Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
America's Law-Free Zone
David Rivkin and Lee Casey are right-wing lawyers and former Reagan DOJ officials who, over the last eight years, have been extremely prolific in jointly defending Bush/Cheney theories of executive power. Today, they have one of their standard Op-Eds, this time in The Washington Post, demanding that there be no investigations or prosecutions of Bush officials. Most of the arguments they advance are the standard platitudes now composing Beltway conventional wisdom on this matter. But there is one aspect of their advocacy that is somewhat remarkable and worth noting.
Rifkin and Casey have long been vigorous opponents of the legitimacy of international tribunals to adjudicate crimes committed by American officials. In February, 2007, they wrote an Op-Ed in the Post bitterly criticizing Italian officials for indicting 25 CIA agents who had literally kidnapped a Muslim cleric from Italy and "rendered" him from Milan to Egypt. In that Op-Ed, the Bush-defending duo argued that Italy had no right to prosecute these agents (h/t reader tc):
An Italian court announced this month that it is moving forward with the indictment and trial of 25 CIA agents charged with kidnapping a radical Muslim cleric. These proceedings may well violate international law, but the case serves as a wake-up call to the United States . . . .
[T]he United States must still vigorously resist the prosecution of its indicted agents. . . . [I]t is up to American, not Italian, authorities to determine whether any offense was committed in the capture and rendition of Nasr.
Unfortunately, the effort to prosecute these American agents is only one instance of a growing problem. Efforts to use domestic and international legal systems to intimidate U.S. officials are proliferating, especially in Europe. Cases are pending in Germany against other CIA agents and former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- all because of controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. These follow Belgium's misguided effort to pursue "universal jurisdiction" claims for alleged violations of international law, which also resulted in complaints against American officials including Vice President Cheney and former secretary of state Colin Powell. That law was amended, but the overall problem is unlikely to go away. The initiation of judicial proceedings against individual Americans is too attractive a means of striking at the United States -- and one often not subject to control by the relevant foreign government.
Accordingly, Congress should make it a crime to initiate or maintain a prosecution against American officials if the proceeding itself otherwise violates accepted international legal norms.
So it's up to the U.S. -- not any foreign tribunals -- to prosecute war crimes and other felonies committed by American officials (for reasons that, at least in part and under certain circumstances (not prevailing in the Italian case), I find persuasive). In fact, they argue, international prosecutions are so illegitimate that such proceedings themselves should be declared crimes. Indeed, like most of their political comrades, Rivkin and Casey have consistently argued that U.S. jurisdiction over alleged violations of international law and U.S. treaties by U.S. citizens -- including our leaders -- is exclusive.
They made the same argument when opposing U.S. ratification of the enabling statute of the International Criminal Court (.pdf), arguing that "[t]he question is whether [international] law can, or should, be enforced outside national legal systems that have generally functioned well." Their answer, of course, is that, when it comes to Americans, international law obligations cannot and shouldn't be enforced anywhere but America:
There are many problems with the Rome Treaty. The most immediate one, for Americans, is the danger of its being used as a political instrument against us. But the most profound flaw is a philosophical one: The concept of "international" justice underpinning the ICC project is more apparent than real. . . .
The prosecution of political leaders is inherently political, and there are at least two sides to every political conflict. . . . From America's perspective, the greatest practical danger of joining the ICC regime would be that the court, driven by those who may resent American global preeminence, could seek to restrain the use of U.S. military power through prosecutions of U.S. leaders.
They then went on to call for the Bush administration to vocally and decisively reject the legitimacy of the ICC so that the whole edifice would collapse. This is because American leaders should not be subjected to prosecution in foreign countries for their crimes -- only in America.
Yet what do these two argue today? That domestic investigations and prosecutions -- by American tribunals and American courts -- are also inappropriate, illegitimate and destructive. Though they acknowledge that "the Justice Department is capable of considering whether any criminal charges are appropriate," they nonetheless insist that this must not be done:
For his part, President Obama has reacted coolly to calls to investigate Bush officials. Obama is right to be skeptical; this is a profoundly bad idea -- for policy and, depending on how such a commission were organized and operated, for legal and constitutional reasons. . . .
Attempting to prosecute political opponents at home or facilitating their prosecution abroad, however much one disagrees with their policy choices while in office, is like pouring acid into our democratic machinery. As the history of the late, unlamented independent counsel statute taught, once a Pandora's box is opened, its contents can wreak havoc equally across the political and party spectrum. . . .
Obama and the Democratic Congress are entitled to revise and reject any or all of the Bush administration's policies. But no one is entitled to hound political opponents with criminal prosecution, whether directly or through the device of a commission, and those who support such efforts now may someday regret the precedent it sets.
So no international tribunals or foreign countries have any power to investigate or prosecute American officials for war crimes (even when those war crimes are against citizens of those countries and/or committed within their borders). And, American political officials must also not be prosecuted inside the U.S., by American courts. "Nobody is entitled" to do that either, because "attempting to prosecute political opponents at home or facilitating their prosecution abroad is like pouring acid into our democratic machinery."
The implication of their argument -- which is now the conventional Beltway view -- is too obvious to require much elaboration. If our political leaders can't be held accountable for their war crimes and other serious felonies in foreign countries or international tribunals, and must never be held accountable in the U.S. either (because to do so is to "pour acid into our democratic machinery"), then it means that American political officials (in contrast to most other leaders) are completely and explicitly exempt from, placed above, the rule of law. That conclusion is compelled from their premises.
At least to me, it's just endlessly perplexing how anyone -- let alone our political class in unison -- could actually endorse such absolute lawlessness for political leaders. Didn't our opinion-making elites learn in the eighth grade that the alternative to a "nation of laws" was a "nation of men" -- i.e., the definition of tyranny? Those are the only two choices. It's just so basic.
Apparently, though, this is all fine with our political establishment, since none of this is new. Here's what Iran-contra prosecutor (and life-long Republican official) Lawrence Walsh said in 1992 after George H.W. Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger days before his trial was set to begin:
President Bush's pardon of Caspar Weinberger and other Iran-contra defendants undermines the principle that no man is above the law. It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office -- deliberately abusing the public trust without consequence.
Weinberger, who faced four felony charges, deserved to be tried by a jury of citizens. Although it is the President's prerogative to grant pardons, it is every American's right that the criminal justice system be administered fairly, regardless of a person's rank and connections.
The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. . . . Weinberger's early and deliberate decision to conceal and withhold extensive contemporaneous notes of the Iran-contra matter radically altered the official investigations and possibly forestalled timely impeachment proceedings against President Reagan and other officials. Weinberger's notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest-ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public. . . .
In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed official investigations.
Does anyone deny that we are exactly the country that Walsh described: one where "powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office -- deliberately abusing the public trust without consequence"? And what rational person could think that's a desirable state of affairs that ought not only be preserved -- but fortified still further-- as we move now to immunize Bush 43 officials for their far more serious and disgraceful crimes? As the Rifkin/Casey oeuvre demonstrates, we've created a zone of lawlessness around our highest political leaders and either refuse to acknowledge that we've done that or, worse, have decided that we don't really mind.
UPDATE: In a world in which the Rivkin/Casey mentality dominates (i.e., the world in which we actually live), imagine that you're the American President, sitting in the Oval Office, tempted to issue a secret order that you know directs that laws be broken. What possible pragmatic motive would you have to refrain from doing that? Wouldn't any rational person in that situation think to themselves:
There's nothing that would stop me from doing this because, fortunately, we live in a country where the President actually has the right to break the law and to do so without consequences. In fact, amazingly enough, the citizenry -- or at least the opinion-making elite -- has somehow become convinced that it's a good thing -- vital even -- for the President to have this lawbreaking right and to be shielded from consequences when he commits crimes. I don't know how that they got convinced of that, but that's actually how they think. As strange as it is, I know that if I decide to commit this crime, political and media figures from across the political spectrum will join together to insist that there must be no consequences for what I have done.
Ironically, while there is consensus horror in America's political class over the idea that our political leaders might be charged and tried in the U.S. (let alone a foreign country) for their torture and other war crimes, we -- Americans -- have adopted a statute that expressly arrogates unto ourselves the power to do exactly that to leaders of other countries, and the Bush administration -- even as they presided over their own torture regime -- actually invoked that law to pursue such prosecutions. After a torture prosecution of a Liberian official last December, Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, actually spoke these words -- what very well might be the most audaciously hypocritical quote of all of 2008:
Law without conscience is no guarantee of freedom; that even the seemingly most advanced of nations can be led down the path of evil; and that we must confront horror with action and vigilance, not lethargy and cowardice. . . .
His conviction - the first in history under our criminal anti-torture statute - provides a measure of justice to those who were victimized by his reprehensible acts, and it sends a powerful message to human rights violators around the world that, when we can, we will hold them accountable for their crimes.
No torturer is safe from American judicial accountability -- as long as the torturer is not an American political official.
- Posted in
44 Comments so far
Show All"Rivkin and Casey have consistently argued that U.S. jurisdiction over alleged violations of international law and U.S. treaties by U.S. citizens -- including our leaders -- is exclusive." Of course. International tribunals and foreign countries (except for one) are not in control. The American Empire is in control.
What part about the American Empire does Glenn Greenwald not understand? If Italy ever becomes an empire again, they will be the ones calling the shots and people like Rivkin and Casey will be the ones complaining. This is how empires function in the real world.
P.S. Israeli leaders, being permanently affixed to our empire and its leaders, are also immune from any prosecutions. Again, what part of this does Greenwald not understand?
If this Delusionary continues to have problems dealing with this, a FEMA camp in his region of the country will be the place to go to help him sort things out. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12073
Sioux Rose
MAGARULIAN: The empire is bankrupt and its military could not run (to keep all the other "rogue" nations in line) without the oil that's under others' soil. If other nations figured out how to pool a variety of resources, the bully might not be able to wield so much clout, control, or catastrophe. Given Bush's record and what's happening with world finance AND climate, the sleeping masses are getting a resounding wakeup call.
Sioux Rose
I certainly agree with your points. I'm sometimes sarcastic with my remarks. They are meant to "try" to awaken people. You are already a very aware and (possibly) a truly-awakened human being (I wonder about who determines that).
I would venture to say that, for example, the Beatles and two very aware humans (both from Harvard) who ventured into the lands of the unknown (and before them a certain banker and his wife - if you can believe that - a banker!!). And even before them, of course, the native peoples...
Big Al (not Gore) made a giant leap with his thoughts. But even some of Al's thoughts and revelations were based upon previous illuminaries.
Getting back on topic, the aforementioned enlightened persons - with their experiences - have helped us newcomers - and willing participants - in understanding the "knowing" of reality. We don't get it all, but we are better able to recognize things - as these things were not so readibly recognized before.
We can't allow ourselves and future generations to lose this either.
P.S. I didn't make it to Woodstock. I was overseas at the time.
How long this realization continues is another matter.
Hi
It is exactly because they had seen how the arrogance of kings, queens, princes and prelates had bled Europe for generations that framers of the Constitution placed checks on the executive branch of the gov't -- keeping taxes, funding and the right to wage war out of the hands of the executive.
Other than that, the concept of a unitary executive is nothing more than an update of the "divine right of kings".
____________
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
Sioux Rose
CHUCK: Definitely a new take on Divine right of Kings, and I also see the corporations as the return of the pharaohs, their "laws" rendering the other 6 billion inhabitants of the earth into slaves.
What's amazing is that anyone could see the scars of history and say, "Gee, that was fun. Let's do it again!" Of course the courtiers and the inside circle generally dined at lavish buffets with the king and royal entourage, and I guess these disgusting inhuman beings figure that they'll trade in their souls for fancy cars, nice boats, and a place at master's table.
I remember McGriff, the Crime Dog, saying: "Do the crime, do the time."
People like Rifkin and Casey are very dangerous and ought to be neutered. The whole article details why the federal government is a failed institution--too much power vested in the executive by the current Constitution, which makes it a failed blueprint for governmental organization. We need something new and much better. Until the problem of too much executive power is solved, the US will remain an uncivilized nation.
Did Greenwald miscast the problem to some degree? Weren't the same Republican operatives that are currently arguing against prosecuting Bush administration officials quite happy to support prosecuting Clinton for his sexual misdeeds? Certainly the Republican operatives support an imperial presidency when a Republican is president, and they probably do not wish for any international jurisdiction over US officials even when Democrats are in charge, but Greenwald did not even mention the element of brazen and hypocritical hyper-partisanship.
Sioux Rose
Good point Kivals.
Rifkin and Casey's arguments are all based on a presumption (presumption being the cornerstone of right wing extremist dogma) that political officials will only ever be prosecuted for political reasons. Their presumption is, any attempt to hold politicians to the rule of law is political motivated, and thus illegitimate. Their sophistry doesn't imply, it flatly states, that there NEVER can be a legal reason for prosecuting a President for ANYTHING.
If George W. Bush decided that he'd have all his domestic "enemies" rounded up and taken into custody, and then lined up and shot without charges or trial, no problem...he's the President, and he can do ANYTHING he wants, because the law simply does not apply to him. He is literally the law...and if he wants to use babies for skeet shooting (more likely this would be a Cheney activity) where's the problem? The problem is, this clearly establishes the President as a despot...and establishes that the only hope any American has for protection from said despot, is if he's a nice guy and doesn't feel like murdering you. This "logic" allows the President to be a mass murderer with no limits. That meshes with Cheney's argument that because the President has the launch codes for the nuclear arsenal, and can at any time, for any reason, launch those missiles, he has the right, the privilege and the duty, to do as he sees fit as if he was king of the jungle. And that is where this doctrine puts us all, in the JUNGLE.
All of this is specious in the extreme, and closes the loop on their circular logic. Self-sealing sophistry, gotta love it! Why don't we discuss what it would take to get criminals like Rifkin and Casey into a court docket...preferably in the Hague...along with their nefarious masters.
Sioux Rose
GUNTOTING: I don't think the neocons BELIEVE that acts to curtail a president's most over-reaching moves in pursuit of absolute power constitute a partisan attack, I think these people grasp at straws and come up with the remotest concepts and then use their omnipresent right wing echo chamber to clammor the message so often and with the passionate intensity gotten from high salaried sycophantic whores, that too many begin to believe these lies told often enough. These bastards know how the MIC cannibalizes funds in this land of the hardly free, but they decide to fix on "welfare Moms." They find an iota of plausible deniabilty and fan it into a major seeming philosophy. It's all smoke and mirrors. These persons have no moral compasses, and would trade in (if not eat) their own. Loyalty holds so long as they're all getting fed by the same gravy train. It's all about expedience, ends justify the means, the massacre of Machiavellian maneuvers loosed against all constraints on the rest of us. Or perhaps Hell on earth.
But Casper Wineberger did not get pardoned because he had powerful friends. His pardon was made necessary by the fact that he had evidence to show that the George the First was intimately involved in setting up the Iran-Contra activities. Even if he were the mortal enemy of George Bush, the threat to Bush would have been enough to buy a pardon. So it is not a case of powerful friends but being able to prove that the powerful are traitors. (Robert Parry has a pretty good summary of this episode in his book, Secrecy and Privilege.)
I would suggest that Obama issue a pardon to George and Dick for certain specific crimes (violations of International Law). If they refuse to accept the pardon (an admission of guilt) he could withdraw Secret Service protection. Obama could then "protect" the democratic process (as Gerald Ford did) and at the same time state that no man is above the law.
For many years, I have postulated that George H.W. Bush, former CIA Director was the action officer for the Iran/Contra crime wave. It certainly wasn't Reagan...he had no capabilities in this regard, being an "actor"...and of course, a 4 hour a day, 5 day a week President. The one thing that set HW apart (other than being former CIA...is anyone really "former" CIA?) was his total contempt for the Congress. When subpoena'd, he virtually gave them his middle finger as his answer. He never testified, and the Congress never went after him for it. He was the "brains" behind the operation, the man with the "insider" CIA connections to make literally anything happen.
Personally, I refer to Bush the Lesser as the Spawn of Satan...with the clear implication that Satan is his Dad. HW was, and is, regardless of his "folksy" image, a monster. The main difference between him and his son is that he (metaphorically speaking) uses a scalpel, while his retarded son uses a chainsaw and a machete (once again, just metaphor since he actually uses a weapon of far more destructive weapon of mass destruction, the US Military).
As an interesting aside, at the time HW became President, I remember reading an article regarding him, that commented on how a former CIA Director becoming President was too much like the Soviet Union having (Chief of NKVD) Lavrentiy Beria become Premiere. I thought that nailed it very well...wish I could remember who the author was.
Sioux Rose
GUNTOTING: An excellent post. One can imagine the access to all the facts persons don't want known about themselves that one high up in CIA would possess even before "Homeland Security" and FISA spying took hold. You laid out a very strong case here.
When I read an article like this, my mind connects the dots to OTHER equally lawless behavior that also "demands" NO redress or accountability. The banking shenanigans come to mind, the military contracts in Iraq that funneled billions to companies that never delivered (nor was there good oversight at the onset of these no-bid contracts, or regarding the fulfillment of actual terms and duties), and the polluters who are literally getting away with murder. These three areas of lawlessness have undermined public health, the public treasury, and the entire government in terms of its intended check balances.
I rant about karma because we're dealing with a class of person who sees human law as something one jumps over much like a child playing a game. This idea of just appointing justices and lawyers who think along the same amoral authoritarian lines, getting them like PR persons to rewrite law, and then PRESUME everything can go according to code, a code that serves the very few on the unimaginable misery of so many others is analogous to the husband who murders his wife, then argues with the judge that he deserves custody as the sole remaining parent.
It must be a recipe for revolution as this undoing of law is so against nature and the faintest notion of decency, that I am surprised it's gotten this far; but then other civilizations have been sunken or covered in ash in a single day.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
To guntoting: Lawrence Walsh, the Republican appointee and independent special counsel investigating Iran-Contra said that Bush Sr. and his attorney had agreed to turn over Bush Sr.'s own diary to Walsh regarding White House meetings that were alleged by other sources to have included discussions of illegal activities related to Iran-Contra. Shortly before Walsh began writing up his summary of findings Bush Sr. and his lawyer reneged on the agreement. Almost the entire D.C. political establishment immediately turned on Walsh--along with the corporate "mainstream" media who collectively branded him as "obsessive" and then dumped the Iran-Contra issue from their coverage. But there was one more errand boy present at those White House meetings who carried Sec. Def. Caspar Weinberger's brief case in and out of those meetings with him--Colin Powell. Powell's snout has been buried so deep up the Bush Dynasty's crimes for three decades I'm surprised they haven't snuffed him just to avoid a tell-all book down the line.
The criminal role of the "mainstream" media in DEMANDING that the law be ignored regarding all of the Bush-Cheney maladministration's major crimes is perhaps even more important than the meager argle-bargling of the complicit DLC leadership who aided and abetted these crimes early on. The corporatist media fascists are every bit as big a bunch of thugs and traitors to the Constitution and the people of the United States as the worst, most bloodthirsty war-profiteering neo-cons. The DLC are traitors and cowards.
Are you aware that the code names for two of the ships used to transport the Bay of Pigs invaders were Houston and Barbra (The names of H.W.’s then home town and wife) The CIA code name for the entire operation? Operation Zapata, as in Zapata Oil Co. who’s CEO at that time just happened to be George H. W. Bush.
That Kennedy did not send in the military to back the Bay of Pigs operation is said to have enraged CIA insiders...
H.W. is the only person in the world who does not remember where he was on November 22, 1963...
Until I discovered these little fun facts I had always thought that the Cuban connection to Kennedy’s assassination was that Castro had returned the favor of the CIA's attempts on his life and the Warren Commission had covered it up to prevent nuclear World War III.
Now I suspect a much more sinister reason for the Warren Commission white wash.
The legislation Rivkin and Casey want - criminalizing the prosecution of American war criminals by other countries - would effectively have us fighting the entire world. But, then, they are neo-cons, so I guess they don't have to think about the consequences of their actions.
They do think, long and hard about the consequences. And those are, profits and losses. Cost to benefit analysis. It's about greed and power...nothing else. They know that war is the most profitable enterprise currently in existence, and they want on that gravy train. All of this sophistry is just hot wind in search of a fire.
They're just arguing for the reapplication of the concept of 'extraterritoriality' where the colonial masters of China (and other colonies of western empires) would only face legal sanction from courts established in their home countries. The repukes don't want to go back to the 1950s, they want to go back to the 1890s or earlier.
I am confused. What is the authority and jurisdiction of the international criminal court? Who is subject to this authority? What are the limits to this authority? Is America involved in the international criminal court? If so,why? If not, why not?
As I understand it, the International Criminal Court is to provide for prosecuting people who commit serious crimes against humanity, not necessarily war crimes which are only crimes committed during war-time conditions, when the host country either cannot or will not prosecute said individual. This is, so far, limited to those countries that have signed and ratified the treaty, which the US has not. Also, the US has twisted the arms of many foreign governments to force them into agreeing that they will never turn over US citizens to the ICC (even if such a trial is warranted), including individual soldiers, not just their commanders and leaders and officials.
The reason for terrorism, I once wrote elsewhere, is that the perpetrators are pissed because they have been unable to get justice from ANYWHERE for the crimes the “victim” has committed against them. This is not to say that I condone their actions, just that I understand their feeling of impotent rage that leads them to commit terrorist acts. Hence one of the reasons for setting up the ICC.
Actually, the U.S. - and many American lawyers both private sector and in U.S. government - were deeply involved in the Rome Conference and the resulting Rome Statute which is the foundation for the ICC.
In fact, under Clinton, the U.S. indeed DID sign the Rome Statute.
Dubya, you may recall, amongst his earliest acts in his first term put the kybosh on the Kyoto treaty, withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and withdrew the U.S. signature to the Rome Statute/ICC.
You can read more about the ICC at Amnesty International's website here: http://www.amnesty.org/en/international-justice/issues/international-criminal-court/usa-icc
Other good sources are the U.N. and the American Society of International Lawyers (ASIL)
I wrote a piece about Amnesty Int'l on the day the ICC was inaugurated for Indymedia, Seattle. What I learned was that the US did have representation for the negotiations, but it wasn't official. Clinton may have signed the treaty, but for it to be law in the US, the Senate must ratify it and it has never even been submitted to the Senate, neither by Clinton, Bush or Obama (so far, I can hope though.)
That is true.
Bush "unsigned" the U.S. signature in 2002 (along with Israel) before the U.S. Senate could act on it.
Not insignificantly, plans for invading Iraq were already underway. At the time, Israel was also using very questionable methods of repression in the Occupied Territories that were coming under heavy fire in humanitarian law circles around the globe.
Nevertheless, the process of drafting, ratifying and signing the Rome Treaty was a lengthy one and American lawyers - including JAG lawyers - contributed significantly to those efforts.
Bush, as he did in so many things, completely reversed the course of U.S. diplomacy by immediately setting out to sign "Status of Forces Agreements" (SOFAs) with each of the countries that DID ratify the Rome Treaty. Those SOFAs all required that the other country exclude ANY U.S. personnel from ANY possible prosecution at the ICC. Basically Bushies forced any country wanting to do bidness with the U.S. to "preemptively" sign over immunity for war crimes, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, etc.
One of the very last things BushCo did was get a SOFA - including an immunity provision - signed with the nascent Iraqi government. (See: http://www.cfr.org/publication/16448/)
I believe that would be called "pre-meditation"
If anyone still wonders why people in other countries don't like Americans, this stunning arrogance on the part of David Rivkin and Lee Casey should serve as an excellent example. Whether they know it or not, and regardless of whether we approve or not, David Rivkin and Lee Casey represent the US in that theirs is the view that the world sees when people go online to read the news from America and don't see the view from us “ordinary” Americans to contrast it with.
“But no one is entitled to hound political opponents with criminal prosecution...”
Will Don Siegelman get a chance to have a belly laugh over this op-ed? I wonder...
It is conditions such as these that revolutions are made. I'm sure Marie Antoinette would have agreed with these idiots right up until the moment her head left her body, a fate that sometimes awaits those that consider themselves above the law.
As for former Mucus-ey (yeah, I know how it's supposed to be spelled!) and all the other political spin-meisters: How are they able to keep from giggling maniacally after saying or printing such hypocrisy? Those words, and others like them are, or should be, the true marks of sociopaths!
(with much sarcasm) Long live the king!
(karlof1: it isn't the Constitution that is the problem, it is its lack of rigid enforcement.
davidpeace--Actually, the constitution is too vague in too many areas for "rigid enforcement," which is another of several other problems besides too much power being vested in the executive. The Anti-Federalists were correct in their arguments and the Bill of Rights wasn't nearly enough corrective. US history is full of over-reaching presidents; Bush isn't the first by far. Zinn's People's History accurately portrays the great democracy deficit that allowed the creation of our current class structure and its power imbalances. Thus the federal government as currently constituted serves the interests of the rich, as do other failed institutions--press and education, now propaganda and indoctrination, being the top two. Of course, if you are in the top 10%, the federal government is doing a great job, but needs to transfer more of The People's wealth to them even faster than before. But if we want to undo the US Empire, save the planet's ecosystems and become a civilized species before it's too late, we must change the USA's governmental blueprint and build new institutions to implement it. Now that's change.
"But if we want to undo the US Empire, save the planet's ecosystems and become a civilized species before it's too late, we must change the USA's governmental blueprint and build new institutions to implement it. Now that's change."
I couldn't agree more.
But why stop at changing the governmental (and the administrative) structure of the USA? The cancer that has occupied and corrupted these bodies is also present in most countries of this world. And we all know what happens when one removes one cancer growth without also removing every last trace elsewhere in the body.
As I've remarked elsewhere on CD, this would require some very serious and creative thinking that has as its objective the formulation of a new set of rules and values, i.e. a global constitution that defines a new human society and its place among all other manifestations that make up this - still breathtakingly beautiful - world of ours.
One could probably do worse than to take some of Dr. David Korten's ideas and start from there.
Now here's a challenge!
Of course, I could be wrong...
NorthWind--Thanks for the reply. I read Korten's works in the 90s, but haven't bothered with his most recent. I agree we need not stop with the USA. Remaking the UN, as you imply, would be my second stop. Generally, emasculating power centers globally and thus forcing them to evolve is a task for all as the democracy deficit is a global phenomenon brought about by the US Empire, which is why I choose to start with it. I'm currently reading Tainter's "Collapse," which I find very stimulating relative to your observation that we need "a new set of rules and values," what are known as norms and mores. IMO, only societal collapse will provide the empetus for new norms and mores.
karlof1 -- thanks for noticing my reply. I'll look for Tainter's "Collapse", thanks for the tip.
Along with a new set of norms and mores, we also need new structures to support them.
As I understand it, the world's civilizations have used four more or less distinct models of government, monarchy, democracy, republic, and dictatorship. Over time, all of these have come in a variety of flavors. Good intentions notwithstanding, none has truly worked for the benefit of its subjects or the world as a whole. All, without exception, were strictly homo-centric and designed to concentrate power and affluence to a self-perpetuating upper class. The American Revolution is as good an example as any of how a noble but flawed idea will be corrupted over time.
Some very fundamentally creative thinking is called for here if we're not simply going to add another flavor to a long list of failures.
Some things are just broken by design and cannot be repaired. Better to start fresh.
Learning from history is a good thing, as long as we choose the appropriate lesson. Alexander the Great and his Gordian Knot come to mind.
I also agree to a fundamental rewrite, but that some of the original ideas should be kept and expanded on, such as free speech, having it explicitly said that the legislature is to be the most powerful (instead of implied with being the first mentioned) and others. For example, no where in the document does it say that the US Supreme Court can throw out laws that are in conflict with the Constitution. This needs to be stated and explained, explicitly, what conditions laws must fulfil to pass Constitutional muster. And there are definitely harmful parts that have been abused, such as the commerce clause and the 14th amendment. Finally a clause should be included in a new blueprint for government that requires a thorough going over of the document after a period of time has passed, if nothing else to keep up with technology and its implications. The founders had no idea that the Internet would happen and of the thorns it pain the government with, some of which I heartily agree with (like net neutrality...). Anyway, we basically agree, but it's always the finer details that would need to be hashed out would it were up to us. Its those finer details that prove the most troublesome as time passes, unfortunately, because no one can predict the future.
extraordinary!
"Attempting to prosecute political opponents at home or facilitating their prosecution abroad, however much one disagrees with their policy choices while in office, is like pouring acid into our democratic machinery."
Rivkin and Casey are simply treasonous, elite liars and traitors. They abuse the language here by asserting that the "democratic machinery" will be ruined, when they know damned well they have no interest in democracy -- machinery yes, but not by any means democratic.
The privileges of American Empire are clearly wearing thin on the rest of the world, and I applaud any attempt by another nation to indict, arrest, or otherwise eliminate American influence over sovereign affairs. Domestically, while we're about waiving laws governing executive power and privilege, why not look the other way when nationalistic miscreants like Rivkin and Casey are themselves "disappeared"? Among many others, they are on the long list of neo-con traitors who will soon face swift and decisive judgment - we are all executives, if not executioners, with no limits on our authority or power to render justice. Their slimy grasp of law won't do them any good when reckoning comes to visit.
"[T]he United States must still vigorously resist the prosecution of its indicted agents. . . . [I]t is up to American, not Italian, authorities to determine whether any offense was committed in the capture and rendition of Nasr."
NOT if the alleged offense was committed on Italian soil. In that case, more mundane kidnapping, etc. laws should be applied. The U.S. routinely persecutes (not a misspelling) people whom it alleges to be foreign agents (i.e. Cuban 5) under domestic law. Therefore, it is certainly logical that U.S. agents should be prosecuted (again, not a misspelling) under the domestic law in countries it operates in.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There's no such thing as a winnable war, it's a lie we don't believe anymore."
Sting, Russians, 1984
quotinganglion,
In George Bush the Unauthorized Biography, by Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, there is a long well-documented chapter, Iran-Contra, that thoroughly implicates GHWB in the unconscionable scandal.
Rivkin and Casey are like Joe Conason and most Beltway gasbags in rushing to defend the Bush junta against all demads from the left that they stand trial for mass murder and running the country into the ground. And as GG, says, theirs is the prevailing wisdom, and there's no doubt Obama cocks his ear ONLY to whatever powers prevail on any issue. Hence, we live in a rogue nation and the rest of the world knows it. We are ruled by international outlaws, thieves, serial killers. Here we sit with all the power to stop this insanity and we collectively do nothing. Jefferson said . . . Santayana said . . . Gandhi said . . . Lincoln said . . . And wasn't it FDR who said . . . What's the difference what anyone said? Americans haven't heard a word.
Let me see if I got this right. Greenwald writes a scathing repudiation against the Bush Administration offering bullet points of various crimes and felonies, and offers a conclusion in the first third of the piece advocating a one sentence rejoinder hinting that prosecution "is up to us[?]"
Charges cannot be brought without first launching an investigation taking whatever evidence is culled from that process to a grand jury for disposition. Of course, we all know to well how that would happen: it would be the US Congress and/or the Executive Branch to initiate such an investigation by appointing a Special Prosecutor. (Greenwald goes to length to explain Rifkin and Casey's case (which is a repudiation of prosecution), even morphing their argument into the body of his own text, leaving us guessing at exactly what is his point?) If Greenwald is calling for prosecution, why does he avoid a negative critique of the Democrats who control the committees and thus the process?
What is the point of his article?
Has Greenwald been sterilized by the Obama handlers?
Or perhaps he thinks that merely publishing a piece without demands, the wheels of congress will churn forward on the power of his watered down, domesticated, say so?
Is this an example of what Greenwald means by pushing Obama and the Dems to the left?
American exceptionalism is the basis of its racism and got it into this imperial mess. Conservatives perpetrate it and liberals enable it.
We can pardon top white house chimps for torture, eavesdropping, suspension of habeas corpus and secret renditions after we convict them for illegally invading/occupying two countries and causing the deaths of over 1 million, relocation of 4 million more, and probably another 2 million seriously injured, and no doubt 25 million highly traumatized in Iraq alone. Were these Iraqis responsible for 9/11? No, the imperialists themselves are responsible for the imperial blowback.
when the masses hold the pitchforks to the throats of their masters there will be independent tribunals and showcase trials. i'm an advocate of both the UN and the ICC, we live on the same life raft - earth, and it's absurd that we don't maintain minimum standards of decency under the banner of a single species living on earth.
in the minds of the remaining 6 billion people on earth there is little understanding or empathy for american exceptionalism. people who are 'missing' or people who are unjustly detained for political purposes are sorely missed in their communities whether they live in chile, egypt, saudi arabia, the US, israel, russia, china, pakistan or india. america is not alone, other perverted egomaniacal nationalist military-industrial cultures have their own geopolitical aspirations. until we recognize our common humanity they/we will continue their/our wanton disregard for the planet and other people on the planet.
every dog has his/her day. the neo-fascists that oversaw illegal american renditions/detentions (kidnapping) and unsupervised torture will eventually be held accountable for their actions.
they may be nabbed in dublin, prague, berlin or london (or any country that facilitated the illegal transport of people against their will) in the near future and tried in the hague or.....
the war criminals (bush the son, cheney) can easily move abroad if the shit starts hitting the fan (like the shah), there's no reason to hang out and exploit the rabble once they've picked up pitch forks, once they start hurling stones and using all of those munitions americans have been stockpiling in basements and sheds.
possibly we will witness nuremburg-like trials after the evil empire has been usurped by the next great evil empire (maybe china or israel, 2 other great powers that do not support the intent of the ICC),
or after the american people demonstrate in mass civil disobedience, after unemployment tops 20% nationally, and overthrow this government. we desperately need a new system of government and we need an american version of the nuremberg trials asap...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court#Signatories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_Trials
...peace...
"we desperately need a new system of government and we need an american version of the nuremberg trials asap.."
This really seems to be an idea whose time has come...
Greenwald's faith in the idea of law is touching. He's desperate to rescue it... and to rescue us... by bringing life within its neat boundaries.
I've sometime ago concluded that the world is a vicious struggle of all against all, and nowhere more so than at the pinnacles of power... national elites, militaries, etc.
Law exists to maintain power, not to circumscribe or limit it. Once you go there, you go quickly to some very dark places indeed... and those who wish to avoid despair must continue to insist that it is outrageous that Bush did that, or that Obama won't stop doing this other thing.
Yet why should power ever agree to self limit itself? Has it ever, in large scale societies done so? I'd like to hear of one human civilization, ours included, in which Law as such has provided a serious constraint on power over time. Most of the constraints it creates are public relations problems. Over time laws and judicial appointments and constitutional amendments change the law... the law does not change power.
What then does law do? It keeps lawyers busy on the details of divorce and property law.... and when a constitutional lawyer tries to map the neatly functioning little machine of every day law on to the structure of a nation's politics or of the universe within which nations function, he or she can only be outraged and horrified, like Greenwald, to discover that, guess what?, there is no law.
There is no law, so maybe we should all just get over it. It's a tooth and nail fight for position and survival, on a warming planet.
You have the sense that Cheney/Rumsfeld/Feith/Addington at least grasped this in their dark souls. As an Obama sort of supporter, I hope that he does too. I'm pretty certain he does. You'd have to be a fool to become President and not understand that you have virtually unlimited power. I also hope he does something different than Cheney with that unlimited power. But I'd like us all to understand that we are supplicants before the king, no matter who is President.
If you want to throw yourself into a revolution, go for it, but you'll just replace this tyrant with the next... because there is no law. Law has never been more than a political fiction (engaging, expensive, endless, labyrinthine, consuming) and I sort of like the politicians who want to maintain that illusion for us too, but I also admire those who say frankly... who are we kidding... this is war, this life in human society, and it always has been, and always will be. I guess I hope that our Constitutional Law Professor in Chief isn't fooled by the legal and constitutional farce that the Washington world and American "Democracy" is putting on for us and always has put on for us. I doubt that he really is. I give him more credit than that.
I worry that Greenwald's outrage is just feigned outrage. He must surely understand these basic truths, the basic impotence of Law. What is the END of his outrage? Where does it seriously point?
I read his columns with great enjoyment, but perhaps for the wrong reason. I read Greenwald not because he is a lonely voice standing up for what is right... but because he demonstrates again and again the absurdity of standing up for what is right (a just constitutional order, a society governed by the rule of law). When you read Greenwald, you realize what we are not. If you think more deeply you may conclude that that thing that we are not is something human society has probably never been and may not be able to become.
The futility of Glen Greenwald arguments are enlightening. Sad too. But the sadness itself may be something that like tyranny, we have to come to terms with within ourselves, realizing that there is no law, only power, and this is a tragic condition but quite possibly not a changeable one.
Mike, nicely written piece and some things to ponder there. I would just like to point out that a revolution can be something other than a violent one. But, my guess is that if the superstructure comes crashing down, we will be reliving the Sixties again with violent riots like Detroit in 1968 and the Democratic Convention in Chicago along with numerous other lesser reported events of that era. The revolution can also take a massive purging of the pond scum in both parties currently. Those who pay lip service to one thing, and then legislatively do another thing inimical to their own words. My guess is it will happen in multiple contexts with people who have simply had enough pushing the inner sanctum from every direction until the walls literally come crashing down leaving the current crop without a chair. But it takes more than posting on CD to make it happen. Get involved, if you are not already doing so.
Here is an invitation: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/17-7
The Republican round table on SNL where talking Obama impeachment 3 weeks into his presidency; even without the blow job. But with advanced sophisticated photoshop you never know!
It's useful once in a while to step back and remind ourselves that conservatism is a fraud.
Rivkin and Casey, for example, suffer from the personality disorder known as right-wing authoritarianism. They are right-wing crackpots. Their thoughts on international law have all the value of used toilet paper.
And I say that with love.
8 Years without a Leader
Hector -- Read Phillipe Sands' Torture Team.