On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Roger Howard wrote: > On Tue, January 27, 2009 3:00 pm, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > >> I disagree. There is certainly enough evidence to appoint a >> prosecutor >> right now. Convening a grand jury is part of 'prosecution'. > > Agreed - but so is investigation. Just becuase low-level folks have > been > prosecuted doesn't mean the investigation for others is complete... I > don't disagree - it's time to convene a prosecution, I just doubt the > investigation would have been complete at this point... if we're > going to > see high-level officials prosecuted, I'd imagine the investigation > will > have to be extensive, and not something that could have been > completed by > now. > >> As has >> been pointed out before, there is no question that crimes were >> committed. Low level people have already been convicted and >> sentenced. > > Agreed, but again conviction of a soldier - and the preceding > investigations - don't necessarily mean the investigations are > complete > for officials. > > I'm not a lawyer and not terribly familiar with the order of > operations > here - I'm just saying that I doubt the investigations are complete, > particularly those needed to prosecute a Cabinet member, member of > Congress, or higher.
This sounds like a purely semantic difference. I think 'prosecution' begins as soon as you appoint a prosecutor. Clearly the prosecutor has to do some investigating before she decides that she even has a case to present to a grand jury. My only point was that the administration needs to decide whether to a) appoint a prosecutor, b) appoint a 'truth and reconciliation' commission or c) do nothing. I think they already have enough information to make that decision. > > >> The only question is how far up the chain of command this should be >> pursued. That is more a question of policy than a question of fact. > > I disagree - it's both. We need a full accounting of what happened, > and > then a grand jury (or its equivalent - I have no idea how such a case > would be tried) can weigh the evidence and decide how to proceed and > against whom. > >> I think that there are serious arguments to be made pro an con and >> there is no really good course of action. There is, however, a really >> bad course of action and that is to go after Cheney and Rumsfeld >> while >> giving Pelosi, Rockefeller and other leading congressional >> Democrats >> a pass. > > Well that goes to both facts and policy - who knew what, who ordered > what, > and where do you drawn the line between knowledge and criminal > complicity. There is always the possibility that the prosecutor will decide that she doesn't have a case just as Fitzgerald decided he couldn't make a case against anybody higher up than Libby. Or that the prosecutor will decide to proceed against the executive and let congress go. But just appointing a prosecutor and giving her a comprehensive brief will shake things up. > > > All along we're gonna be up against the following: > > 1. Defendants had it on good legal advice that what they were doing > was > within the law; of course, between two lawyers and a judge you could > have > 4 opinions about what's legal, but this will be a fundamental defense. The defendants will surely use the 'Advice of Counsel' defense if this ever comes to trial. But a lawyer I know says that this defense is much stronger if the lawyer in question isn't your employee. He said that if you really want to use that defense you go to an outside attorney and pay her for an opinion under an arrangement where she gets paid the same no matter what she opines. Apparently there is some case law from insurance claims that goes toward the proposition that advice from you own employees doesn't count even if they are lawyers. > > 2. Barring that defense, there's always the claims of extraordinary > powers > by the Executive, particularly during a time of war. > > Anyway, as usual I think we're on the same side, and quibbling about > the > details. I have no idea what the process should be or will be, but I > hope > there is a process involving extensive documentation about what > occurred > and who authorized it, and if criminal wrongdoing is shown (which I > would > expect unless it's a complete whitewash, which is possible) then I > would > expect nothing less than trials. If the investigations are complete > then > bring on the indictments. > > I'm cynical and expect little to happen, of course. We've seen > plenty of > crimes against the country, let alone the world, go unpunished when > committed by the Executive and his staff. I also expect nothing to happen but I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. If really high up officials in the Bush administration were actually convicted would the lesson be 'no one is above the law' or would the lesson be 'make sure you issue a blanket pardon on your last day in office if you are the president.' The real issue for me is when I think that the problem is a few bad guys then prosecution makes sense. But mostly I think that the problem was that all branches of government and the American people themselves decided to value safety (from terrorists) over both national honor and justice. There were a whole lot of people who cheered Guiliani and Romney during the primaries when they advocated torture. I don't see the point in prosecuting somebody who was simply doing the will of the people. -- In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take. -Adlai Stevenson, statesman (1900-1965) _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
