4. This week, on Chris Matthew's show, in response to Matthews asking the question, "tell me something I don't know," blogger Andrew Sullivan of Atlantic.com said, "this man, these men [Bush and other high level administration officials] will be indicted for war crimes." Though we're not sure they will, this man, these men OUGHT to be tried for war crimes.
Tom Head: FICTION. George W. Bush DESERVES to be indicted for war crimes, but I don't know whether he ought to be. We need to ask ourselves, first, who it is that would be doing the indicting. If it's a future Democratic administration, then it will be seen as a partisan attack writ large and will present no moral victory, even in the event of a conviction. If it's a future Republican administration, then independent counsel--which we do not currently have--would be necessary to ensure that the prosecution has any teeth. If it's an international human rights body, then the precedent set would also necessitate war crimes prosecutions against the heads of state of China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia--but who are we kidding? The United States isn't even a signatory to the International Criminal Court. So I would say, with respect to the brilliant Andrew Sullivan, that George W. Bush will never be indicted for war crimes, and ought not to be indicted for war crimes under the existing war crimes framework--even if he deserves to be.
Robert Zimmer: FACT. Anyone who sat in the White House situation room and consented to war crimes should be tried for them, regardless of their rank, stature, or precedent. In a fine bit of irony, only the breast-averse Attorney General, John Ashcroft, pushed back against the criminal activities and descrecation of the Constitution promulgated by Bush and his top advisors under the rubric of empowering the nation to fight the war on terror. A non-partisan (or bi-partisan) independent counsel panel should be empowered to investigate war crimes and impeachable offenses, and Bush as well as anyone who enabled him should be held accountable. As Ashcroft suggested, history will not view this administration's actions kindly. Ashcroft is too kind—I think history will record the Bush administration as the worst of the 43.
Tom Head: FICTION. George W. Bush DESERVES to be indicted for war crimes, but I don't know whether he ought to be. We need to ask ourselves, first, who it is that would be doing the indicting. If it's a future Democratic administration, then it will be seen as a partisan attack writ large and will present no moral victory, even in the event of a conviction. If it's a future Republican administration, then independent counsel--which we do not currently have--would be necessary to ensure that the prosecution has any teeth. If it's an international human rights body, then the precedent set would also necessitate war crimes prosecutions against the heads of state of China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia--but who are we kidding? The United States isn't even a signatory to the International Criminal Court. So I would say, with respect to the brilliant Andrew Sullivan, that George W. Bush will never be indicted for war crimes, and ought not to be indicted for war crimes under the existing war crimes framework--even if he deserves to be.
Robert Zimmer: FACT. Anyone who sat in the White House situation room and consented to war crimes should be tried for them, regardless of their rank, stature, or precedent. In a fine bit of irony, only the breast-averse Attorney General, John Ashcroft, pushed back against the criminal activities and descrecation of the Constitution promulgated by Bush and his top advisors under the rubric of empowering the nation to fight the war on terror. A non-partisan (or bi-partisan) independent counsel panel should be empowered to investigate war crimes and impeachable offenses, and Bush as well as anyone who enabled him should be held accountable. As Ashcroft suggested, history will not view this administration's actions kindly. Ashcroft is too kind—I think history will record the Bush administration as the worst of the 43.
1 for 4. Interesting how even in disagreement, the two agree to "string up" Bush and company!
No comments:
Post a Comment