Keeping the Crimes Straight

Having trouble keeping the infinite crimes of the Smitky/Darth maladministration straight? Confused about what and who warrants prosecution, impeachment, pardoning?

Slate to the rescue, with a clickable Venn Diagram that covers all the major players, all their crimes and how they all interact in a single, easy-to-use graphic.

Also in Slate, Dahlia Lithwick explains why both pardoners and impeachers should agree to investigate first.

It says much about the cartoonish ways in which we talk about law and politics that the conversation about accountability for the Bush administration's lawbreaking takes place chiefly at the extremes. The choice, it would seem, is between Nuremberg-style war crime tribunals, broadcast live at primetime in January of 2009, or blanket immunity for everyone, in advance of knowing what they did or why. The men and women responsible for our descent into torture and eavesdropping in the last seven years are cast as either Nazi war criminals, in the manner of Judgment at Nuremberg, or valiant American heroes, in the model of Fox television's Jack Bauer.

(SNIP)
... the question for most of us now is not whether laws were broken, but what to do about it. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a federal crime for any American—military or civilian—to cause a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions' ban on inhumane treatment for prisoners. U.S. interrogators have been inhumane. Some of them have not only tortured but, in at least 100 cases, killed prisoners. A smattering of relatively low-ranking soldiers have been prosecuted, but in most instances there has been little or no accountability and none whatsoever at the top.

Will a sorting and allocating of responsibility for torture and other acts of lawlessness tear the country apart, or is it a necessary step toward repairing our image in the world? Is punishing wrongdoers a partisan witch hunt? Or is the failure to punish its own kind of lawlessness?

(SNIP)

I am not arguing for instant war crimes prosecutions or for criminal indictments. The vital lesson of the past seven years is that hasty legal judgments are often bad ones and that criminal cases are difficult to build for a reason; questions of intent and knowledge really do matter more than conclusory labels. So this time, let's allow those legal processes to work.

On the other hand, we need careful investigation before we take the possibility of criminal prosecution off the table. To immunize or pardon everyone from John Yoo to David Addington to Monica Goodling, before we've seen critical classified memos or heard the conclusions on several fronts of the Department of Justice inspector general, is to remedy the reckless and dangerous decisions of the past with more dangerous recklessness. Criminal investigations aren't just about revenge, whatever Mukasey may think. They are a means of obtaining information and ultimately truth.

I also want to suggest that the wrong way to talk about legal accountability for the Bush administration is to cast it as something America owes the rest of the world. Sure, it's critically important to show our allies and enemies alike that the rule of law still means something here. But it is far more important to have this legal reckoning for America. Not because of some deranged liberal bloodlust, but because we need to understand that there just aren't two sets of law in America, one of which—like the good linen—we keep for special occasions. There isn't one set of laws for when we're panicky and reckless and another for tranquil times. There isn't one set of laws to punish the soldiers in the field and another for the commanders at the top. It's not just the president who seems to have forgotten this lesson in the last seven years. Most of us have. Worse yet, we've forgotten why it matters. We owe it to ourselves to begin to remember.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Keeping the Crimes Straight" >>

Short Take - Pardoning Scooter

TPMuckraker has a post on Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) who is advocating pardoning Scooter Libby. It's also the headline blog at The Blog Report. Basically, it's the argument we've heard before:

Davis' rationale? Since the commutation allows Libby continued appeals to contest his conviction, he would assert his Fifth Amendment rights in the event that Congress calls him to testify about the Plame leak.

"If a pardon had been granted this committee could have immunized him and brought him here," Davis said.

Sounds right? Uh, NO! We need to rid ourselves of this thought process right now.

Lest we forget, what was Libby convicted of? Perjury - that means lying, not telling the truth, fabricating, prevarication, omission.

The man is a liar and he will lie about anything to protect the Dick - even to Congress, pardon or not, immunity or not.

There's more: "Short Take - Pardoning Scooter" >>

Mitt flip-flops on justice

Once again, Mitt Romney reveals his talent as a flip-flopper:

CHICAGO (AP) -- Republican president candidate Mitt Romney, who denied every pardon or commutation during his term as Massachusetts governor, said Thursday a pardon for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby deserves a close examination.

"I took a careful review during my term as governor of the people that were brought forward. That doesn't mean I pardoned them, but I took a careful review. I think this deserves a very careful review," Romney told The Associated Press in a brief interview....

..."I think the prosecutor may well have abused prosecutorial discretion by pursuing the investigation after he had learned that the source of the leak was Richard Armitage," Romney said. "He knew that there was, therefore, not a crime committed and yet, he proceeded with the investigation knowing that there was no crime to pursue.

What utter nonsense. Just because Armitage leaked first doesn't exonerate Libby from leaking a CIA operative identity, too, and then lying about it under oath. The jury convicted Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice. Logic or law and order doesn't have a thing to do with Mitt's position. He's pandering for conservative voters who hold a double standard when the case involves one of their own.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera contends Romney is dodging a fundamental question.

"Defending Scooter Libby may be a good applause line for right wing Republicans, but the American people are looking for a strong and decisive leader who can say one way or another whether he would pardon a man who obstructed a national security investigation in a time of war," LaVera said.

On the campaign trail, Romney often cites his record as governor in denying pardons or commutations. During his four years in office, 100 requests for commutations and 172 requests for pardons were filed in the state. All were denied.

Romney has said he refused pardons because he didn't want to overturn a jury.

His record doesn't square with Mitt's current position on Libby to potentially overturn a jury's decision with a pardon. But give him time. He could flip-flop again.

There's more: "Mitt flip-flops on justice" >>

The Blog of Independence appeals for a pardon for the “ACORN 4”

Todd (not a pseudonym) Elkins at The Blog for Independence has posted an impassioned appeal for pardoning the ACORN 4. I am proud to say that I was the first blogger to comment on his fine post, and I heartily second the motion.

He puts it very well – there is a place for Justice, yes. But sometimes Mercy is what is called for, and I think this is one of those times.

In the final analysis, what these people did was not a smart move – but they are not election-fixers. They were motivated by an $8.00 per hour wage, while canvassing door-to-door one scorching autumn afternoon. The odds that the actions of these four actually impacting the election is infinitesimally small. They did not file those registrations for the purpose of casting ballots – they filed them to make a living wage.

Todd makes the appeal much better than I can. Go visit his site and leave a comment of support. Turn his post into an online petition drive!

There's more: "The Blog of Independence appeals for a pardon for the “ACORN 4”" >>