June 25, 2008


The 'W.' Stands for 'War Criminal': The House and a shot not yet heard 'round the world (Nat Hentoff, June 24th, 2008, Village Voice)

In a June 6 letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey—largely ignored by a press immersed in the future of Hillary Clinton—56 Democrats in the House of Representatives asked for "an immediate investigation with the appointment of a special counsel to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) . . . and other U.S. and international laws."

This isn't front-page news?

No, it's a tantrum.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 25, 2008 10:29 AM

It's only a tantrum now, but if the left returns to power, convicting Bushies will be high on their agenda. Another reason to vote for McCain no matter what foolishness he says and does and no matter whom he picks for VP.

Posted by: erp at June 25, 2008 1:38 PM

The Dems aren't going to actually do this. But they are apparently deadly serious about shutting down talk radio.

Posted by: b at June 25, 2008 3:35 PM

I fear the post election legal BS, not because I fear for Bush et al, but for the unmitigated destructiveness to our civil democracy that would ensue. Of course, that is likely a plus for those going this route.

But I do consider one possible GOP response. And that would be for a high ranking Republican and/or a retired military officer of flag rank to go to each and every ally with whom we have a defense treaty, and tell them, "Hey, we can't speak for the US Govt, but we can tell you flat out that your US defense treaty is now null and void. If you think you can count on the US to fight wars on your behalf, we are here to tell you we cannot. We were once a serious country, we are no longer. Do not kid yourselves otherwise. Whatever flank you are counting on the US to hold for you is now naked, and you had better think and act accordingly. It's not that we don not want to help defend you.... it is that we CANNOT help defend you. The rot is too deep. The ability of our society to fight for freedom upon this earth has been destroyed. Maybe it will return one day, maybe it will not. But it is not a factor today, and if you depend on it, it will fail you. We tell you this because our own honor demands that we do. We are now out of the war fighting business. Act accordingly".

Of course, that too, may be the plan. But to paraphrase a good man, "You go to war (or not) with the society you have". The society described by such a course as post-election legal pursuits is simply not a serious nation capable of defending any ally, or even itself one must consider.

Posted by: Andrew X at June 25, 2008 3:40 PM

Funny to read the article and see how Mr. Hentoff cites legal scholars stating that simply to deny habeas corpus rights to foreign terrorists is itself a violation of the law. His copy of the Constitution must be different from mine.

Of course, as Justice Scalia noted in his recent dissent, four of the five justices who ruled against Bush in the Boumediene case had joined an opinion in 2005 arguing that of course the president could go to Congress to "suspend" habeas corpus "rights" for alien terrorists and enemies. As Scalia noted, "Turns out they were just kidding."

Posted by: Matt Murphy at June 25, 2008 6:19 PM

The criminalization of the policies of the government you just replaced (as opposed to actual corruption) is a recipe for civil war. Who's going to give up power voluntarily when know you are headed to prison or years of legal harassment? The same goes for silencing dissent. Why talk when the penalty is no different from actual violence?

The only reason the Left supports this is because they really do seem to believe that they will never be on the receiving end of what they started (and with the Stupid Party as their opponents, they are correct.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 25, 2008 7:05 PM
blog comments powered by Disqus