THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH COMMISSIONS – Why America Doesn’t Try Its Own War Criminals

[leveymg]

There’s only one group who seems to want an actual trial for high-level Bush Administration officials less than the defendants who face indictment – those who succeeded them at the levers of power in Washington. America in its 242 year history has never criminally prosecuted a former President, Vice President or Cabinet officer for official acts.

But, now may be the time to set precedent.

Never in the history of this Republic has the U.S. suffered such a decline of fortune in such a short period of time as it has in the period between the Inauguration of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney in January 20, 2001 and their departure from Washington five weeks ago.

Never before has there been so much clear and compelling evidence of felony commissions by former Administration, on such a vast scale and variety of crimes – including their own admissions on the record -- as we already hold in our hands for Bush-Cheney. Never before has there been so much manifest dereliction (and worse) at the highest levels of American government. They are the worst America has had, by far, so far.

But, if there is an official refusal to apply the law to prosecute crimes committed beyond a shadow of doubt, then what is left? How does society otherwise set up sufficiently powerful deterrents to those who would do similar – and worse – in the future?

The source and answer to this dilemma is in history, as we see below . . .

***

War crimes by Americans are nothing new – as anyone who’s familiar with the history of the 20th Century wars in Vietnam, Korea, and even World War Two is well-aware. What is new is that is that public is today more broadly aware of the fact, in large part because of pushback and disclosures from within the military and intelligence services, some at the highest levels. The source of the Abu Ghraib photos, for instance, was Army Military Intelligence.



What is already clear today is the fact that command authorization for the crimes were authorized at the highest level of the Administration. We know because the Pentagon and CIA realized immediately that what the Bush-Cheney was ordering them to do was illegal. Everyone involved created CYA files, and "documented" to save themselves from the charges they knew would surely come.

That's why we know who gave the orders, and what was written and said that led to the crimes of the Global War on Terrorism. The key memos signed in the White House to order and compel war crimes, including torture and commission of a war of aggression in Iraq, are already in the public domain. And, have been for years.

Many of these documents came out of Inspector General investigations prompted by the Intelligence Community and authorized by top Generals after it was realized that the pretext for March 2003 invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated fraud. Then, there was the Plame outing, and the resulting Libby Trial. There have already been several Truth Commission held in Washington.

As Professor Turley has pointed out, and most legal authorities acknowledge, the case that could be mounted in defense of Bush-Cheney is extremely weak and technical. The fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their aides broke the law on many occasions is plainly on the record and available to anyone who has Internet access and takes the time to research the subject. There are so many criminal charges that could be brought against former White House officials that a jury is almost certain to convict, right up to the top. Even if Bush or Cheney were to later prevail on appeal, it would not absolve them in the public eye if they were forced to answer for their acts in open court.

Clear and compelling evidence of serious crimes are already on record. There are the statements of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and other inner-circle admitting to authorization of programs that were clearly illegal. CYA legal memos written by Yoo and other lackeys are no real defense. No reasonable person could rely on them. Crimes against the laws of war and of the United States are clear, and those responsible knew they were breaking the law. There is no need for a Congressional Truth Commission to bring out further evidence. There is already more than enough particulars known to fill out indictments.

The only thing that stands between the Bush White House and a DC Grand Jury, and federal prison, is a lack of political will by its successors to convene a Grand Jury. Tradition. Tradition.

There’s another historical tradition, one that is something of a taboo to discuss in this country. In the past, powerful men have transgressed too far, and often conventional means of removal or redress didn’t exist, weren’t practical at the time, or could be safely ignored. There are numerous cases of sudden Kremlin “health emergencies”, mid-air “mechanical failures” over the Hindu Kush, and shadows of concealed gunmen. Of course, these things don’t happen in America. Such things happen in pre and post-democratic countries.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are also the stuff of pre and post-democratic countries: South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Liberia, Sierra Leone have all had them. America hasn’t had a TARC, although we’ve had a number of "blue ribbon" commissions in recent decades. Until now, we didn’t call them that. Whether Post-Watergate, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, these hearings have two things in common. Nobody of any real consequence went to jail as a result, and they haven’t worked very well to deter recurrences.

Thus far, when the system has failed to indict and try those who commit crimes of state, that’s a sign of worse to come.

***

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd. Hopefully we can convene a grand jury, which would be

the right thing to do (so it probably won't happen). I did like to hear what Pelosi was dishing last night, but don't know if it was all lip service. I guess we'll see...

[robertpaulsen]

2. K & R! No more Warrens, no more Keans. Just the Truth!

:kick:

[Jambalaya]

18. Badge 714

Hey,where's Sagent Friday when you NEED him?

Oh,for a Dragnet-esque investigation!. JUST THE FACTS,m'am(or sir),PLEASE!

[bdamomma]

3. this comment:

"America in its 242 year history has never criminally prosecuted a former President, Vice President or Cabinet officer for official acts".


well I think it is about time to change this idea, or these crimes are to be repeated again and probably by the same people again.

[dysfunctional press]

4. bush and/or cheney will never be held to account in any court of law.

bank on it.

[arthritisR_US]

7. They can't even get Rove to testify so how could these impotent enablers ever

get indictments let alone prosecutions? :banghead:

[ThomWV]

5. You've got sort of a major inaccuracy in your opening statement

"John Newton Mitchell (September 15, 1913–November 9, 1988) was the first United States Attorney General ever to be convicted of illegal activities and imprisoned. He also served as campaign director for the Committee to Re-elect the President, which engineered the Watergate first break-in and employed Watergate burglar James W. McCord, Jr. in a "security" capacity."

Source - Wiki

Hail to the Chief

[leveymg]

10. That wasn't for an official act.

And Mitchell never spent a day in jail for an official act - that was for perjury in the cover-up.

[Pharaoh]

6. Pelosi?

Off the Table Pelosi?O8)

[librechik]

8. Don't be afraid--it's not criminalizing political agendas--It's illegal to have crimes

be the backbone/result of the political agenda. It's not "Republicanism" what Cheney did. It's a crime.

Cheney was the one doing the criminalizing of politics.

We can't let this go--it's a crime which will be repeated until we actually hold these people to account.

[struggle4progress]

9. Official Washington's lack of interest in prosecuting the Bush era crimes is a political matter,

which can be understood from the history

Only in the last few days of the Nixon presidency, did it become clear that public opinion would support impeachment and conviction. Until that became clear, the Republicans were essentially intransigent about the crimes of Watergate; when opinion finally shifted, the Republicans themselves demanded Nixon's resignation to avoid further harm to their party. But after the Nixon resignation, the Republicans became to reorganize around the theme that Nixon had been unfairly hounded from office, and less than a decade later they were back in power. They learned enough lessons from Watergate, to be able to forestall similar proceedings in the case where Reagan's administration ran illegal operations from the White House basement, and they held the grudge long enough to impeach Clinton, whose wife had served in the Watergate investigation. The Bush administration contained various political veterans from the Watergate and Iran-Contra eras

The nature of the ideological counter-attack that will be mounted, if Bush cronies are charged with crimes, is absolutely clear -- and it will be disasterous to our side, if we lose such a fight. Any attempt, to bring the Bush-era criminals to justice, requires that the public understand clearly the scope of the problem. The political problem must be solved, in large part, before any prosecution is politically possible

[leveymg]

11. Public opinion supporting Nixon's impeachment shot up the moment the Bill of Impeachment was drafted

Action speaks, and the public responds.

The day the indictment for Bush and Cheney is released, and people get a chance to examine each count, there will be 70 to 80 precent support for jailing them. Already, sixty-percent want an investigation, with more than four to three margin preferring criminal probe to a Truth Commission. See, www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-11-investigation-poll_N.htm

Of course, we have to win this fight. But, let's do it now, because as you pointed out the Bushite Rethuugs will be back later with a vengence if we don't mop 'em up now.

[struggle4progress]

13. The first articles of impeachment cleared the House less than two weeks before Nixon's resignation

What that essentially means is that Congress did not act, until it was pretty sure of itself politically, and that after the Republicans and Nixon could no longer ignore the writing on the wall

I agree that the sooner something happens, the better

I simply prefer to aim first at establishing the general facts in public as clearly as possible, and then aiming for any appropriate criminal indictments afterwards -- and I think the criminal indictments face a steep uphill climb

[Zhade]

12. KICK/REC

NT!

[daleo]

14. If the president does it, it's not a crime

Basically, Nixon was just repeating what history had revealed to him.

[H2O Man]

15. Thank you for this.

Much appreciated.

Nominated.

[chill_wind]

16. I think the U.K. tail is wagging the U.S. dog as of this moment.

You would never know it in the US media, but grotesque disclosures almost daily in the UK media about their own government's complicity with the U.S.'s in one of their high profile renditioned and Gitmo detainee cases has publically taken hold in that government's, media's and citizenry's interest and doesn't appear it will shake loose anytime soon. That is why I believe we are seeing this timing of a heightened interest in the appearance of "doing something" immediately here and now, even as Congress can't agree among themselves what and how (ie merits of Commissions vs Special Prosecutors).

They in present government could prove their seriousness and their odds of success perhaps by adopting the calls for a swift 3-prong approach-- commission, Senate Select committee AND the call for a Special Prosecutor (as argued by groups like the ACLU). I too am one of of very many worried about a toothless commission leading to more coverup and whitewash-- and criminals going free, only to return to us sooner than imagined with a vengeance. Again.

K & R.

[Usrename]

17. I don't know if this has been thought through properly.

I think some huge assumptions are being made, assumptions that may not be correct. Here's what bugs me about this analysis:

"Even if Bush or Cheney were to later prevail on appeal, it would not absolve them in the public eye if they were forced to answer for their acts in open court."

I don't know how you get to this point. If the Supreme Court throws the case out before it can be heard, wouldn't that be a very public resolution of this whole affair, basically granting them complete and total absolution for any and all of their actions? Why wouldn't that only make things worse, and why would anyone expect this court to do anything different?

Eight years ago the SCOTUS was able to halt a presidential election dead in its tracks, and there was very little that anyone could do about it. They showed that they have the power an the resolve, and the court has only gotten worse since then, what with Alito replacing O'Connor on the bench.

If they can stop an election from taking place, with the whole world watching, what makes you think that they would be unable (or un-inclined) to keep a criminal prosecution from going forward?

Isn't there a HUGE danger in trying to bring this kind of case while this particular court is in power?

It seems to me like it would be a very good idea to impeach Scalia and have him replaced on the bench before making any case against these monsters. Are you aware that Scalia had a sleepover with a defendant in a case that was before him and then refused to recuse himself when he was challenged about it? His best excuse for not recusing himself was to claim that spending the night with a defendant should be viewed the same as attending a state function with a defendant. I kid you not.

Trying to bring a war crimes case like this one before this particular court does not seem like a very intelligent tactical move. What can possibly be gained from it, weighed against what can be lost?

Tactically, the focus should be on impeaching Scalia first. Win or lose, it would mean that someone would have to try and defend his actions. He had a weekend camping trip with the defendant in a case that was before him, and then he refused to recuse himself from the case! If he is incapable of comprehending how this might have the appearance of impropriety, then what does that say about his judgment and his suitability to be a Supreme Court justice? In any event, a serious call for his impeachment would, at the very least, dilute the Court's credibility. That alone might be reason enough to go for it.

[Jambalaya]

19. Just Desserts

We have the government we have earned, and therefore deserve.

A pathetic,apathetic populace that has been an acquiescent accomplice of indifference to human suffering other than their own.And indeed become complacent to their impending third world status-endleslly programmed by mainstream propanganda about the economic meltdown.

Wasn't it Jefferson who said that when the government fears the people there is democracy,but when the people fear the government there is tyranny?

When will American's grow up and realize that one cannot substitute a wishbone for a backbone?