When the Republicans impeached a president for committing perjury in a civil suit, it was about the rule of law. But when it comes to holding a president accountable for war crimes in his public capacity, it is about criminalizing political differences. Do these people even hear themselves?Although I understand the current US government's desire to "look forward," I find it difficult to accept the reluctance to rigorously investigate criminal acts of the previous government and prosecute if laws were broken. Sure, the wingnuts on the right will cry that these actions are politically motivated and divisive, but the US remains, as far as I can tell, a country of laws.
Hilzoy says it best:
If most people tried to make the case that prosecuting their criminal acts was just "looking backwards", or a sign that the prosecutor was motivated by a desire for retribution, they'd be laughed out of court. Imagine the likely reaction if your average crack dealer were to urge the judge not to dwell on the past. . .The US legal system rests on the foundation that no one stands above the law, especially those who govern. The current government has an obligation to quash the Bush/Cheney paradigm of "it's legal if the president says it's legal" before the cracks in our Constitution cause it to crumble.
The President must lead the nation on this, but if he does not rise to the challenge, the responsibility falls to the congress to act quickly and decisively.
Has the USA truly become a banana republic?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment