On that whole, "looking forward" thing

[pecunium]

I see a lot of apologists (mostly for torture, but some for things like wiretapping), saying we need to look foreward, not backwards.

One.. huh? Prosecutions have to look bacwards. A crime has to happen before it can be prosecuted.

That's the first oddity. The other one is that I saw, in the dim and distant past of 2008, a lot of people saying, "Well sometimes the law has to be broken. If a cop knows someone has info, and the only way to get it is to torture the guy, then he needs to do it. No jury will convict someone who saves a kid's life by beating up a perp."

This is often followed by a bravura follow-on: "I'd do it if I had to, and I'd turn myself in and face the music."

Ok, lets assume that's true.

Why aren't the people who authorised the tortures saying, "Yeah, I ordred peopel to do it. I had to, it was to save lives. So go ahead, charge me. I'll prove it was needed, and no jury will convict me?"

Comments

[burger-eater.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I would love to see open trials and an airing out of this whole shitpile.

But I don't have to live with the political consequences of it. Back during the Clinton impeachment hearings, Henry Hyde was pretty open about saying it was payback for Nixon. Having the former leaders of the opposition party taken away in handcuffs would make it impossible for Obama to push his agenda through.

And I'll bet they're afraid of how it will play in the media, too, with the officials being brought in front of Congress (as they inevitably would) wearing their suits and looking upward in every framed shot, while far right politicians and their allies in the media talk about scary brown-skinned men with beards, and all the tough choices involved in protecting curly-haired little girls across America.

I don't think the current administration trusts the American people to come out solidly on the right side of this, and I think their doubts are justified. I believe Obama wants a legacy of repaired/expanded social programs that will become so popular they'll be pretty much permanent. I don't think he wants to risk a legacy of unpopular prosecutions and opposition backlash.

Which sucks. It's exasperating and depressing, and it makes me ashamed. There are so many deaths because of the lies of the previous administration, and none of them will be personally held accountable. You know what I think will happen? Exposes will be written for the next decade or so. Movies will come out about it. A government commission will be formed in about 20 years to bring the truth to light, and a hundred and fifty years from now, the U.S. president will go on the national media and formally apologize for the torture and civilian deaths.

And the media will criticize him for it.

Sorry. Feeling cynical today.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Depends on who/how it's done.

Part of what the Republicans forget is the reason Nixon stepped down is he was told the Republicans in the House would vote to impeach,and the Republicans in the Senate would convict.

I wish that had happened. It would have made it harder for the, "partisan" actions of the "Left" bringing down the Noble Nixon.

It could still happen. If the evidence is strong enough, then the only people who will be able to vote against impeachment/conviction will be obviously voting party, not facts.

And it could be 435/100 to impeach/convict, the "GOP can do no wrong crowd won't believe it, even if Bush admitted to buggering baby guniea pigs for drug money.

So the real question is, who is willing to be grown up enough to say, "This demands real investigation."