We Don’t Have to Choose Between Prosecuting Bush Crimes and a Truth Commission

[Time for change]

Last week I posted on DU arguments in support of establishing a truth commission to investigate Bush administration crimes. DUers expressed both agreement and disagreement with the idea of a truth commission, as discussed in my last week’s post. The main disagreement pertained to the concern that a truth commission could interfere with or preclude the possibility of prosecutions against those who committed serious crimes.

I share that concern, and I am in full agreement that there should be no truth commission if that would interfere with or prevent prosecution of the guilty. But I do believe that, as long as a truth commission does not interfere with prosecutions, we should have one, whether or not we have prosecutions. If we do have prosecutions, I believe that we should have a truth commission because it can provide a lot of benefits (more about that below) that prosecutions do not provide. If we do not have prosecutions, I believe that we should have a truth commission because, in addition to its other benefits, it could pave the way for prosecutions to occur by influencing the American public in that direction. Either way, we should have them – as long as they do not interfere with or prevent prosecutions from occurring.

So, what are we, as American citizens, to do if we agree that a truth commission could provide substantial benefits but are concerned that they may interfere with prosecutions of the guilty? I thought about that question some more today after I received an e-mail from Bob Fertic at Democrats.com, asking me to sign a petition “to establish a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration’s abuses.” After giving the matter much thought, I wrote Mr. Fertik back, expressing my desire for having both prosecutions and a truth commission, while also expressing my hesitancy to sign a petition that could be taken to advocate a truth commission as a substitute for prosecutions.


My letter to Democrats.com

This is the e-mail I wrote back to Democrats.com

Dear Mr. Fertik:

I am all in favor of a truth commission in order to better establish and publicize the crimes of the Bush administration -- "so that they never happen again", as Senator Leahy says.

However, I am concerned about some of Senator Leahy's wording of his rationale for the truth commission, which could indicate the course that his commission would take. Specifically I am concerned about the statement "Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened".

The "Rather than vengeance" part makes me uneasy. What does that mean? Does it mean that Senator Leahy believes that prosecuting criminals is tantamount to vengeance and that therefore it should not be undertaken? What if we were to take that attitude towards common criminals -- say murderers and rapists, for example? What if a prosecuting attorney was to say about the prosecution of a murderer/rapist, "Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened -- so let's forget about prosecuting and just focus on getting to the truth"? Does anybody seriously believe that such an approach would act as a deterrent to murder and rape? Any prosecuting attorney who suggested such a thing would be looking for a new job very soon.

So why should we take such a radically different approach to the crimes of the Bush administration? Why should anyone think that merely establishing the truth of what happened would act as a deterrent to further occurrences, if the establishment of that truth did not lead to prosecutions of the guilty parties?

I'm almost positive that Senator Leahy (As well as all other public officials who care about the future of our country) agree with me on this. So, why would Senator Leahy speak of "Rather than vengeance…."?

We all know the answer to that question. Some, including certain powerful people in this country, would consider it abhorrent to prosecute former (or current) high level government officials, such as a former president and vice president, for serious crimes. Therefore, many or most well meaning public officials, such as Senator Leahy, consider it political dynamite to suggest any action that involves or might lead to the prosecution of a former president.

I am adamantly against that line of thinking. Without diminishing the seriousness of rape and murder, I say to you that the crimes of the Bush administration are far more serious because they involved the lives of so many more people. The attitude that Presidents are above the law is a recipe for tyranny because it essentially condones tyranny. Our nation was founded as a reaction against tyranny, and the Declaration that founded our nation made it quite clear that tyranny should never be condoned or tolerated.

After expressing my concerns, I then explained that I didn’t exactly understand the purpose of Senator Leahy’s truth commission:

I do not know what effect Senator Leahy's "truth and reconciliation commission" would have on the likelihood of prosecuting those who need to be prosecuted. If he intends to offer immunity to any but low level parties to the crimes under consideration, that could interfere with prosecutions, especially if it is done without close consultation with our Justice Department. Also, if a truth commission is initiated with the understanding that its purpose is to substitute for prosecutions, rather than to add to prosecutions with respect to the goal of preventing further recurrences of these crimes and holding the guilty accountable, then that too could interfere with prosecution of the guilty by making it less likely to happen.

And then I suggested a solution:

Therefore, I would be happy to sign a petition advocating a truth and reconciliation commission, so long as it included a proviso that the commission is not in any way meant as a substitute for those who may have committed serious crimes. Would such a proviso offend some people? Probably it would. Then I suggest that an alternate petition be made available for those of us who feel as I do about the situation. I can assure you that there are many millions, if not tens of millions of us. It would be a shame if our voices were not heard in this matter.

The potential benefits of a truth commission

I noted the benefits of a truth commission (used in addition to prosecutions) in my previous post. But I will repeat the essentials here, as described by Eric Brahm:

The commission's report provides recommendations for rebuilding society. One of the key aspects of the report is the highlighting of the institutional factors that facilitated the abuse of human rights…

Truth commissions also make recommendations for reparations to be given to victims of state terror…. reparations are another sign of the government's commitment to healing old wounds…

Truth commission advocates argue that calling perpetrators to account, even in a weaker venue like a truth commission, reveals the vulnerability of those once in power and knowing these acts have been firmly denounced is empowering to the general public… Findings may discredit those responsible. In short, the logic of truth commissions is that exposing the factors that allowed these crimes to occur goes a long way toward preventing their recurrence.

For those who are thinking that this description applies more to third world countries than to the United States, let me make a few points: Our society is in need of rebuilding; We do have many victims who are in need of reparation, and making those reparations would show our nation’s commitment to making amends for what the Bush administration did; and we do need to find ways to prevent recurrences of what happened under the Bush administration.

In addition, we need to consider the possible role of a truth commission as a pathway to prosecutions in the event that prosecutions are not forthcoming in the near future. They could serve to educate the American public, thereby making prosecutions more feasible. Jon Ponder, writing in the Brad Blog, discusses the need for education of the American public on this issue. Speaking of war crimes, he says:

This news has not received a fraction of the coverage given to the scandal involving the alleged attempts by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich – a Democrat – to sell Pres.-Elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. Statehouse corruption is certainly newsworthy, but as criminal enterprises go, it is far less consequential than the conspiracy by Bush, Cheney, and other top officials to create an illegal torture and prisoner-abuse regime inside the U.S. government… Allowing Bush, Cheney, and company to escape justice now risks repercussions in the future.

Amen to that! Brad then adds:

Does the citizenry simply not care about War Crimes? Of course they do. But not unless they know about them, and not unless the argument that they occurred, and the evidence of it, is presented in the detail that such an issue merits.

Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good

Almost all of us at DU would like to see prosecutions proceed as quickly as possible. It is terribly frustrating to us to hear our politicians speak with such phrases as “If serious crimes have been committed…” when we all know damn well that they have.

Yet, we should acknowledge that sometimes it is necessary for politicians – even those who care deeply about our country and its people – to speak in politically cautious terms in order to get the ball rolling and advance a more progressive agenda. I heard Senator Whitehouse say to Keith Olbermann yesterday that he doesn’t believe that prosecutions of Bush administration officials are warranted at this time, but that if a truth commission demonstrates the need for them, then we should be ready to proceed with them. I do not believe Senator Whitehouse that he doesn’t believe that prosecutions are warranted at this time. In my opinion he was using cautious language in order to advance actions that he believes will lead to prosecutions. That’s fine with me. If that’s what we have to do to get to prosecutions, then so be it.

Abraham Lincoln never publicly advocated for the abolition of slavery, even though there is abundant evidence that he hated slavery all of his life. Had he done so, he never would have been elected president, and slavery may have lasted for several more decades than it did (Those who think that the abolishment of slavery wasn’t a major goal of his don’t know enough about Lincoln in my opinion).

There are several progressive organizations and individuals who believe that a truth commission could do a lot of good for our country, including preparing the political ground for prosecutions. Those include Amnesty International, Democrats.com, The Nation magazine, the Brennan Center for Justice, Human Rights First, and Glen Greenwald, among many others.

My concern is that if millions of the most activist and progressive Americans withhold their support for some sort of truth commission out of fear that it may interfere with prosecutions or out of frustration that a truth commission alone won’t go far enough, then we may in the process be throwing away our best chance to make war criminals accountable for their actions.


What we can do

There is no reason that we need to make a choice between the two. We can express our support for both prosecution of the appropriate Bush administration officials, and for a commission that will address a broader range of issues, while making it clear that a commission as a substitute for prosecutions is not acceptable to us – as I did in my e-mail to Democrats.com. If you agree, please feel free to use the wording in my above e-mail, or any parts of it that you agree with. But if we remain silent on this issue, then I’m afraid that we are likely to get neither prosecutions nor a truth commission.


PS

About eight hours after I e-mailed Bob Fertik at Democrats.com my concerns about Senator Leahy’s truth commission, I received the following e-mail back from him:

Thank you for sharing your concerns, Dale. You may want to share them with Senator Leahy at: [e-mail]

and our Attorney General Holder at: [e-mail]

You may want to refer Senator Leahy and Attorney General Holder to AfterDowningStreet.org's listing of Key Evidence of Bush and Cheney's offenses at: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments

Yes indeed.

[katanalori]

1. THANK YOU

Please let us know when you hear back from Senator Leahy. I, too, wonder at the need for this "Commission," in a Country such as ours. Thanks for your very thorough work on this.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

8. ..

[Time for change]

10. Yes -- I'll see what he has to say.

If he responds after this thread is archived, but it's not worth posting a new thread about, I'll just pm you about it.

Here is the e-mail I sent him:

Dear Senator Leahy:
 
I am all in favor of a truth commission in order to better establish and publicize the crimes of the Bush administration -- "so that they never happen again", as you say. 
 
However, I am concerned about some of your wording of your rationale for the truth commission, which could indicate the course that the commission would take. Specifically I am concerned about the statement "Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened". 
 
The "Rather than vengeance" part makes me uneasy.  What does that mean?  Does it mean that you believe that prosecuting criminals is tantamount to vengeance and that therefore it should not be undertaken?  What if we were to take that attitude towards common criminals -- say murderers and rapists, for example?  What if a prosecuting attorney was to say about the prosecution of a murderer/rapist, "Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened -- so let's forget about prosecuting and just focus on getting to the truth"?  Does anybody seriously believe that such an approach would act as a deterrent to murder and rape?  Any prosecuting attorney who suggested such a thing would be looking for a new job very soon.  
 
So why should we take such a radically different approach to the crimes of the Bush administration?  Why should anyone think that merely establishing the truth of what happened would act as a deterrent to further occurrences, if the establishment of that truth did not lead to prosecutions of the guilty parties?
 
I'm almost positive that you (As well as any other public official who cares about the future of our country) agree with me on this.  So, why would you speak of "Rather than vengeance…."? 
 
We all know the answer to that question.  Some, including certain powerful people in this country, would consider it abhorrent to prosecute former (or current) high level government officials, such as a former president and vice president, for serious crimes.  Therefore, many or most well meaning public officials, including you, consider it political dynamite to suggest any action that involves or might lead to the prosecution of a former president.  

I am adamantly against that line of thinking. Without diminishing the seriousness of rape and murder, I say to you that the crimes of the Bush administration are far more serious because they involved the lives of so many more people. The attitude that Presidents are above the law is a recipe for tyranny because it essentially condones tyranny. Our nation was founded as a reaction against tyranny, and the Declaration that founded our nation made it quite clear that tyranny should never be condoned or tolerated.

I do not know what effect your "truth and reconciliation commission" would have on the likelihood of prosecuting those who need to be prosecuted.  If you intend to offer immunity to any but low level parties to the crimes under consideration, that could interfere with prosecutions, especially if it is done without close consultation with our Justice Department.  Also, if a truth commission is initiated with the understanding that its purpose is to substitute for prosecutions, rather than to add to prosecutions with respect to the goal of preventing further recurrences of these crimes and holding the guilty accountable, then that too could interfere with prosecution of the guilty by making it less likely to happen.  

Therefore, I would be happy to support your truth and reconciliation commission, so long as you make it clear that the commission is not in any way meant as a substitute for those who may have committed serious crimes. Would such a proviso offend some people? Probably it would. But that’s just too bad. Nobody should be above the law in our country, least of all our President. I cannot support any course of action that puts our presidents above the law. I can assure you that there are many millions, if not tens of millions of Americans who feel similarly about this. It would be a shame if our voices were not heard in this matter.

I do want to see some sort of commission established -- as long as it's not a substitute for prosecution. There are too many Americans that are woefully uninformed about the Bush administration crimes, and I do believe that a commission will help educate them.

[flyarm]

2. a commission can be totally politicised and corrupt.

and a commission is only as good as the questions asked and the witnesses brought forward..it begins as a very flawed process because it is political in nature. I believe it begins and ends as a white wash or cover up.

People that should have 100% BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE 9/11 COMMISSION WERE NOT.
Every person on that 9/11 commission were compromised and had conflict of interests.
It was and remains a total cover up and white wash..you can pick your own words for it...but that is what it was and remains so.
FBI agents broke federal laws, and they were promoted..not fired and certainly not imprisoned for breaking the law in destroying evidence from the ATC on 9/11.
People were not even questioned that should have been, evidence was not looked at that was imperative to be looked at.
That commission was nothing but bullshit.
And the coverups were on both sides of the isle politically.

fly..a 2001 flight attendant of the year in 2001 for the entire New York base of one of the airlines involved in 9/11...now retired.


From 9/11 Widows: An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 12:50pm. Alerts
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Dear Senator Leahy,

We felt compelled to write to you regarding your recent call for the formation of a "Truth Commission." According to your press comments, this Commission is supposed to look at the following:

* the politicization of prosecution in the Justice Department
* the wiretapping of U.S. citizens
* the flawed intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
* the use of torture at Guantanamo and so-called black sites abroad

These are serious allegations of criminal activity by certain members of the Bush Administration. While we applaud your initiative in looking into these matters, we feel this approach is wrong.

As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you already have the responsibility and legal authority to investigate matters relating to federal criminal law without having to form a special commission. You are also bound by your oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution by ensuring that those who govern also abide by the rule of law.

Furthermore, a "Truth Commission" will not fix the real problems that our country faces, nor will it guarantee that we will get to the truth. The 9/11 Commission, which you want to model your commission after, is a perfect example of that flawed process.

The 9/11 Commission was mandated to follow the facts surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 to wherever they might lead and make national security recommendations based upon those facts. Sadly, prior to even beginning their investigation, like you, the 9/11 Commissioners agreed amongst themselves that their role was to fact find, not fault find.

This decision resulted in individuals not being held accountable for their specific failures. These people were shown to be incompetent in the 9/11 Commission's Final Report but were left in their positions, or worse, promoted. No one should be allowed to make this compromise on behalf of the American people. How can any agency be deemed fixed or reformed if the people working there are inept? How can anyone feel safer?

[Time for change]

3. Just because a process is capable of being corrupt and politicized

doesn't mean that it should never be used.

Should we get rid of Congress because it can be corrupted and politicized?

It doesn't matter to me whether this issue is investigated by Congress or by a special commission. But what reason is there to believe that an investigation by Congress would be less politicized than an investigation by a special commission? Congress's investigation of 9/11 wasn't any less of a whitewash than was that of the 9/11 Commission. If anything, it seems to me that an investigation by Congress would be more likely to be politicized.

Anyhow, the most important thing is that criminal activity be prosecuted, and punished when guilt is established. Can we agree on that?

[flyarm]

13. how did the Warren commission work out for you?????

Magic bullet anyone??????????

Or how about the Rockefeller commission..

and the Tower commission

and the Church commission..

its all a method to white wash..and cover up crimes

to think other wise is only to kid yourself!

Look it wasn't me who assigned Kissinger to the 9/11 commission..it was me and people like me ( airline workers) and all the 9/11 families that fought Kissinger being on the 9/11 commission...

The same Kissinger that Obama just sent to Russia to represent his administration..are you getting warm fuzzies yet???????????? I sure as hell am not.

If these people are not prosecuted and crimes not investigated by our laws..not commissions of white wash..these crimes will be repeated over and over again..and your and my children will live with those crimes perpetrated against them.

As I type Obama is still fighting a case of wiretapping..there have been illegal search's and seisures' of Americans and their property.

To ignore history, only repeats it.

I read the past couple days on other blogs that Axelrod has people working the blogs again...paid workers ..same shit Bush did ..why???????? ask yourself why??????

Nixon walked away with no prosecution.

And his people have been allowed to work in our media and work in that party , and have never lost their voice , and many keep resurfacing..why??????? because no one was held accountable the way they should have been.

This crap goes back to Eisenhower, and the Military industrial complex.

We had a president murdered in cold blood and yet we were force fed a god damned Commission.
Who was held accountable???????
We were told another bullshit story and many Americans never believed the bullshit, and yet other Americans swallowed the crap, because of a flawed process called Commission.

My co-workers were killed on 9/11 and I will tell you 100% the 9/11 commission was nothing but a god damned cover up and white wash, and if you think that makes you or any other Americsn safe,.i will call bullshit over and over again!

I was involved in a round table with Bob Kerrey at a major university, My husband and I both called him out for the cover up the commission was, and he could not even speak, because he knew I was 100% right..I asked him why certain people were never brought before that commission..he could not even speak ..or look me in the eye, and I was 1 foot away from him, in a 15 people round table of questioning.

Bullshit is bullshit, and it will never equal a investigation or criminal prosecution.

Each and every person on the 9/11 commission was chosen because they had conflicts , and they were counted on to bring in a bullshit report.

Our constitution was predicated on the "rule of law" and we have a prefect process for that, it is called investigations and prosecutions and trials of people who break our laws...not a damned commission.

We can not look forward if what is behind us is a bunch of thugs and criminals who get away with their crimes.

Our prisons are filled to over flowing with people with lesser crimes than what was perpetrated by the Bush Junta of criminals who usurped our constitution and the laws of this land and our treaties. We have no standing in the world today because of the crimes committed by the Bush Junta..serious crimes, perhaps the most serious crimes of all, crimes against humanity. Crimes totally destroying our Department of Justice..we are today no better than a third world country of horrific dictators, when we accept this, a white wash of a commission for crimes committed by the Bush Junta, and we will rue the day, or our children will, when these people or people like them resurface to commit more of these crimes against our own citizens and our constitution and the treaties we have been a signatory to, if they are not held accountable in a court of law, after professional investigations and trials.The Bush junta must be held accountable with the same standards as any other American that has broken our laws. Investigation by professionals, not a bunch of comissioners hand picked to make sure they are compromised ..and another damn white wash.

fly

[Time for change]

14. It depends on who chooses them, doesn't it?

We have a different administration in power now. If you believe that the Obama administration would do everything it can to sabatage a truth commission, then we certainly couldn't expect anything from prosecutions either, could we. What do you suggest -- just give up and forget about doing anything because things haven't worked in the past?

The Church Commission did uncover a great many crimes that the American people didn't previously know about. The fact that it was followed by Reagan/Bush/Bush, who ignored its findings and who committed a great many crimes cannot be blamed on the Church Commission, any more than 9/11 can be blamed on Clinton.

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004, and George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988, and they all lost anyhow. What good did it do me? Gee, maybe I should never vote again?

[flyarm]

15. And i for one do not trust any of the lifers in our congress to do the picking..

from either party!

Look Leahy knows damn well that some dems are going to be implicated for complicity if a real investigation is done..and it is not my responsibility as American to give either party a free ride on breaking our laws and treaties.

Everyone responsible should and must be held responsible for laws being broken, if they were involved in crimes or complicit in the breaking of our laws.

To want less is abdicating our responsibility as Americans.

My responsibility is written very clearly in the Constitution preamble..WE THE PEOPLE ..that would be me, and I want each and every person who broke our laws held accountable..and no damn white wash.

Oh and by the way..the truth about the Kennedy assassination that was mandatory held for what, 40 years..was all in a vault in the World Trade Center..now never to be revealed ever.......because it was all lost on 9/11..or so they say.

[flyarm]

18. yeah a different administration ..that sent Kissinger to represent them to Russia!

a different administration fighting right now to keep wiretapping info out of the courts in California..against a Judges orders!

yeah a different administration that kept 51 of Bushes US Attorney's!

bullshit!!

bullshit is bullshit..anyway you paint it!

[Time for change]

19. Do you have ANYTHING positive to offer?

We both agree that prosecutions of the BushCo criminals needs to occur.

Other than that, all you can talk about is what you don't want. Nothing will work because everything is too corrupted. So let's not try anything. That's your whole attitude. And you don't address any of the questions that I posed to you.

[flyarm]

20. I believe what i am saying is positive..I do not want to see another white wash..

I believe you are asking for a white wash, isn't THAT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING????????

You are misrepresenting what I have said ..do you always do that????????????

Or do you have an agenda you are trying to sell????????

I want a full investigation by professionals in the justice department and not the holdovers from the Bush admins. that Obama kept on.( 51 OF THEM TO BE EXACT)

Is that too much to ask to defend our constitution and get to the real truth??? Is that not clear enough to you????????

I want truth..real truth and nothing less than the truth and as I have pointed out to you , we have never gotten that from any commission in history!

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT "truth and facts" are not "positive" to you..why?????????

[Time for change]

21. I'm asking for the same thing

So the only difference between us is what we're NOT asking for.

You make a big point about your belief that the Obama administration is so corrupt that it will make sure that any commission to investigate Bush crimes will be corrupted. So why would you trust Obama to carry out prosecutions without making sure that they're whitewashed?

[flyarm]

23. I am not saying the Obama admin is corrupt..but power is proven to make the best among

us corrupt..if given the opportunity and not watched by all of us...at all times.

I do not post here to blow love hearts up anyone's rear end..but I also will not stay quiet when I see truth being white washed, or washed out with the bath water.I trust no one in government..that is my responsibility as an American..they are after all my employees , they must earn my trust..so far I see nothing is being earned.

Why do Regular Americans have to take the oath to testify in front of Congress and Rove does not???????

Why has anyone done a "DEAL" to get someone to testify in front of congress when it concerns my constitution?????????

After all Ballplayers had to take the oath ..and Tobacco exec's had to take the oath and so does everyone else..but not ROVE???????????

The same Rove that GHBUSH fired , and who worked for ASHCROFT..in my former state of Missouri..

Why is this man not in jail for ignoring subpoena's ????? I can assure you, if that had been you or me..we would have been picked up long ago!

So now after ignoring Subpoena's he is given a deal ?????? and i am supposed to be elated about it????????

sorry no love hearts from me.

[Time for change]

24. Why do you keep on changing the subject?

I've asked you several times:

Why are you certain that the Obama administration will sabatage a truth commission, ensuring that it is a whitewash, and yet you trust them to undergo prosecutions without a similar whitewash?

[flyarm]

31. ahh it was you saying I was not positive if you forget!! It was you who changed the subject.

and if I am supposed to be all warm and fuzzy about a commission..and what this as you said "NEW ADMINISTRATION" is going to do..

THIS DOESN'T GIVE ME MUCH FAITH ...........does it you?????????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3770454#3770614

Panetta: No one to be punished for interrogations
Source: Associated Press

Panetta: No one to be punished for interrogations

WASHINGTON (AP) — CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency employees who took part in harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects are not in danger of being punished.

Panetta delivered that message to CIA employees in an e-mail Thursday, reiterating what he told Congress last month. He said then that he would oppose prosecutions of any CIA employee who adhered to their legal guidance on interrogations.

He sent the message after the Senate Intelligence Committee announced its review of the CIA's interrogation and detention program under President George W. Bush.

The committee will look at how the CIA decided whom to interrogate, whether it told Congress the truth about the program and whether it was legal. It will also try to determine whether the harsher methods the CIA used elicited valuable intelligence.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guiSG...

[pmorlan1]

4. Thanks for the Post

The last time I was asked to sign that petition I sent them a response similar to yours but I got no reply back. I'm glad that at least you were given a response and I hope that they address this problem soon.

[Time for change]

26. I think that the reply that I received from Democrats.com

is encouraging. To me it means that, even though they agree with me on this issue (that we need prosecutions), they are pushing for a truth commission because, as I explained in the OP, it has the ability to either add to the information gleaned from prosecutions or to lead to prosecutions if the Obama administration refuses to go that route. They don't mention prosecutions even though they want them because they believe that doing so would increase the likelihood that we would get neither.

It's just a matter of a difference in tactics, even though we all want to see the same thing.

[specimenfred1984]

5. And, we can work on the economy and health care at the same time

TV propagandists seem to think only 1 thing can be done at a time, hilarious.

[madfloridian]

6. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Good points.

Once there is a truth commission, things come out. People will be irate. They will demand justice.

Recommended.

[flyarm]

17. where are these so called people irate over FBI agents destroying

ATC tapes on 9/11??????? where are the prosecutions of two top FBI agents who broke apart tapes taken the morning of 9/11 of the Air traffic controllers and putting them in several garbage cans ..oh yeah..the agents got promotions..

They broke federal laws prohibiting destruction of " any evidence" in an Aircraft incident or crash...but they got a promotion.

Oh and many witnessess did not have to take the oath to testify.

whippeee..where are all the irate people ?????????

It's not like it was a small little case!!

How many pilots or flight attendants or crew chiefs from either airline, were brought before the 9/11 commission to discuss the altitudes or the possibility that the aircraft could even do what they were telling us they did??????? oh yeah..none..and how many of the 9/11 commissioners were qualified to know what those aircraft could or could not do?? oh yeah..none..so if none of the right questions are asked, don't you think..just think, that you could not come to a real answer to what really happened?????????? and where are the irate Americans that were given nothing but a snow job????????

[struggle4progress]

7. The more, the merrier!

[EFerrari]

9. Leahy needs to stop, immediately stop, discouraging the idea of prosecutions.

He can't have it both ways.

[wuvuj]

11. Another 9/11 whitewash?

..........

[Time for change]

30. Yes, that's true. I'm not sure where he intends to go with this. He certainly does give out mixed

messages. To my knowledge he has never come out against prosecution, though he has said some things that would indicate that he isn't favorably predisposed to them. It is very possible IMO that he does this so as to make a truth commission more politically feasible, but that he would just as well see prosecutions occur. I am against that approach (downplaying the need for prosecutions) but I can see why some well meaning people would be in favor of it.

But of course, he is not the only one involved. Conyers and Whitehouse have also come up with proposals for truth commissions, and they seem much more favorably predisposed towards prosecutions.

But let me ask you this. If you think that a truth commission is such a bad idea, then how do you explain why Republicans are so much against it and why so many progressive organzations and politicians are for it. Just today I received an e-mail from Robert Wexler expressing his support for Conyers' idea of a truth commission. Wexler as you know was one of the strongest voices for impeachment in Congress. Certainly he sees a potential for this to work.

[pleah]

12. I think that they will try to whitewash this whole mess with

the "truth commission". Leahy, "or whether it did make the country safe or less safe.", speaking on the actions of the bush administration. Is that what this "truth commission" is all about? You can listen to his full talking point here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x280390


If that is what this "truth commission" is all about, then it truly is a sham. It isn't about bush and co. trying to make the country safer, it is about how they broke the law.
A lot of evidence is already out there, enough to prosecute imo.

[Time for change]

22. That is always a possibility -- or maybe even a likelihood

It all depends on the composition of the commission. The composition of the 9/11 commission was largely influenced by the Bush administration. Max Cleland tried to make waves and turn it in a different direction, and he was consequently forced off of the commission.

But sometimes they work to varying degrees. The Congressional Commission charged with investigating watergate may or may not have been designed as a whitewash, but an unexpected witness turned up, and it led to Nixon's resignation.

From Glen Greenwood's blog:

The process of shining a light on government crimes cannot always be controlled once it starts, especially if genuine investigative powers are invested in an independent commission.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/25/prosecutions/index.html

The way I look at it is, the more lights we have shining on this, the greater chance we'll have of exposing something big. Some of the lights may be corrupted, but one may shine through.

Virtually all of the opposition to a commission coming from the left is motivated by the fear that a commission would interfere with prosecutions. That is a legitimate fear. So when we express our desire for a commission we need to make it very clear that we consider a failure to prosecute the Bush administration for their crimes an unacceptable outcome.

[pleah]

25. I hope I'm wrong.

I will do my part to help make prosecutions happen.

Thank you for your reply.:)

[ThomWV]

16. Wednesday's Hearing was somewhat reassuring - but odd of itself

I agree with your comments. See how easy that was? However I have additional concerns.

1. Immunity:

I felt a lot better about Senator Leahy's idea for a Truth Commission, particularly as concerns the question of immunity. While I did not keep score, it seems to me that each of the few Senators who attended the hearing broached the subject none of them proposed blanket immunity, and in fact there were repeated calls for strict limitations on immunity and clear indications that it would not be given lightly, but after careful consideration on a case-by-case basis. There were also Senators who indicated that immunity should (might) be limited to low-level players; my own suggestion which may be too severe is that no one above a GS-9 or in the case of military personnel a Sargent should be offered immunity.

2. Composition

Who will lead* and sit on such a Commission presuming one is formed? I would object to anyone who served in the Administration of either President Bush, anyone who was a member of Congress, a Congressional staffer, or a political appointee during either of their Administrations. Those seems to me to be a minimum requirements and yet they alone might make staffing such a commission impossible. How many people would compose a commission? What about staff and funding? What about taboos?


3. Subpoena Power

It is a given that for the Commission to be effective it must be able to compel testimony. Consequently subpoena power must be available to the Commission.

4. Linkage or recognition by the Justice Department

It will do no good to have a Commission or to excite the public passion for prosecution of crimes disclosed if there is no follow on from the Justice Department. If the recent past has shown us nothing it is that the Justice Department can be blind when it choses to be. How, considering that we desire to maintain a separation of powers, can a Congressionally appointed Committee compel the crown jewel of the Executive branch to take action? Could a representative from the Justice Department sit on such a Committee?

5. Scope

Where to begin, where to end? Will there be limitations on where the Commission can go? Where will it begin?

Firings of the US Attorneys
Torture of prisoners and destruction of evidence
Illegal wiretapping.
Fixed Intelligence
Politicalizaton of the Agencies and illegal hiring practices
Missing E-Mails
More?

My concern here is that if the scope grows too large the ability to focus becomes too small and that time and budget may force the scope to be sever ly limited. So there is an initial question of prioritizings

6. Duration

How long should it go on? My own hope is that such a Commission would be short lived, certainly no longer than a year. The reason I say this is that it is not the duty of the Commission to build criminal cases, it is to point out to the people and the Justice Department where there is strong evidence of wrong doing.

7. Final Product and public access to the process

There will be some sort of final report. What should it contain? How should it be formatted? How about intermittent reporting and in fact how about public access to the process as well as its results? Is this something that we can even think about at this time?

Clearly something must and will be done. There is much outrage and thankfully it is not falling to the wayside. Still, there are many questions yet to be answered just to get started.



* Sandra Day O'Conner seems to be in good health and available.

[Time for change]

29. Those are very good points. I have the following comments

1. Yes, the immunity question seems to be taking a good turn.

2. I agree. Composition is key. I think that the Obama administration would have a lot of say over the matter. It depends largely on whether they really want a commission to succeed. If they don't, I don't see how we could have much faith in prosecutions either -- though I certainly want to see them proceed.

3. Yes, it must be able to compel testimony.

4. As you know, I agree that we need prosecution by the Justice Department, preferably concommitant with a commission, but if not, then then following it. I do not believe that a truth commission will be able to compel follow-up by the justice department. What it can do is, through evidence uncovered, provide political pressure for doing so. But the decision rests with the Obama administration -- unless Congress decides to take the extreme step of threatening impeachment for failure to do so, which obviously will not happen.

5. Yes, the scope is an issue about which reasonable people can disagree. I would be happy even if it was just limited to torture. I think that that is the most important one.

6. I think it should be very short. There is already a great abundance of evidence, if Congress decides to take advantage of it. No more evidence need be accoumulated. All they have to do is look at Conyers' report of 2006 or Kucinich's articles of impeachment.

[puebloknot]

35. Sandra Day O'Conner betrayed the nation when she voted to install Bush! nt

[leftofthedial]

27. A Truth Commission, like all Truth Commissions before it,

will be responsible for selecting which low-level patsy to whom to affix all the blame, so that the actual crimes go unpunished, while politicians reassure us that truth and justice have prevailed.

[EFerrari]

28. I have the utmost respect for TFC's many thoughtful contributions to DU

and this "truth commission" idea has whitewash written all over it.

We can't allow criminals who took us into tyranny to walk. We can't do that.

[puebloknot]

32. Those who are squeamish about the idea of prosecuting a former ...

...American President are the same people who are reluctant to see the light of day shone on members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, who went along with Bushco's game without so much as a murmur. Who is sufficiently without guilt as to be able to cast the first stone? I think a truth commission would need to be administered outside the country, or perhaps under the Carter Center -- although I don't really know Jimmy Carter's stance on all this.

Worse than just "moving forward," as Obama wants to do, is holding some kind of show trial to try to convince the rest of the world that we are willing to face what was done in our name, when in fact we are just papering over criminal conduct because we're America, we're big, and we can get away with it.

The 9/11 Commission was a joke, and I am quite worried that a truth commission would just be another case of pandering to a cry for justice -- without actually delivering any.

In some ways, your allusions to rape and murder are quite pertinent. Would a person accused of rape be able to choose arbitration, in lieu of standing trial in a court of law?

Since when is a call for justice a demand for vengeance. And isn't there a kind of righteous vengeance that is inherent in trying and imprisoning those who have committed serious crimes?

[Time for change]

33. Yes, the 9/11 Commission was a joke -- or rather it was a fraud.

So was the Warren Commission and some others. But does that mean that we should never have another commission? I can't buy that, any more than I can buy the proposition that we should never have another president, since Bush worked out so badly.

[puebloknot]

36. My concern remains over the Statute of Limitations. That isn't being discussed ...

... as far as I can tell. It seems that matter should be made clear before a truth commission is allowed to take up valuable time, while the clock may be running out on the ability to prosecute Bush, et al. There doesn't seem to be any clarity on that issue -- at least as far as I've seen or heard.

[Time for change]

39. I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is on this

I believe that it must be at least 7 years or so.

I can't see how a commission could take anywhere near that long to complete its work. There is such an abundance of evidence that it shouldn't take that long. It's not a matter of having to collect evidence -- it's already there. And anyhow, there is no reason why prosecutions shouldn't take place concommitantly with the work of a truth commission. There is no reason why a truth commission needs to slow down the business of prosecuting these criminals. I'm not saying that prosecutions WILL take place at the same time. I'm just saying that there is no reason why they can't. For those who support a truth commission, we should at the same time make clear that it would not be acceptable to us if they interfered with prosecutions in any way.

[puebloknot]

42. I agree with your thesis here that there can be parallel hearings.

You're not sure about the statue of limitations, and I'm not either. And neither are the legal scholars I heard discussing this on Air America Radio. There was a suggestion that *if* the statue actually applies to Bushco, a lot of their criminal activity took place at the beginning of the Bush administration, and the clock could be running on those things. I assume repeat offenses would then bring the whole scenario into the more recent past, and the statute could apply.

It just seems our dear leaders are standing around scratching their heads, wondering what the fuck to do, if anyting! :)

I'm very impressed with Sheldon Whitehouse, and he seems more oriented toward real accountability -- rather than the (as yet undefined) suggestion that we don't want to engage in "vengeance" coming from Leahy.

The argument was made in the past that an impeachment "wouldn't take that long" because Conyers already had gathered enough information to nail them. So you're right about that, and in the best of all possible worlds things would proceed apace, with liberty and justice for all.

My cynic is wrestling with admiration for what happened in South Africa. We have laws in place that should take care of the problem. But we're not living under the same flag, metaphorically speaking, that we've lived under before.

It will be interesting to see what shapes up.

[GeorgeGist]

34. All 3 branches of the federal government

have a duty to enforce the law.

A truth commission is an abdication of that duty.

[Imagevision]

37. Would anyone agree that the Obama administration doesn't want the Bush/Cheney truths to be known?!!

we're not talking 8 weeks or months but years! - how many Americans got dead for BS. Cheney/Bush reasons?

[Piewhacket]

38. Thank you, Time for change, for this thoughtful post.

I am most sympathetic with your approach, and have
high regard for your advocacy. Your responses here to
my previous objections are also well-taken.

But I am still of the firm view that Congress already has
the power to do much of what you suggest.
What it presently cannot (legally) do is to
obstruct criminal investigation and prosecution, or
grant immunity for Federal Crimes.

You cannot imagine these two impediments away, for this division
of roles is deliberately placed into the structure of our
Constitutional government as a check and balance.

So these two things are, beyond flowery rhetoric and IN REALITY,
what is meant by a "Truth Commission". The power to obstruct
criminal prosecution and to grant immunity.

Thus, a law must be passed authorizing it. Somewhere, buried deep
in the 5000 page authorizing bill, you will find these two essential
things. But what will be conspicuously absent is what a special
prosecutor is given, the power to prosecute crimes.

It is a difficult choice... public airing of the dirty laundry,
possibly fixing our damaged institutions without criminal accountability,
or a special investigation/prosecution. Neither path can be controlled, nor
has a clear outcome.

Given a choice I am firm in my view that the undermining of our democratic
institutions and criminal activities of the Bush administration cannot be
allowed to pass into history unchallenged. We owe our children that service.
Perhaps on that we can most emphatically agree?

[Time for change]

40. I fully agree that given a choice, prosecutions are far preferable

But there is no reason that we have to choose between the two. If we express support for a truth commission we can at the same time say that we would find it unacceptable if it in any way obstructed prosecutions. It is true that a truth commission could potentially interfere with prosecutions. But there is no reason that it has to do that. We should not express support for that version of a truth commission.

[f the letter]

41. Amazing post. Thank you!! n/t