. If you want change, you need to deal with them.

The choice is not between "pragmatism" and prosecution. If the criminals are not rooted out now, they will return, and the right wing will play dirty. The choice is between prosecution and Whitewatering.

[leftstreet]

1. Methinks our Politician Class doesn't mind this dynamic n/t

[NJmaverick]

2. Perhaps you need to expand your quotes to more than Mchiavelli

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. "

[JackRiddler]

7. "A cancer left to grow will lay the body low."

Just made that up. We can play the wisdom-in-metaphors game all day, but in the end it comes down to realities.

Do you want the Bush mob to get away with it? Do you want to see Jeb or Ellis in 2016 for a third round of plunder and mayhem? (Assuming anything's left after what they just did this time.) We know their M.O. This is our country's challenge: to confront its rogue ruling class.

They will never stop.

That wasn't Machiavelli, either, just me ... playing on the all-too prevalent "moderate" and DNC-DLC idea that pragmatism is the same of "letting crime pay." It's not pragmatic. It's just asking for a bigger disaster down the line.

Please ponder on justice, power and the consequences of letting gangsters rule and prosper and run free. Also, of truth as the only basis for democracy and republican institutions. We can't let them lie and get away with it, we're just asking for secret and deceptive government forevermore.

[kenfrequed]

17. Ah..

But rooting out criminal behavoir will not divide this country anymore than the right wing already has. The radical right will still be there and they will continue to make noise whether Obama goes after the criminals in this administration or not. The difference will be that the ringleaders and Rovian scum responsible for shredding the constitution will be brought to justice.

Else expect a repeat of what happened to Clinton when he decided not to go after the ContraGate criminals.

[JackRiddler]

23. Thanks, exactly.

[Hawkowl]

3. Best defense is a good offense

Your post is nicely put. I would add that Nixon's un-indicted aides brought down Jimmy Carter as well with the arms for hostages deal for Reagan.

[blm]

4. Whitewater was hyped against Clinton because Bushies needed to get into Rose Law Firm

and scrub the files of Rose's biggest client Jackson Stephens. Clinton knew damn well why Bushies legal fixers needed to get in there, as Jackson Stephens was the man who brought BCCI into this country for Poppy Bush and was named in the BCCI report that Clinton spent the 90s deep-sixing for Poppy, Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals and their numerous operatives.

Clinton was a willing participant in the charade - being president was a trade off he'd take.

[JackRiddler]

8. Absolutely...

I mean, your general conclusion: Clinton was all the way with giving cover to the Bush mob, starting with the Iran-Contra coke shipments through Mena, and of course he and Sr. are like best buds to this day. Presumably that's why he was president.

I haven't figured out if Obama's got that kind of direct gangster tie-in. My impression, hope and belief is that he doesn't, that he's truly his own man, although obviously he does not represent a move away from the two-party corporatist imperial consensus. But you never know given the crisis what choices he may face, and he may even do the right thing.

But you know how these things work. Not far down the line RW + corporate media will pump the bullshit against and around him, keep it all tied up in little scandals, especially if he should wake up one day and have a slightly leftist thought.

[blm]

9. At this point I can only hope he chooses to do the right thing. I understand fully there is no

certainty, especially with the power that BFEE wields around the world.

[mod mom]

19. You hit the nail on the head. BFEE-Jackson Stephens-both Clintons.

[Iggo]

5. I say...

...we take our shady real estate deals and put 'em up against their crimes against humanity.

But that's just me...oh and you, too!

[CrazyLate]

6. Corruption runs deep in the political class

the fear comes from being a student of history though. Political bloodletting tends to take a life of it's own (see the French Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution or the Proscriptions of Sulla, Caesar, and Octavian for examples). But sometimes when criminality has reached a certain point, you need a good bloodletting. Most of the bankers and Wall Street and the politicians that enabled the bankrupting of our country need to be marched down the street in shackles.

[chill_wind]

13. I'd agree.

Welcome to DU.

[JackRiddler]

18. Political bloodletting?

Isn't that what the perpetrators did in Iraq and elsewhere? I'm not for the guillotine, but applied to a few hundred heads here it would be a blip compared to what they did.

[CrazyLate]

22. Not sure I follow you...

By Iraq you mean the US or Bush's henchmen or Hussein (he also did a fair amount of bloodletting back in the day).

Moderates usually invoke caution out of fear they will unreasonably end up on the cutting end of the chopping block, such being the case with the French and Russian Revolutions where anything other than unwavering devotion to the revolutionary cause was seen as treason (or came to be seen as treason).

The political class invokes caution for similar reasons, although they are usually more directly complicit in the crimes (e.g., those in both parties who voted for the Iraq war resolutions) and have greater cause for fear. The political class is also, by default, fully invested in the "system" and is never comfortable with the "peasants" calling the shots (even the ones advocating for the "peasants").

That being said (the arguments for caution or moderation), without some sort of nominal or symbolic "bloodletting" (metaphorical or not) where at least some of the guilty are brought to justice for their crimes, you simply encourage greater excess.

With our current financial crisis, not only were we defrauded by the investment bankers and the politicians and the regulatory agencies ostensibly in place to protect us, we (the taxpayer) are now being held hostage with the threat of total financial collapse and are being forced to bail out the bankers and further empower the same folks that got us into the mess to begin with (e.g., Bernanke and his $700 billion blank check to use however he wants without any possibility of Congressional override). And the criminality is shocking in it's audacity. Goldman Sachs gives it's executives $7 billion in bonuses after accepting $6.1 billion in taxpayer money. Remind me who Bush's Treasury Secretary worked for? Oh yeah, until 2004 he was Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. Bernie Madoff? Former chairman of NASDAQ who consulted with the SEC on how to catch frauds (!). My point...we may be past the point of a symbolic bloodletting doing any good.

[JackRiddler]

24. I meant the invasion of Iraq...

and the lies associated with is initiation.

Realistically, in the absolute best-case scenario, we're talking about exposure of information and prosecution of perpetrators (in the end it will be just a few), a truth commission. It's not like the PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act will be applied (as they should be) to their political authors. Everyone accused will arrive with a battalion of lawyers. Will they be hogtied and thrown to the ground, like everyone accused of a felony who earns less than $100,000? Sadly not. There's so little danger of a French/Russian Revolution or Sulla/Caesar massacre that you make me think that knowing too much history can be a hindrance. ;)

[CrazyLate]

25. Iraq is a winding rabbit hole

The Bush administration will claim they were duped by bad intelligence, the same intelligence that the Democrats (some of them, anyway) saw and voted on. The odd guy out that contradicts the party line will find himself or herself in a freak plane accident. End result of the narrative: "we're innocent, you guys are just as bad as us", etc. I agree there will be no justice here. Obama does not have enough power and the imperial minded corruption runs too deep.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. He could create an appointment to just round up the old Bush admin.

and put them all in jail by the cheapest way possible.

[Senator]

11. True, There's Either A New Sheriff In Town...

...or a new Deputy Fife.

Obama seems determined to end up in the middle of the road -- squished.

His http://www.talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">ongoing complicity with torture and war crimes is there to be used against him. Don't think the hypocritical neofascists won't take it up the minute the bushcheney posse is safely out of town.

--

[specimenfred1984]

12. It's much worse than that, either prosecute the criminals or the U.S. is the next Argentina

The U.S. is morally bankrupt from torture camps, illegal war, ignoring U.S. cities and spying on our own citizens. Now, the U.S. financial system is bankrupt as well, the world doesn't trust us, we don't trust our own banks or gov't and, 100s of billions are being stolen as I type. The last thing the elites did in Argentina was flee with the big money and it's happening right now in the U.S..

[glitch]

14. Exactly. Confidence will not be restored until the system is cleaned up.

We will not recover until we regain our own and the world's confidence that we are no longer controlled by a criminal enterprise run amuk.

Obama is a start in regaining that confidence, but he'll lose it fast if he goes to forgiveness without acknowledgement of guilt from the criminals, followed by their punishment (even if punishment is simply exposure, if that is all appeasement allows).

Only then can people be somewhat assured that this won't happen again. It will take years to restore confidence probably, but it will never happen if the criminals are allowed to not only stay in society but continue to prosper from it.

[L0oniX]

15. The future is a crime syndicate government unless Obama goes after everyone involved.

If he doesn't then I plan on becoming a criminal just like everyone else in government.

[JackRiddler]

16. kick

[autorank]

20. In this one instance

I believe that there is an intention to engage in a robust prosecution of criminals.

If you announce it now rather than let it emerge, suddenly and at a point where there is no other
choice but to follow an investigative path with full consequences, then you blow you shot.

There will be any number of scandals that come up that can be used as an excuse to go for the
whole nine yards. He may have one with the Abramoff findings, a virtual three ring circus of
the corruiption of this president.

The "moderate" cabinet, the cozening up with the bigot preachers, etc. are all to be judged on their
face. But a rip roaring investigation of the previous administration is not something that you
announce.

[JackRiddler]

21. I agree, we're in that delicious period...

wherein total capitulation to "pragmatism" would look identical on the surface to an intelligent strategy for bringing the mob down. Out of office or not, these are a big part of the PTB, so you can't challenge before you're in position.

Except... I don't really believe it.

[autorank]

27. You may very well be right. In fact, I agree with you;)

I was referring to a series of events starting accidentally and unopposed causing major
complications. 'Mon Dieu! Look at those US Attorneys, raking all that muck. Can't
interfere since Justice does not operate politically.' He really shouldn't be driving this. He
should appoint an A.G. who will appoint and support US Attorney's with the guts to get the job
done. Not exactly a bold policy I'm hypothesizing and it's a stretch at that.

I think that Vincent Bugliosi's efforts to get local DA's to try Bush, Cheney, Rice, and maybe others
for murder is a more likely outcome.

[JackRiddler]

28. Exactly...

People who defend Clinton's approach in 1993 have argued that, after all, he couldn't do anything. He's only the president, not a prosecutor. He'll be seen as a partisan, stuck in the past, etc. etc.

Which is complete bullshit, I'm sorry. Because what I would expect a serious president who believes in the law to do is simple, necessary, legal and right:

1) Appoint a few prosecutors who think government crime is a very high priority.

2) Don't stand in their way. Give them what they need.

3) Appoint IGs who think government crime is a very high priority.

4) Don't stand in their way. Give them what they need.

5) Proactively release stores of information relevant to government crime as you find them. See to it that they get talked about. This isn't difficult, and it hardly need be done from the presidential pulpit.

6) Ease up on the FOIA restrictions and such, pursue sunshine policy.

7) Whenever this comes back to you in a question, say that openness, accountability and justice are your highest values, but of course you're learning and waiting to see like everyone else.

8) Don't take up rhetorical bandwidth with meaningless feel-good bullshit about moving on. It's not that you attack the idea of it, it's that you don't promote it, that's all.

Put committed upstanding people of courage in place, give them support and the rest will follow.

[Hubert Flottz]

26. What if nobody looked back on April 15th?

[JackRiddler]

29. Why do you pick that date?

What do you mean?

[Hubert Flottz]

30. The date we file our income tax form for the PAST year....

Will the IRS not look back on last year's income? Under the government not looking back plan, they should forget about what we owe them, right?

I mean, if we're not looking back, we might as well do it across the board.

[JackRiddler]

31. Ah, yes...

Another example: ANYONE who acts as though the latest O.J. Simpson case was a milestone for justice has no business standing in the way of dealing with Bush regime crimes.

[Hubert Flottz]

32. Our justice system is rotten from the top down, for example,

take the case of Bush vs Gore in 2000.

The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to shit all over the Constitution and to wipe it's ass on the will of the people, for purely partisan political reasons. That case put 2 outlaws into the highest office in the land who never should have been there legally and the country has been on a down hill slide into the third world ever since. With outlaws "Leading" the country one could not expect any better outcome than what we have witnessed unfold in our nation over the past eight disgraceful years. Hackery and quackery on the highest court in the land should not be tolerated in a "Nation Of Laws"...we have become a nation of outlaws.

The people in the highest offices in the land are anything but "honorable".

Just like in the case of Abu Ghraib, the "bad apples" were rotten all the way to the very top, of the chain of command.

The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi
June 19, 2001

Five Justices of the Supreme Court guilty of treason? This is one of the central assertions of Vincent Bugliosi's provocative commentary on the U.S. Supreme Court's unprecedented intrusion into politics that handed George Bush the presidency. The book is an expansion of an article first written for The Nation magazine. While he admits "No technical crime was committed by the five conservative Justices," he continues that that is "only because no Congress ever dreamed of enacting a statute making it a crime to steal a presidential election." He goes on to argue that while not guilty of treason in the strict sense defined in the Constitution -- the only crime defined there, by the way -- there is little difference between giving aid and comfort to an enemy in time of war, and doing grave and unjustifiable damage to the nation "which the Justices surely did by stealing the office of the presidency for the candidate of their choice."

Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles deputy District Attorney who first came to public attention during his successful prosecution of Charles Manson, has written a scathing critique of the actions of the conservative Supreme Court Justices, O'Connor, Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy, in connection with the controversial 2000 election in Florida. He argues essentially that from the moment there was a possibility of Supreme Court involvement in determining the results of the election, the conservative Justices simply resolved to do whatever was necessary to anoint George W. Bush president.

Bugliosi details the significant history of several Justices in the Republican party. Clarence Thomas was a legislative assistant to Republican Senator John Danforth, who sponsored his nomination to the court. Justice O'Connor served three terms as a Republican member of the Arizona legislature and was co-chair of the Arizona committee to elect Richard Nixon president. Justice Kennedy was one of the highest-paid lobbyists in California during the time Ronald Reagan was governor, and worked actively to promote Reagan's anti-tax initiative.

Special vitriol is reserved for Chief Justice Rehnquist, who, Bugliosi points out, at Bush's inauguration was swearing in someone he "made sure would be president," -- an historic, if dubious, first. Bugliosi makes the case that Rehnquist committed perjury during his confirmation hearings in 1971. At the time of the hearings, Newsweek published a 1952 memo from Rehnquist to Justice Robert Jackson, concerning segregation. The memo was written at the time that the court was hearing arguments on the Brown vs. Board of Education case. Brown vs. Board of Education was the landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that 'separate but equal' facilities were illegal, and that schools should be integrated. Rehnquist's 1952 memo read, More...

http://www.thedubyareport.com/betrayal.html

This is a link to a review of the book: The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi

Anyone who hasn't read this book needs to do so. Then call up your "LEADERS" in Washington and ask them to look into fixing our badly broken American Justice System, instead of sitting on their tired asses and taking the eazy/sleazy way out. Our leaders/Law Makers, beg for our votes and they take an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution and the rule of law, but they haven't delivered anything but total bullshit lately. "The Rule Of Law" has been off the table for far too long.

Tell Nancy to look into impeaching some judges if they don't uphold the law...

[JackRiddler]

33. one, two, three, and -- kick!

[JackRiddler]

34. The two days to Bush departure kick

[JackRiddler]

35. The 24-hour kick!