With many Democrats still fuming over the refusal of Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow even impeachment hearings into detailed allegations of crimes by President Bush in office, close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance. After Sen. Obama’s unpopular vote on the FISA bill, it has triggered a blogger backlash — raising questions about the commitment of the Democrats to do anything other than taking office and reaping the benefits of power.
The exchange with Sunstein was detailed by The Nation’s Ari Melber. Melber wrote that Sunstein rejected any such prosecution:
Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, [Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.
Sunstein did add that “egregious crimes should not be ignored,” according to one site, click here. It is entirely unclear what that means since some of us take the views that any crimes committed by the government are egregious. Those non-egregious crimes are precisely what worries many lawyers who were looking for a simple commitment to prosecute crimes committed by the government.
We will have to wait for a further response from Sunstein, but liberal groups are up in arms given his close association with Sen. Obama.
Sunstein and I were on opposite sides on the Clinton impeachment. While I voted for Clinton and came from a well-known democratic family in Chicago, I believe (and still believed) that Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying under oath. One of the objections that I made in an academic writing at the time was that some professors seemed to accept that Clinton did commit perjury but argued that it should not have been prosecuted as an impeachable offense — or a criminal offense. As with the current controversy, many argued that some crimes could be prosecuted while others tolerated or excused. It was the same egregious versus non-egregious distinction. Obviously, it could be argued that perjury is not an impeachable offense — though I strongly disagree with this view. However, many also opposed any criminal prosecution in the Clinton case. At the time, many cited the dangers to the presidency in such cases as raising the appearance of political prosecutions (much like the current rationale with Bush). I view the dangers as far worse when you fail to act in the face of a crime committed by a president, even one who I supported. I feel equally strongly that President Bush should be subject to impeachment based on the commission of the crimes of torture and unlawful surveillance.
The main concern with Sunstein’s reported comment is how well they fit within the obvious strategy of the Democratic party leaders: to block any prosecution of either President Bush or his aides for crimes while running on those crimes to maintain and expand their power in Washington. The missing component in this political calculus is, of course, a modicum of principle.
This was the subject of my countdown discussion this week, click here.
Here’s the problem about “avoiding appearances.” There seems ample evidence of crimes committed by this Administration, in my view. To avoid appearances would require avoiding acknowledgment of those alleged crimes: precisely what Attorney General Mukasey has been doing by refusing to answer simple legal questions about waterboarding.
How about this for an alternative? We will prosecute any criminal conduct that we find in any administration, including our own. Now, that doesn’t seem so hard. There is no sophistication or finesse needed. One need only to commit to carry out the rule of law.
The combination of Obama’s vote to retroactively grant immunity for the telecoms and Sunstein’s comments are an obvious cause for alarm. We have had almost eight years of legal relativism by both parties. For a prior column on the danger of relativism in presidents, click here A little moral clarity would be a welcomed change.
For further discussion of the Sunstein statements, click here and here.
If the Bush crime family is NOT prosecuted, quite simply it will be time for a revolution. As in armed insurrection.
I do love the universities in the US and who knows, by the time my babies go to university, the US may have changed enough for me to move my family there.
If it makes you feel any better, I often don’t have great first impressions of people I meet, but at LEAST half of them, and their families, become those whom I learn to admire in ‘unimaginable’ ways.
I don’t look at religion or race or gender.
I look at life – survival.
Thanks for sharing that.
I have been trying to post on the DOJ/Goodling subject of tonight’s
KO appearance which is ue any oment- without success.
I want to talk more about your experiences later!
I find that racists hurt their victims but also their children and themselves, so I try to only hate those that are beyond help. I obviously hate Zionists and other racists, bigots, pedophiles religious zealots and most of all hypocrites. I used to love America. I spent about one month per year there on business and vacations. I was in the US for both the Oklahoma attack and World Trade Center attack. On both occasions I remember saying to my wife and friends, “I hope Muslims didn’t have anything to do with that”. I remember reading stories about Muslims being attacked after the Oklahoma bombing and how one Muslim woman miscarried because of the attack on her. Sadly I was relieved when it was a Christian that was responsible. Unfortunately, on 11-SEP-01, when I saw the reports after the attack I realized that this would be used as an excuse to kill thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Muslims, just as the death of 2280 soldiers and 68 civilians that died at Pearl Harbor somehow justified the nuclear bombing deaths of over 200 000 civilians not to mentions the thousands of miscarried, stillborn and deformed children born afterward. When I saw the attacks on American Muslims, their homes, businesses and mosques afterward, I promised that I would never come back to the States. Because if anyone ever attacked my wife, I would find and kill them and if it was my child, they’d be tortured until they begged me to kill them. That being said, I haven’t been back and after Bush attacked Iraq, I have boycotted ALL US products and will never spend one more cent on American products until there is a Palestine or until the US stops giving Israel billions in money and weapons every year while ignoring the suffering of the Palestinians.
Not wanting to hold the US responsible for the actions of the Government, I was going to move my family to the US in 2005 if Bush wasn’t re-elected. But when I saw how close it was and that Bush got four more years, I realized that at least half of the voting population supports the murder of innocent people as by late 2004 almost everyone knew that Iraq had nothing to with 9/11. And when I saw that show 30 Days on TV where a Caucasian, American, Christian man went to a city in Michigan and pretended to be a Muslim for 30 days and I saw how he was treated in 2008, I realized that too many Americans are bigots and I gave up the idea of setting up my business in the US and buying a home there.
So to answer your question, I still love about 50% of the American people. Now I’m helping the Canadian economy and will be buying my third property next month. Ironically the only bigotry I’ve seen here was from (you guessed it) Zionists Jews in Canada.
We agree on one thing – no person is better than any other…
Stereotypes and generalizations make conversation so interesting,
don’t you agree?
I note you do not deny ‘hate’ for Americans.
Do you live in this country? Were you educated here?
What’s your story?
I agree with what you say, but I think your argument is more complex than it need be.
The Republicans are bullies and the Democrats are geeks. Both are cowards, but bullies need someone to stand up to them in order for their cowardice to become apparent and no one has yet stood up to them.
Even one of the most popular men in the country, Barak Obama is afraid (see his responses to FISA and AIPAC).
About the Clinton comparison: Clinton was impeached; but his “crime” was not found to be of the nature to be removed from office. Personally, I would agree with the pass given to Clinton. There is a difference between commiting “perjury” (it was entrappment) about a totally personal and embarrassing incident and fabricating evidence that leads to war, torture and secret eavesdropping. Let Bush be impeached and then the Senate and House can decide if his crimes merit being removed from office. At least we will know the standard. As it is there is double standard: one for Democrats, one for Republicans.
I don’t know where you get that I hate women. I LOVE women, especially my wife and baby girls. Secondly, I DON’T hate Jews. Jews and Arabs are the same race and are cousins both share one father – Abraham. What follows is a previous message that I have to keep repeating to people that can’t distinguish between Jews and Zionists (many of whom are CHRISTIANS).
Please do not libel me further. I have not made ANY “hateful” comments about the “Jewish people”. I have pointed out the hateful things SOME Jews do and I make no apologies for hating Zionists. Zionism is Apartheid which is Racism and should be hated by all decent people. No person is better than any other and should be given special rights in this life or the next solely based on their race.
Unfortunately, some races, religions and groups believe in hate and Zionists belong to this group. I am not surprised that many Americans and the US Government sees nothing wrong with Zionism because many Americans have no regard for their own indigenous people (that’s Injins to those that don’t know what indigenous is), didn’t oppose Apartheid in South Africa and until a few months ago had Nelson Mandela on their terrorist list for decades.
As for the question of my daughters’ partners, I will do my best to raise her properly and since they are intelligent, beautiful, sweet and kind, I trust them to make the right decisions. As for any rapists, I know that it would be wrong and have me end up in jail AND Hell, but I would kill (preferably slowly and inflicting the most pain possible) that person(s) after having cut of their privates (which is ok under Islamic law). My daughters are my life and I would do and risk anything for them, even eternal Hell.
Finally, I think most people saw that Hillary AND Bill were closet racists and that’s why Black support of her dropped so quickly. Remember she was beating Obama among blacks before some of her and her husband’s comments.
I beg to differ you are about as chauvinist as they come.
You hate Americans, Jews, and women. I’ll bet American Jewish women really make your skin crawl.
One hypothetical question for you, how would you handle it if one of your daughters chose to have ‘premarital’ sex with someone she loved?
OR what if, totally against her will, or against your wife’s will, one of them was brutally raped?
BTW, the exact quote(s) etc with which you follow(ed) up – was in response to an AP article.
Despite you have decided, a lot of us filter our own ‘News’.
On your five points:
I am not a chauvinist and if my daughters grew up to think and talk like Hillary, I would beg God for forgiveness for any part in raising them that way. Any woman who would stay with and support a man who humiliated her and her daughter like Bill did has no self-respect and certainly doesn’t deserve any respect either.
I never said Bill was running, but when you’re married to a redneck and have him campaigning for you (comparing Obama to Jackson) and don’t refute what is said, you’re a racist too. First black president indeed.
And her direct quote was: “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again”. She really is a dirty, racist, redneck, maybe worse than her husband.
And let’s not forget about her hoping that Obama would be assassinated before the convention.
Sorry, but the forgetting about me I can’t help you with. I understand there are drugs for that however.
And thank you for remembering the Palestinian plight; it may make an orphan amputee miss his parents or his limbs a little less.
The most wasted day of all is that on which we have not laughed.S%E9bastien-RochNicolasChamfortS?bastien-Roch Nicolas Chamfort, 1740/41-1794
I assumed you are a chauvinist and correctly so, apparently.
Bill Clinton wasn’t running.
BTW, she said ‘hardworking’ Americans not ‘white’.
I haven’t forgotten about the Palestinian plight, my wish is to
forget about you.
Unfortunately, you assumed I was talking about Hillary’s physical appearance so what you say and what you think are two different things. She is a 60 year old woman and I don’t have the same grandmother issues that you obviously do. I was referring to the woman that said vote for me or McCain because Obama isn’t qualified and the racist that said good white Americans don’t vote for Obama. And for Lewinsky, any person that would fornicate with an adulterous, deceitful, old MARRIED man and keep a semen stained dress (to sniff it, lick it, save money on dry cleaning – take your pick), is dirtier than a sow – I was just being polite. So neither of those two “curvaceous women” is “healthy”.
And you obviously have the soul of a Clinton if you can forget about the suffering of millions of people because of something that any one person says – no matter how much you disagree. Please keep you false sympathy to yourself; it’s not doing anyone any good.
I am heartbroken and sympathetic to the Palestinian’s plight except when men, like you, from any place say things like say things like
“secondly, if I was married to Hillary long enough even an unattractive sow like Lewinsky might do. He probably just closed his eyes and fantasized about the sheep back in Arkansas.”
You are a pig, zakimar – sight unseen. I can smell you from here.
By American standards, both Hillary and Monica are attractive women.
They are not skinny models. Most healthy, curvaceous women aren’t.
To each his own.
Equating Clinton’s perjury with Bush’s crimes is ludicrous. The impeachment fiasco was an obvious waste of time. Two points though: first at least Clinton was having sex with a consenting female and not a male congressional aide or an undercover, male cop in a washroom; and secondly, if I was married to Hillary long enough even an unattractive sow like Lewinsky might do. He probably just closed his eyes and fantasized about the sheep back in Arkansas.
The Constitution Proceeds My Being – My Response to Cass R. Sunstein
Jerry Voorhis, whom Nixon defeated in our local congressional race, on review of the call for Nixon’s impeachment said that Watergate was just “the tip of the iceberg” and that Nixon should have been impeached when he announced that he would ignore the so-called “Mansfield Amendment.” To wit:
” Unless Congress has the statesmanship, the courage and the respect for its prerogatives to impeach Richard Nixon, the consequences for the future of constitutional government, as well as honest government, will be bleak indeed. It will furthermore be almost as serious a mistake for the Congress to impeach Mr. Nixon for technical reasons only as for it not to impeach him at all.”
And further that the most important basis for impeachment was the:
“usurpation by Mr. Nixon of legislative powers that belong exclusively to the Congress under the Constitution.”
My report as it comes from Nixon’s old congressional district and as God is my Fuhrer believe that: We are in a state of constitutional crisis. For Rumsfeld to lobby on intelligence reform and now have military acts off the books means that the “linchpin” of the constitution, the taxing and spending powers of Congress, of raising standing armies, has now been violated. My Congressman David Dreier now has no way to effect neither my Liberty nor my Republic. You do not appear to be interested either Mr Sunstein.
Our constitution was specifically designed to avoid this combination of the President’s office with the Defense Department; that the King shall not have his own standing army to send willy-nilly to wherever he thinks he has the pleasure too. The appointment of a sitting General to an executive position – the CIA – only consolidates this dangerous process that is under play.
The basis for this power grab, the claim of inherent power of the president, has already been settled under Nixon’s attempt during the so-called Vietnam War. As Nixon’s assistant attorney general Rehnquist made the argument of inherent power to wiretap the White Panther Party without a warrant – during a war. This power, which was claimed to be held, under the President’s Oath of Office, was rejected by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision against suspending all or parts of the Constitution. Because this was Rehnquist’s argument as assistant attorney general he had to recuse himself from his very first decision after being appointed to the Supreme Court and rightly so. And guess what? America was still standing in the morning after this and Nixon’s resignation avoiding his impeachment. This is in spite of a average of 6 bombings a day, 86 killed policemen, and a record 33,604 thousand injuries between the fall of 1969 and spring of 1970 by our own citizens protesting over the illegal invasion of Cambodia. Not to mention the response and statistics to the the duration of the Vietnam war.
That is why I can never believe McCain and the neo-cons or Alitos et al., claims to absolute presidential power as Commander-and-Chief even during war. Was not Nixon’s claim during a war? And did not the Supreme Court rule absolutely not? It is the same Oath of Office is it not? Unfortunately, old Rehnquist(and now McCain), conveniently ignored this when he reviewed his history of the power of the President during war. He brings up WWI and WWII in this review. But, for some reason, he completely skips how his “inherent” argument on presidential power was slapped down by the Supreme Court during the undeclared, illegal and immoral so-called Vietnam War. This is bald face intellectual dishonesty, if not outright historical revisionism, that completely belies the important decision on the necessity of War – not to mention the young lives thrown willy-nilly into harm’s way.
This missing history is more reason why I completely reject Bushes, and now McCain’s, medieval thesis that constitutional government is too weak to survive in a difficult world and that we should defer to a sole sovereign power since 9/11. It is a FALSE claim of sovereignty! In all we have become weaker since taking on this post 9/11 repeat of Rehnquist’s “in terrorem” position. (I would like to read his memo on the subject of presidential power and the invasion of Cambodia but alas that memo has disappeared, nowhere to be found on the Internet. The persuasive force of his ideas no longer count I can only suppose).
I only fear that if our new Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito accept and reverse on appeal the 2-1 Fourth Circuit ruling in Al-Marri v. Wright and take what was a tragedy we survived and turn a repeated claim of 17th century inherent power into a farce that destroys the sheet anchor of our Republic – our precious Constitution – along with the Bill of Rights. I would rather throw Bush, McCain and you overboard Mr. Cass R. Sunstein than our Fundamental Constitutional Rights. You are so far out of your league on the history do Obama a favor and bow out.
Where is your statesmanship, your honor and your respect? Your bleak report is a FARCE!
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan. Live Free or Die!
P.S. Rehnquists memo is now posted at the DOD.
It is the perpetrators of crime who criminalize. We bring them to justice to deter further criminalization.