Stoopid Stuff

Who Knew?

So now the torture-loving authoritarian right are all stomping their feet and shouting triumphantly that Democratic legislators including Speaker Pelosi were briefed about the Bush/Cheney torture programs and essentially signed off on them, or at the very least did nothing to stop them.

Please forgive me for being so dense, but I really don't understand this argument, what it means or or what they believe it accomplishes. It seems so simple to me, I'm sure I must be missing something. I believe there is sufficient information available to justify a Justice Department investigation. If Cheney, or Addington, or Bybee are found to have committed a crime, they should be indicted and tried for those crimes. If Nancy Pelosi, or Jay Rockefeller, or Jane Harmen are found to have committed a crime, they should also be indicted and tried. I don't understand how you might wish to live under the rule of law and think anything else.

I suppose they are hoping that Democrats won't want to see other Democrats prosecuted, but I think this exposes the critical difference between a political party and a political ideology. To put it succinctly, a political ideology doesn't automatically lead to a mindless support for a particular party, but rather for politicians and organizations that espouse and advance that ideological agenda. I'm not sure why anyone would support a party no matter what that party did or sought to accomplish, but that certainly doesn't work for me.

There are two interesting things here. First, one has to wonder what the overall strategy among the torture supporters actually is. Their position has been that the interrogation methods weren't torture because the Bush administration lawyers determined them to be legal, so there is no need to investigate what was essentially a "policy disagreement". But if that's the case, why exactly are they crowing so loudly that "Pelosi knew"? If your position is that these actions weren't torture and therefore not criminal behavior, then what point would you be making in trying to demonstrate that your political opponents were complicit? It's oddly inconsistent at best, and incoherent at worst. The other striking thing is that by shrieking that there were also Democrats caught up in these torture authorizations, aren't they essentially leaving themselves in the position of demanding investigations to establish the facts of these allegations? It seems to me they are, and if they are calling for investigations that follow the evidence wherever it leads, then they are taking exactly the same position I am. I'm not sure how you can accuse people of being complicit in a war crime and then turn around and demand there be no investigation.

At the end of the day, I have no idea if ANY lawmaker committed a crime by enabling torture. I don't know what law would apply, and how it might apply. Once again, another reason for prosecutors to investigate. Here's what we can be certain of: War Crimes were committed. By Americans. Under cover of the US Department of Justice. But for me, at least, if an investigation can be mounted, whatever crimes it uncovers should be prosecuted, regardless of the political party membership or ideology of any of the participants. I'd hope that would end this ridiculous charade...

posted by mikey @ 12:34 PM