Truth Commission

Are we going to need a South Africa-style truth commission to find the facts and clear the air after Bush-era war crimes? To me it more and more looks like that will be the case:

But I'm basically pessimistic that anyone will be held accountable for anything at all. The relevance precedent is probably Iran-Contra where the guilty parties just . . . came back into government a bit later and anyone who mentioned that they were crooks was dismissed as shrill. I recall that during the telecom immunity fight the Washington Post specifically denounced immunity opponents on the grounds that they were interested in "using the tools of discovery to dislodge information about what the administration actually did." Can't have people know what happened!

Comments

John Ashcroft testifies that he does not think waterboarding is torture. I think this sums up the moral bankruptcy of the Bush administration pretty well. A method that is considered torture throughout the world and has actually been prosecuted as a war crime in the past is no longer torture? Disgusting.

Posted by LFC | July 18, 2008 3:50 PM

I think that legal accountability and material redress are necessary, and the South African TRC is an excellent example of how that can be clouded over and swept under the rug. While folks in the West may enjoy talking about the TRC, let us not forget for one moment that all of the same folks who owned everything and benefited tremendously from apartheid continue to own everything and benefit tremendously today. Not that much has changed, and the ANC advocacy of the TRC represents one of the biggest betrayals of the South African people who fought and died in large numbers to end apartheid. It may be feel good politics for liberal Westerners, but it was a crime against South Africans. It is not a model I think we should replicate.

Posted by Jess | July 18, 2008 4:01 PM

A TRC is useless unless accompanied by a credible threat of legal accountability for anyone who does not participate fully in the TRC process. Opting for a TRC because prosecution is impossible or impractical is pointless. No one will participate, or they will do so only in blatantly self-serving and dishonest ways. The carrot for a TRC is immunity for whatever acts you disclose, but what's the point of immunity if no one is going to prosecute you anyway.

Posted by J.B. | July 18, 2008 4:13 PM

As I said at Digby's place on this topic, the problem isn't just that 'truth commissions' ought to be associated with the transition from undemocratic to democratic rule. It's that in South Africa, the fundamental injustice was gone. Any attempt to provide amnesty in exchange for full disclosure in the US is futile if the fundamental fuckups of Bushism aren't excised, and it's much harder to do that than to allow the majority of a population to vote.

That's to say, it's going to take a few fucking war crimes trials and a few fucking war criminals in jail, combined with the establishment of a precedent that the criminals of previous administrations can and will be banged up, regardless of the Villagers' Very Serious People whining about 'criminalising politics'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 18, 2008 4:13 PM

Hahaha,

Jess would have preferred a civil war. It may feel good to vent, but Jess wouldn't have had to live with the consequences of a black on white civil war in South Africa.

That's the question, do you want to Move On (.org)? or do you want your pound of flesh?

Obama's "sellout" over telecom immunity means he'd rather get something done during his first term, than spend his time and energy engaging in total political war with the Republicans. Not an easy call, but there you go.

And he probably really believes the new law will help the intelligence agencies prevent an attack, whereas no law would have been a detriment.

What's funny to me is all of those like Fareed Zakaria who felt Iraq's former Baathists shouldn't have been purged and should have been given a break. Hey, they're competent people! In other words, Iraq shouldn't have been given a Truth and Reconcilliation commision, which it wasn't.

Posted by Peter K. | July 18, 2008 4:14 PM

No, I prefer justice; and if you talk to folks who were deeply involved in the struggle, and yet did not ascend to power positions within the ANC, you'll get the same view. There is no reason on earth why white folks should not be made to pay reparations in South Africa or elsewhere. South Africa already was (and continues) to be a bloodbath. Don't fool yourself by whatever tourist images you have seen.

Posted by Jess | July 18, 2008 4:21 PM

It may feel good to vent, but Jess wouldn't have had to live with the consequences of a black on white civil war in South Africa.

Yeah, must be a great feeling walking down the street, going shopping or having a drink and seeing your former torturers go about their lives as if nothing has happened.

Posted by novakant | July 18, 2008 4:21 PM

Unfortunately, after the blanket pardoning of thousands of people that Pres Bush (and then Pres Cheney, who will pardon Bush on 1/20) will do, a TRC will be vital.

And absolutely, non-compliance and perjury will need to be prosecuted.

Posted by hopeless pedant | July 18, 2008 4:23 PM

The relevance precedent is probably Iran-Contra where the guilty parties just . . . came back into government a bit later and anyone who mentioned that they were crooks was dismissed as shrill. I recall that during the telecom immunity fight the Washington Post specifically denounced immunity opponents on the grounds that they were interested in "using the tools of discovery to dislodge information about what the administration actually did."

Like I keep asking, how do we break into the narrative that most people hear?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | July 18, 2008 4:27 PM

I had suggested long ago that telecom immunity be contingent on the telecoms revealing what the government had them do. Nobody seems to have taken me up on this compromise proposal.

Posted by CJColucci | July 18, 2008 4:33 PM

It won't solve all problems or redress all grievances, but law license hearings can and should play a major role in this process.

Is it clear enough that many deserve to go to jail, and will subsequent events reveal even more? Sure, but the critical thing is revelation. Public censure and removal of the law license would be a perfectly excellent punishment for Addington, Yoo, Gonzales and the like.

The precedent is set. Bill Clinton got a 5 year suspension of his law license for whatever it was that he did. We may, in fact, refer to that penalty as a 'Clinton unit', as in the sentence 'the torture memo should call for 2 Clinton units for John Yoo', which would mean he would lose his license for 15 years.

Oh by the way ... law practice is a privilege, not a right. You may notice that Scooter man doesn't have one anymore. Legal license suspension is beyond the pardon power.

Posted by drinkof | July 18, 2008 4:36 PM

Obama's "sellout" over telecom immunity means he'd rather get something done during his first term, than spend his time and energy engaging in total political war with the Republicans. Not an easy call, but there you go.

I'm sure that it won't bite him on the ass. After all, it's not as if the Iran-Contra crooks came back to do any more harm... oh.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 18, 2008 4:40 PM

God that was a long question. Let the woman answer for God's sake.

Posted by bobbo | July 18, 2008 4:41 PM

The biggest problem will be the wave of pardons I expect as Bush leaves office.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 5:01 PM

I predict that the left will be up in arms about criminalizing policy differences as soon as a Democrat becomes President.

Posted by James Robertson | July 18, 2008 5:12 PM

I guess Peter K' position is that America is evil, and South Africa is good. After all, he has proclaimed Civil Wars to be unnacceptable. When in a similar situation to South Africa, we fought a Civil War. We ended slavery. The South Africans did not fight a civil war. Almost nothing has changed there at all.

To be, or not to be. I think we have the answer to that question now.

Posted by Soullite | July 18, 2008 5:21 PM

"The biggest problem will be the wave of pardons I expect as Bush leaves office."

Thus the value of disbarments.

Posted by drinkof | July 18, 2008 5:21 PM

"The biggest problem will be the wave of pardons I expect as Bush leaves office."

Thus the value of disbarments.

Posted by drinkof | July 18, 2008 5:25 PM

It would be nice if widely-read left bloggers would actually actively push for truth & accountability on this instead of explaining in a detached, sophisticated, cynical way how unlikely either is. You may be right, but you're not helping.

Posted by Katherine | July 18, 2008 5:26 PM

"But I'm basically pessimistic that anyone will be held accountable for anything at all." I agree. There will be no facts to find to clear the air. All paperwork will have been shredded. All computers will have new hard drives (if any are left behind). Fact finding will be reduced to he said, she said, they said, we said, and I don't recall.

Posted by jerri | July 18, 2008 5:28 PM

How the fuck would you know that jerri?

It's too bad that the netroots are less interested in attempting to do anything about this, or supporting the people who are, than in making cynical world-weary comments about how useless efforts to stop these errors and preventing their recurrence are.

Posted by Katherine | July 18, 2008 5:45 PM

I think, given that the demands of actual justice (impeach, indict, imprison) appear forever out of our reach, that a TRC may be an appropriate mechanism for exposing, stigmatizing and preventing abuses of the kind that have characterized Bushism.

The crimes that have been committed are extraordinary and deserve an equally extraordinary response.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 18, 2008 5:45 PM

Please, please, please prosecute once Obama takes office. Nothing would ever do more to get the Republican Party excited again. I fear that after the Obama landslide, we're going to have a demoralized Republican party for a long, long time, and there would never be anything quite so invigorating as to to have the left-wing extremists in the Democrat Party prosecuting Republicans for protecting the country.

Posted by Al | July 18, 2008 5:48 PM

"Errors" should be "horrors."

I think it's premature to conclude that criminal prosecution is forever out of reach when we've never had a Justice Department willing to look at the evidence & investigate in good faith, and will hopefully have that in 2009. But pardons, etc. may put it out of reach, in which case opening the files would actually be a useful thing. It's possible to advocate for one of these things without denigrating the other--it's possible to advocate for both at the same time, even. Also possible to be realistic/pessimistic about their chances for their success without contributing to the Beltway consensus that none of this is serious.

Posted by Katherine | July 18, 2008 5:51 PM

Well, there are two aspects - the legal and the geopolitical.

While it's unlikely that Bush and Cheney are ever going to prosecuted for anything they did during their term of office, the EXPOSURE of everything they did might be useful in terms of showing to the world that the US has at least some slight interest in rectifying the crimes committed.

OTOH, it would also show how easy it was for the US to commit those crimes.

Showing the US electorate how this country is being run as a criminal enterprise would be valuable in itself, but cognitive dissonance is likely to set in and it wouldn't work.

As an aside, Jane Mayer looks good for being 53. The "subpoena envy" joke was good.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 18, 2008 5:57 PM

The Republicans protected this country? This country? Are you sure?

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 6:10 PM

I fear that after the Obama landslide, we're going to have a demoralized Republican party for a long, long time, and there would never be anything quite so invigorating as to to have the left-wing extremists in the Democrat Party prosecuting Republicans for protecting the country.

It would also scare the hell out of normal people who would have a hard time getting excited about prosecuting people for beating and drowning a bunch of folks.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 18, 2008 6:13 PM

When Republicans start protecting the country then they can be worried about being prosecuted for it. Until then we have 9/11, torture, New Orleans, and Iraq - none of which represented even the vaguest hint of "protecting the country" - that can be used to prosecute war criminals and the criminally negligent.

(no, for the terminally stupid - apparently all Republicans and their defenders - 9/11 wasn't a Republican plot, but the criminal negligence that led to standing down on terrorism at the height of the threat was)

Hey, El Cid, stop stealing my lines by posting them before me. It's not polite, and that's not the way I raised you.

Posted by Not As Stupid As Will Allen | July 18, 2008 6:13 PM

The people on this thread need to do some more studying on the nature of TRCs. Btw, South Africa isn't the only one. But, if we're going to start one, we need to actually hold one for our continuing native genocide first.

Posted by brenna | July 18, 2008 6:15 PM

Al, all right-wingers justify their crimes by claiming they're "protecting the country." It's likely what they thought they were doing by leaking Plame's name, covering it up, and throwing the governor of Alabama in jail on trumped up charges-- all in the name of "protecting the country." We don't care whether you're lying to us or lying to yourself about it. What we do know is that you are all part of a criminal culture and mindset which needs to be crushed. Maybe when you've finally cast off your criminal mindset will we let you rejoin civilized society.

Posted by Tyro | July 18, 2008 6:19 PM

The Republicans protected this country? This country? Are you sure?

Yes. Yes I am.

Posted by Al | July 18, 2008 7:32 PM

Are we going to need a South Africa-style truth commission to find the facts and clear the air after Bush-era war crimes?

Oh goody. Can we also go after Clinton for bombing Yugoslavia without U.N. approval, firing missiles on an infant formula factory in Sudan, and starving hundreds of thousands of children to death in Iraq? Funny, I don't seem to remember any calls for a "truth commission" on Clinton-era crimes.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 7:50 PM

Oh goody. Can we also go after Clinton for bombing Yugoslavia without U.N. approval, firing missiles on an infant formula factory in Sudan, and starving hundreds of thousands of children to death in Iraq? Funny, I don't seem to remember any calls for a "truth commission" on Clinton-era crimes.

Posted by Mixner

Not from liberals. But you did from the actual left, or at least among it, given divisions on these topics.

But if the aliens landed tomorrow and demanded we go through it all and they would enforce it, I'd be open to it. When Republicans had the authority, they felt like it was his penis that merited in-depth investigation.

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 7:54 PM

The only way something like this happens is if you persuade lots of powerful people that it's in their interest to send other powerful people to jail. That work hasn't been done. When push comes to shove, the prosecutions will be traded away for other policy goals. And that's probably the right choice.

If you can't have both, would you rather that the next president focus on getting health care for the American people or on getting David Addington and Donald Rumsfeld behind bars?

If you can't have both, over the next four years would you rather see perfect justice meted out the Bush Administration or would you rather be out of Iraq and on our way to compliance with Kyoto?

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see justice done upon this lot, but politics is the art of the possible.

Posted by southpaw | July 18, 2008 8:05 PM

Mixner's regurgitating Chomsky's talking points. That's a good one.

Posted by guy | July 18, 2008 8:18 PM

Mixner, like a typical Republican, gives every appearance of believing that all crimes begin and end with Clinton.

Tell us Mixner, what evidence do you have that the Iraqis are better off under the occupation than they were under sanctions? Some areas to consider: sanitation, ratio of doctors to patients, access to hospitals, access to refrigeration, access to electricity? How about violent death rate? How's that under Bush v. Clinton?

Wouldn't a truth commission on Clinton's implementation of George H. W. Bush's sanctions (you aren't so stupid that you've forgotten that Clinton didn't create, only softened the original barbaric sanctions - right?) have to answer those questions?

And there is something special (short-bus special) about Mixner's inability to remember the Republican talking point that the left couldn't both be against the sanctions and against the assault on Iraq. Why, you dim-witted sponsor of mass murder and torture, do you think that talking point existed?

Given the hundreds of thousands murdered and millions displaced by Bush's unprovoked aggression it takes a particularly stupid kind of person to suggest that we should start with Clinton.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 8:22 PM

Not to excuse what Clinton did, but what Clinton was guilty of in terms of international law would if accepted by "crimes against peace".

Torturing prisoners is a war crime and it's not a matter of international law. U.S. law defines it as a war crime. There are homicide cases languishing at the DOJ right now because no one will touch them with a ten foot pole but if it turns out they died from what Bush ordered done to them it becomes a capital crime.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 18, 2008 8:26 PM

El Cid,

But if the aliens landed tomorrow and demanded we go through it all and they would enforce it, I'd be open to it.

Er, no aliens are necessary. Why aren't you agitating now for a "truth commission" to investigate Clinton-era crimes? You're more likely to get it under a Republican adminstration than a Democratic one. Don't the families of all those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children Clinton starved to death deserve justice?

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 8:33 PM

How many children have died under Bush's brutal assault on the people of Iraq Mixner? With your insistence that people should be agitating for Clinton's trial - why aren't you insisting that Bush be brought to trial? After all, up until Bush started actively slaughtering children he continued those very same sanctions didn't he? So why start with Clinton? Why not start with the butcher of Baghdad himself - George W. Bush?

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 8:44 PM

Oh goody. Can we also go after Clinton for [blah blah]

The "Clinton did it too" gambit. How innovative. (Though, really, for full effect you should work in a reference to his penis.) We note that you utterly fail to address the issue at hand, that of the war crimes committed by the current administration.

Posted by hello | July 18, 2008 8:54 PM

MY: "I recall that during the telecom immunity fight the Washington Post specifically denounced immunity opponents on the grounds that they were interested in "using the tools of discovery to dislodge information about what the administration actually did." Can't have people know what happened!"

That would be the same media that has "not so much" effect on our elections....to quote Pierce, Jeebus Christmas.

Posted by Andruw | July 18, 2008 9:01 PM

The "Clinton did it too" gambit. How innovative.

About as innovative as the "Bush did it more recently, therefore Clinton doesn't count" gambit. Or the "Clinton is a Democrat, therefore Clinton doesn't count" gambit. Or the "I don't care how many children Clinton killed, I only care about feeding my insatiable hatred of Bush" gambit.

Posted by goodbye | July 18, 2008 9:17 PM

Great, except I didn't deploy any of those gambits. I'd welcome any of those cases being made, if they are there to be made.

Posted by hello | July 18, 2008 9:21 PM

Nothing would better communicate to the public that Congress remains unserious about fixing problems - than a far-left effort to criminalize the political process. All to continue government paralysis as critical problems have reached crisis proportions as lawyers running the system have betrayed democracy to special interest groups.

Play that game as America collapses and you set up Americans to lose faith that their system and Constitution works anymore and prime them for the group that best makes the case on how to fix the Constitution and end the period of lawyers and special interest groups of the Elites rendering American voters powerless.

Other failed democracies required military coups to get countries working again and fix broken government.

We once required a Civil War to fix a broken Constitution and a hopelessly gridlocked government. It was incredibly bloody. 660,000. Equivalent to about 7 million lost at America's present population level.

The problem is a lot of those militaries and competent oligarchies backed by military power found they rather liked the power themselves and perks of office and did not surrender power back after the emergency ended and the last of the people that broke their country had been removed from power.

Lefties that try criminalization and "truth and reconciliation tribunals" best know they play with fire.

Posted by chris ford | July 18, 2008 9:24 PM

Great, except I didn't deploy any of those gambits.

No, your various alter egos did.

Posted by concerned citizen | July 18, 2008 9:26 PM

No, your various alter egos did.

Who and where?

Posted by hello | July 18, 2008 9:29 PM

Why aren't you agitating now for a "truth commission" to investigate Clinton-era crimes? You're more likely to get it under a Republican adminstration than a Democratic one.

Okay, dumbass. This isn't worth any real response to your anal OCD habits of demanding that every word be defined to your satisfaction else 'you win'.

What did I just say?

When the Republicans had the authority, both under the Clinton administration AND WHEN THEY F***ING CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS ABSOLUTELY YOU RETARD FROM 2002 - 2006 they pursued no such investigation.

Now, that's mostly because Republicans enjoyed the mass starvation deaths of Iraqi children, and since I wasn't two years old at the time the sanctions were going on, Republicans were not complaining about the deaths of Iraqis, but were disappointed that Bill Clinton wasn't killing more Arabs and Muslims, and, by the way, their choice was not to investigate Bill Clinton's foreign policy on Iraq, which they loved since it killed people but hated since it didn't kill people violently and quickly enough, but to investigate Clinton's penis in even greater detail.

So stop it. Just stop the act. I don't give the slightest sh*t how many zillions of times you respond and demand an answer or definition for this or that, you're attempting a silly little game and I don't give a sh*t about it or you, and if somehow that makes you think that this proves you love the sanctions-murdered Iraqi children more than I, well, I'm glad to have made your week-end.

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 9:35 PM

So why start with Clinton?

You've had plenty of time to go after Clinton, and yet you've done nothing. He was slaughtering the Iraqi children you claim to care about for years and years while he was President. You've had another 8 years since he left the White House to bring him to justice. And yet you've done nothing.

Stop delaying, stop making excuses, stop changing the subject, and get that "truth commission" going.

Posted by Not as stupid as hello | July 18, 2008 9:36 PM

And surprise, along with idiots like Mixner we have racist morons supporting the notion that unprovoked aggression, torture, and violations of civil rights are about "political differences."

This is the same bullshit used to defend Nixon's crimes and Reagan's crimes. There is no question that unprovoked aggression is a war crime. There is no question that torture is a war crime. There is no question that ordering private citizens to violate the law is an indefensible act deserving of impeachment.

The Republicans didn't violate the law protecting Americans. Republicans didn't sanction torture in order to protect the American people. Republicans didn't assault the Iraqi people protecting America.

Anyone who suggests they did should provide some evidence. Something credible - not "Jose Padilla" and the poor schmucks in Cuba who still haven't been demonstrated to have committed acts of war.

Letting Nixon get off with resignation gave us thugs like Dick Cheney. Letting Reagan arm terrorists in Central America and sell weapons to our ostensible enemies in Iran ensured that the Republicans understood that there wasn't enough political will to prosecute them for their treasonous acts.

Impeach and imprison those whose acts violate the law.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 9:38 PM

I didn't say "so why start with Clinton" -- that's someone else. If there's a case to be brought against Clinton, bring it. I believe in accountability, unlike some Bush diehards.

Posted by hello | July 18, 2008 9:41 PM

Ha, ha, ha, Mixner's so fucking stupid he imagines that everyone who disagrees with his idiocy is me.

What a dipshit.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 9:42 PM

El Cid,

Okay, dumbass.

Okay, moron.

When the Republicans had the authority, both under the Clinton administration AND WHEN THEY F***ING CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS ABSOLUTELY YOU RETARD FROM 2002 - 2006 they pursued no such investigation.

Then you should be F***ING TRYING EVEN HARDER TO BRING CLINTON TO JUSTICE, SHOULDN'T YOU, RETARD? Oh, wait. You can't try "harder," can you? BECAUSE YOU NEVER TRIED AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE, DID YOU? Well, better late than never. Get to it.

Now, that's mostly because Republicans enjoyed the mass starvation deaths of Iraqi children, and since I wasn't two years old at the time the sanctions were going on,...

The sanctions were going on until 2003. So you're now....seven years of age? Actually, given your endlessly infantile behavior, that makes perfect sense.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 9:47 PM

By the way, be careful what you wish for: one of the grand purposes of the Iran-Contra hearings was to intentionally limit it to those topics and subjects which the establishment were most comfortable with.

As weak as it was, the grand purpose of Iran-Contra was to limit and weaken any inquiry into the decade's most bloodthirsty and criminal policies, and even that tepid pursuit was undercut such that it became a political benefit to the right wingers who parlayed their consequence-free experience of pledging allegiance to god-king President Reagan over Congress or the law.

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 9:51 PM

What's funny about Mixner's idiotic claims that Clinton should be prosecuted (as if the left cared that much about Clinton) isn't its wrongness (Clinton's acts were hardly pure), but the notion that a supporter of butchery and torture like Mixner gives a fuck about the children of Iraq.

Mixner, how many children have died under Bush's occupation? You keep mentioning dead children, you must be keeping track. Or is it just your fetish for dead children - you sick fuck?

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 9:51 PM

Mixner: Outside of blogging pompous demands, what did you do? What did you do to stop the sanctions or bring Clinton to justice? Anything? Or is running your mouth enough?

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 9:54 PM

Mixner, how many children have died under Bush's occupation?

Not as stupid, how many children died under Clinton's sanctions?

You keep mentioning dead children, you must be keeping track. Or is it just your fetish for dead children - you sick fuck?

You claim to care about dead children, but you keep ignoring dead children killed by Clinton. Why is that - you sick fuck?

Posted by concerned citizen | July 18, 2008 10:01 PM

Don't forget Bush Sr. He was the one who started those sanctions which Clinton upheld. So there are 3 Presidents who could go in the dock, not to mention Reagan who did what he could to help arm and support Saddam Hussein, outside his separate gleeful support for mass murderers, death squads, and genocidalists in Central America and Southern Africa. And so forth.

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 10:07 PM

Oh goody. Can we also go after Clinton for bombing Yugoslavia without U.N. approval, firing missiles on an infant formula factory in Sudan, and starving hundreds of thousands of children to death in Iraq? Funny, I don't seem to remember any calls for a "truth commission" on Clinton-era crimes.

As I've said before, you weren't listening for the condemnation.

People condemned the embargo.

The bombing of the factory was a mistake not a lie.

The actions in the Balkans were a NATO exercise.

And as I've said before you're condemning people for supporting the policies you approve of. What an amazing jackass.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 18, 2008 10:08 PM

El Cid,

Mixner: Outside of blogging pompous demands, what did you do?

Sorry, I'm not the one calling for a politically-motivated witchhunt. Sorry, I mean calling for a fair and impartial pursuit of truth and justice. You are. And yet, strangely, your notion of truth and justice seems utterly indifferent to the genocidal actions of former Democratic President Bill Clinton. So I guess "politically-motivated witchhunt" is the right phrase for what you seek after all.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 10:08 PM

No, you're a poopyhead.

Posted by twixbar | July 18, 2008 10:12 PM

You can tell when I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel, because I just start parroting back people's words and trying to change the subject.

Posted by NikkiSixxner | July 18, 2008 10:17 PM

So Mixner, who was President from 2001-2003? What did he do to limit those deaths? Given the state of Iraq right now show some evidence that Bush's policies are making the lives of children better in Iraq. How many children died under the occupation? How are the displaced children doing?

Come on, you want support for prosecuting Clinton, provide some evidence that Bush's actions have made things better. Or are you just a dumb-ass apologist for Bush's criminality?

You could win support for prosecuting Clinton if you were to simply admit that Bush's actions warrant prosecution. I can't say how much. But starting with accepting the reality that Bush's assault on Iraq was a war crime would help your case quite a bit.

As for Mixner's posts under the "concerned citizen" handle - show me where I supported Clinton's actions, fuckwit. Show me where I have said that the sanctions put in place by George H. W. Bush were a good thing. The dead children are a stain on Clinton's legacy.

But remember that Clinton relaxed the sanctions to allow food and medicine. It was under Clinton that the oil for food program was introduced. In other words, Clinton's actions saved children that would have died under the sanctions imposed by George H. W. Bush.

Now, Mixner, how many people have died under Bush's occupation?

I'm not the one calling for a politically-motivated witchhunt.

Now that's amusing. Your only reason for talking about Clinton in the context of Bush's massive criminal enterprise is exactly to try to make it a political witchhunt.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 10:18 PM

Mixner:

Fine. I'll take that as 'you did nothing'. You either were unaware about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq during Clinton's reign, or you were morally culpable for their deaths, just as you didn't care about the deaths of tens of thousands of them under Bush Sr's reign or under Bush Jr's reign.

But I'll make you a deal. When the giant, invisible truth commission commissions are being formed, you bring in the Clinton crime evidence, and I'll bring the Reagan / Bush Sr duo. Right after putting the current crew in the dock, and immediately before we manage to have all the children on Earth hold hands and share a nice, frosty, non-branded beverage of their choice.

My witch-hunt is politically motivated to the degree that it is politically informed. My notions of truth and justice are free to support whatever weight of insult you place upon them, since the collective weight of your judgment is zero.

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 10:18 PM

I'm fairly confident we are going to learn a lot more about what has been going on if Obama becomes President. Yes, the shredders will be running full time before he takes office, and we won't find out everything by a long shot, but it is darn hard to eliminate all traces in an organization the size of the federal government (in part because for good or ill, there will probably be people in the government holding onto what they can to turn over to a new Administration).

And that disclosure will be good, but I do anticipate being frustrated that Bush's outgoing pardons will likely prevent prosecutions for some clear crimes.

Oh, and by the way, the GOP thought Scooter's prosecution was going to be a political boon for them. It wasn't. It turns out when there is clear evidence of a crime, the American people are actually OK with prosecuting it, even if--gasp!--the accused is a prominent Republican.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 10:20 PM

Jeffrey Davis,

People condemned the embargo.

"People?" What people? How many people? How many Democrats? Show me your evidence of this alleged condemnation. And why aren't you condemning Clinton for his "embargo" now? You do love to condemn, after all. Or do Democratic presidents get a free pass?

The bombing of the factory was a mistake not a lie.

How do you know it was a mistake? Even if it was a mistake, how do you know it wasn't a criminally negligent one? Why aren't you calling for a "truth commission" or a criminal trial to determine the truth of the matter?

The actions in the Balkans were a NATO exercise.

Ah, right. Then the invasion of Iraq was a "Coalition of the Willing" exercise. Apparently, if the U.S. President is just one of several national leaders involved in a possibly-unlawful military action, he's somehow off the hook, and any question of whether he violated international law is somehow rendered null and void.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 10:22 PM

Like El Cid I am perfectly happy to have the full truth. Unlike the knee-jerk defense of Bush by Mixner I have no love for Clinton. Clinton was always the lesser of the evils presented.

Bush, on the other hand, was always the greatest of the evils presented. His policies of murder, torture, and assaults on civil liberties have been a blight on the United States.

This isn't, as some idiot racist suggested above, about political differences. This is about the Rule of Law. Without it our nation is as morally bankrupt as Mixner.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 10:26 PM

So Mixner, who was President from 2001-2003? What did he do to limit those deaths?

So, not as stupid, who was president from 1993 to 2000? How many Iraqi children did he starve to death with sanctions?

How many children died under the occupation?

How many children died under Clinton's sanctions?

show me where I supported Clinton's actions, fuckwit.

Where is your condemnation of Clinton's actions, fuckwit?

But remember that Clinton relaxed the sanctions to allow food and medicine.

How many children died under Clinton's sanctions?

Posted by concerned citien | July 18, 2008 10:29 PM

That's cute Mixner, but you aren't answering the questions. Posting under another handle doesn't change your support for mass murder. It doesn't make you any less of a monster.

Come on Mixner, tell us: you think that Clinton should be prosecuted, how does he stack up to Bush? Your claims of concern for the lives of children should be backed by something more than generating new handles to dodge the questions.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 10:40 PM

El Cid,

But I'll make you a deal.

Sorry, I don't make deals with people engaged in politically-motivated witchhunts. Until you provide some evidence that you are genuinely interested in the pursuit of truth and justice regarding presidential behavior, regardless of party affiliation, rather than simply feeding your pathological hatred of the Bush administration and the GOP more broadly, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously at all.

Your complete lack of interest in investigating the legality and morality of Bill Clinton's actions as president makes it abundantly clear that a fair and impartial search for truth and justice is the last thing you have in mind.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 10:46 PM

Jane Mayer is a babe

Posted by Paper Mac | July 18, 2008 10:49 PM

but you aren't answering the questions.

Non-responsive.

How many Iraqi children died under Clinton's sanctions, not-as-stupid?

Where is your condemnation of Clinton's genocidal actions, not-as-stupid?

Why aren't you demanding a "truth commission" to investigate Clinton's starving to death of hundreds of thousands of children? And Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia without U.N. approval? And Clinton's missile attack on an infant formula plant in Sudan?

Posted by concerned citizen | July 18, 2008 10:53 PM

Mixner's support for torture marks him an unfit arbiter of right and wrong. Mixner's support for the unprovoked aggression against Iraq renders him an immoral monster.

The only reason why Mixner is doing this little song and dance about Clinton is to pretend that Clinton's actions were the same as Bush's. Only a disphit like Mixner could compare them.

Children died in Iraq under Clinton because he did not act forcefully enough. Bush, inheriting that legacy, did nothing until he assaulted the people of Iraq. Clinton's inaction was shameful. Bush's assault was criminal.

Bush instigated a war against a nation without any justification. If Mixner wants to present a case that Iraqis are better served by the occupation than by the sanctions he is welcome to do so. He will not. He will simply demand that others demonstrate the obvious. And then troll with new handles to avoid having to admit that he has no evidence.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 10:57 PM

Mixner, pretending to be two different people isn't effective. It's just pathetic.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 11:02 PM

Google the political usenet groups from the era.

There were far more Democrats condemning the embargo and Clinton than Republican condemning the far worse Iraq War. And YOU support the far worse Iraq War.

Mixner, you're still a jackass for condemning actions you support.

Apparently, if the U.S. President is just one of several national leaders involved in a possibly-unlawful military action, he's somehow off the hook,

How many people are prosecuted for "possibly unlawful" actions? What would the indictment look like? (And that's ignoring the whole NATO/treaty angle. YOU don't support the UN as the sole source of legitimate actions. It's late in the game to bring them up. And you ignore the fact that the only multinational organization that supported the Iraq War was the one drummed up to prosecute the Iraq War: the ad hoc "coalition of the willing".)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 18, 2008 11:03 PM

Mixner: I encourage you highly to listen to your own conclusions about me not being worth taken seriously. I double you on that. I urge you to then ignore every one of my comments and encourage you to feel as self-satisfied about that as you might. Since your response seemed to indicate that for one moment I was seriously offering "a deal" to you, let me clarify -- it was merely a literary device.

You're a trite fop, and of course, no, I would no more waste my time with you than I would for one second believe you actually gave the slightest damn about the lives of those Iraqi children who died in massive numbers due to U.S. policies over at least 4 Presidents.

Posted by El Cid | July 18, 2008 11:07 PM

Children died in Iraq under Clinton because he did not act forcefully enough.

Ha ha ha ha! Yes, if Clinton had imposed even more "forceful" sanctions he would have killed even more children. Brilliant defense, that: "Bu..Bu..But he could have killed even more!"

If Mixner wants to present a case that Iraqis are better served by the occupation than by the sanctions he is welcome to do so.

If not-as-stupid wants to present a case that Iraqis would have been better served by some alternative policy to invasion, he is welcome to clearly state what that supposedly superior alternative policy would have been, and make his case for it.

Posted by concerned citizen | July 18, 2008 11:10 PM

Jeffrey Davis, it is odd how many Republicans suddenly discovered the deaths of children as a cause for going to war once the whole "WMDs/threat to US national security" argument evaporated. It's also odd that proponents of this new, humanitarian, rationale don't want to talk about how this "humanitarian" war has affected the Iraqi people - including the children they've suddenly discovered.

Not a single one of them wants to talk about the availability of services - from electricity to medicine to, for God's sake, oil under the occupation. None of them provide any evidence that things are better under the occupation than they were under sanctions.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 11:14 PM

Not that it is actually relevant to issues such as prosecutions for recent acts of torture, illegal wiretaps, and so on, but I for one have no problem saying the UN-imposed Iraq sanctions caused a humanitarian disaster. And I also have no problem with saying that once it became clear the sanctions were causing an ongoing humanitarian disaster, the failure to do anything about that fact on the part of all the relevant actors, including Clinton, was immoral and worthy of our condemnation.

But as many have noted before me, I think it is clear the intent necessary for treating the sanctions as criminal was lacking (the UN and the participants in the sanctions, including Clinton, weren't actually trying to kill Iraqi children). So while I think it is appropriate to condemn the role Clinton and others played, I am not sure what more can be done.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 11:19 PM

Jeffrey Davis,

Google the political usenet groups from the era.

Sorry, it's not my job to look for evidence to support your claims. That's your job. Where is your evidence that large numbers of Democrats were condemning Bill Clinton's Iraq policies in "that era?" Where is your evidence that large numbers of Democrats now condemn Bill Clinton's Iraq policies? From what I can tell, far from being condemning him, the vast majority of Democrats treat Bill Clinton as an honorable former President and an elder statesman of the party. There's barely any hostility towards him at all, let alone any widespread belief that he committed genocide. That's what makes your condemnation of Bush so utterly absurd. You're such a bunch of hypocrites.

How many people are prosecuted for "possibly unlawful" actions?

Er, that's what the "truth commissions" and criminal courts are supposed to be for, isn't it? To find out if legally questionable acts were actually unlawful. Why aren't you calling for a "truth commission" or a trial of the NATO leaders involved in the bombing of Yugoslavia, including Bill Clinton?

What would the indictment look like?

Er, something like this, perhaps. Quote:

The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia, meeting in New York, having considered the Initial Charges and Complaint of the Commission dated July 31, 1999 against President William J. Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema, Prime Minister Jose Maria Azmar, the Governments of the United States and the other NATO member states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO leaders, and Others with nineteen separate Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other international agreements and customary international law .....

The Members of the International War Crimes Tribunal find the accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen separate crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 11:30 PM

As we wind down now to 2004 levels of violence in Iraq it is useful to note that under Saddam Hussein there were 14 violent deaths a month in Baghdad. In 2004 Fox News reported that there were an average of 357 violent deaths each month in Baghdad.

If Mixner, or his sock puppet, want to talk about the benefits of the war then that might be a good place to start.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 11:34 PM

DTM,

Not that it is actually relevant to issues such as prosecutions for recent acts of torture, illegal wiretaps, and so on, but I for one have no problem saying the UN-imposed Iraq sanctions caused a humanitarian disaster. And I also have no problem with saying that once it became clear the sanctions were causing an ongoing humanitarian disaster, the failure to do anything about that fact on the part of all the relevant actors, including Clinton, was immoral and worthy of our condemnation.

Well, get to it, then. Start condemning. You know how much you love to do that. At least, when the object of your condemnation is a Republican.

I think it is clear the intent necessary for treating the sanctions as criminal was lacking (the UN and the participants in the sanctions, including Clinton, weren't actually trying to kill Iraqi children).

I see. Good luck establishing that Clinton did not intend to kill Iraqi children but that Bush did. In any case, intent to kill is not a necessary condition for an act that has the effect of killing to be criminal. A person who engages in an act of killing may be convicted of the crimes of felony murder or manslaughter even if he lacked the intent to kill.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 11:40 PM

Just an idle point, but I find it amusing that Mixner just quoted a "war crimes tribubal" formed by the International Action Center. Of course the International Action Center is a left-wing activist group founded in 1992 by Ramsey Clark, former AG under Johnson (who was also the "prosecutor" in this case). So, that is actually a good example of a left group that was resoluting attacking Clinton's relevant foreign policies.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 11:43 PM

If not-as-stupid wants to present a case that Iraqis would have been better served by some alternative policy to invasion, he is welcome to clearly state what that supposedly superior alternative policy would have been, and make his case for it.

His case needs to be based on verifiable factual evidence from reputable sources, not numbers he makes up out of thin air.

Posted by concerned citizen | July 18, 2008 11:45 PM

It takes a phenomenally stupid person to support the sanctions in one puppet and in that same puppet condemn Clinton for the deaths of children under those same sanctions.

But then Mixner, our resident cheerleader for the murder of children, is one phenomenally stupid person.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 18, 2008 11:47 PM

Heaps of dead children means fewer smelly people on public transit. Driving means you avoid the smell of rotting corpses, too. What's the problem?

Posted by concerned trollizen | July 18, 2008 11:56 PM

DTM,

So, that is actually a good example of a left group that was resoluting attacking Clinton's relevant foreign policies.

You've completely missed the point, as usual. If large numbers of Democrats supposedly share the IAC's views, why aren't they demanding an official government "truth commission" or an actual trial of Clinton, Clark and Albright, so that truth and justice can be served, and Clinton and his henchmen can be legally convicted and punished for any war crimes they committed against the people of Yugoslavia?

For that matter, why aren't YOU calling for such a trial or commission? Why aren't YOU calling for a trial or commission to investigate the legality of Clinton's policies on Iraq, and to take the appropriate legal actions to convict and punish any war crimes that Clinton or any other members of his administration committed against the people of Iraq during his 8 years as President?

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2008 11:57 PM

Mixner,

You write: "Well, get to it, then. Start condemning."

I'm pretty sure I already did, but for the record:

I condemn former President Clinton for his role in perpetuating the ongoing humanitarian disaster that was caused by the UN-imposed Iraq sanctions.

As for potential criminal charges, it is true that intent is not required for all crimes. However, my understanding is that intent is required for the charges that could potentially be brought in this case, such as crimes against humanity and genocide. Indeed, William Bourdon, the Secretary-General of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, apparently said exactly that ("[o]ne of the key elements of a crime against humanity and of genocide is intent. The embargo wasn’t imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die.").

But I am not an expert on human rights law. So if you have a good reason for believing to the contrary, I would definitely be interested in hearing it.

Posted by DTM | July 18, 2008 11:59 PM

But then Mixner, our resident cheerleader for the murder of children...

Not-as-stupid is our resident cheerleader for the mass murder of both children and adults.

Posted by concerned citizen | July 19, 2008 12:01 AM

Mixner,

You ask:

"For that matter, why aren't YOU calling for such a trial or commission? Why aren't YOU calling for a trial or commission to investigate the legality of Clinton's policies on Iraq, and to take the appropriate legal actions to convict and punish any war crimes that Clinton or any other members of his administration committed against the people of Iraq during his 8 years as President?"

Because I'm not aware of any good reason to believe that what Clinton did was illegal with respect to Iraq. And I am also unaware of any material and unresolved factual questions. For example, to my knowledge we know all the material facts about what Clinton did with respect to sanctions. But also to my knowledge, what he didn't wasn't illegal. So, I don't see the point in an investigation or prosecution with respect to Clinton's sanction policies.

Again, though, I would be happy to be corrected. If you can provide me with good reason to believe Clinton committed an illegal act, or good reason to believe there are material and unresolved factual questions, then please do.

Posted by DTM | July 19, 2008 12:07 AM

The actions in the Balkans ended genocide. They also may be solely responsible for the relatively peaceful exit of Mentenegro and Kosovo from Serbia recently. The problems there are in no way solved, but I'm willing to bet they're better than they would be if we hadn't taken action.

The issue is that international law is contradictory. The signers of the 1948 genocide convention are legally bound to respond to prevent or intervene in these atrocities. They are, similarly prevented from it by sovereignty laws. As it happens, we made the right choice in the 90s.

Posted by brenna | July 19, 2008 12:09 AM

I'll act like I give a shit about piles of dead children when I receive $1,000 in used $20 bills from every Democrat. That's fair and reasonable, isn't it?

Posted by fullofshitizen | July 19, 2008 12:16 AM

DTM,

I condemn former President Clinton for his role in perpetuating the ongoing humanitarian disaster that was caused by the UN-imposed Iraq sanctions.

Well done. That's a keeper.

my understanding is that intent is required for the charges that could potentially be brought in this case, such as crimes against humanity and genocide. Indeed, William Bourdon, the Secretary-General of the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, apparently said ....

He "apparently" said it, did he? Where did he apparently say this? Sounds like you're just passing on hearsay. Do you have a link showing what he actually said? Better yet, do you have a link to the actual text of the relevant international laws to support your unsubstantiated assertion that crimes under those laws require intent?

If we find out that intent is not necesssarily required for there to have been a crime, will you support the criminal prosecution of Bill Clinton under these laws?

Because I'm not aware of any good reason to believe that what Clinton did was illegal with respect to Iraq. And I am also unaware of any material and unresolved factual questions.

But that's what "truth commissions" and trials are for. How have you resolved the factual question of Clinton's "intent" for example? You're just guessing what his intent was. For all you know, Clinton may well have intended the deaths of Iraqi children in order to incite a coup against Saddam. The whole point of commissions and trials is to provide a forum for the presentation of evidence that allows these questions to be answered. And what "good reason" do you have to believe that what Bush did was illegal with respect to Iraq?

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 12:22 AM

Seriously Matt? Nothing about Bush's claim of executive privilege on the clearly illegal (and therefore outside of executive privilege) outing of Plame?

Did I miss a post somewhere?

Posted by Owen | July 19, 2008 12:34 AM

DTM,

Because I'm not aware of any good reason to believe that what Clinton did was illegal with respect to Iraq.

I addressed your response regarding Iraq above. You didn't respond regarding the other one--Yugoslavia. Why aren't you calling for a "truth commission" or trial to determine whether Clinton, Clark, Albright or any other members of the Clinton adminsitration committed war crimes or other crimes under international law against the people of Yugoslavia? After all, the IAC found them guilty of 19 separate crimes under international law. Why are you ignoring this, rather than pursuing an official prosecution?

And to repeat the broader question, why aren't Democrats in general calling for these investigations of Clinton and his henchmen, given that Democrats are supposedly so concerned about following the rules of war and international law and the U.N. Charter? Of course we all know why: because you're a bunch of flaming hypocrites. You only care about international law when you think you can use it against your political opponents. When it's your own politicians who engage in legally dubious foreign policy, you conveniently ignore the laws you claim to support and change the subject.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 12:43 AM

Sorry Mixner, you supported the sanctions, you supported the assault on Iraq. The only one of us on record as supporting the murder of children and adults is you.

Come on Mixner, show that Iraq is a better place under the bootheel of George W. Bush than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 19, 2008 12:46 AM

Mixner's idiotic whining about Clinton isn't serious. He's just trying to distract from the criminality of Bush. After all, we can't have a discussion about Bush's crimes. That would be unfair and partisan.

No, in order to satisfy the drooling dimwit Mixner Clinton must be the only topic of conversation - never Bush and his crimes against peace.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 19, 2008 12:54 AM

Mixner, you are the one changing the subject.

The subject is Bush's criminal acts and their proper punishment.

How do the actions of any former President mitigate Bush's criminality?

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 19, 2008 12:58 AM

Piss on a Truth and Reconciliation Committee.

We already have a whole shitload of legal briefs defining what torture is and a long list of techniques that constitute nottorture.

We also have the considered legal opinion that states that if you can come up with a security pretext you can lock up anyone you want and use nottorture on them at the very least until the thing works it's way up to the Supreme Court where they tell you to get your shit together.

So you grab these folks up after they leave office (and ignore the pardon, you aren't charging them with a crime) and make them stand eight hours with Gwar playing at 130 decibels, then waterboard them for four and then they get their humanitarian four hours of sleep. Mix up the waterboarding with running them around on a leash. Drug them and make them think they have been shipped to Egypt and they are about to have their thumbs cut off if they don't talk.

That's how you get answers! Maybe they are the right answers, maybe not, but what the fuck it sounds fun! That's pretty much why all the sick business went down in the first place.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 1:32 AM

Now there's a suggestion that Mixner can get behind. After all, there's not really any way to tell exactly how long before 130dB becomes torture - right Mixner?

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 19, 2008 2:08 AM

The goal of the sanctions was not to cause the deaths of tons of innocent Iraqis, although, to be sure, that was the result. Of course also, when it became clear that that was the result, Clinton implemented 'oil for food' and there was much talk about 'smartening up the sanctions.'

It was a difficult situation.

By contrast, INVADING AND OCCUPYING were always gonna have pretty clear results, lotsa dead people.

So, Clinton tried to contain a brutal dictator, and the result was contaiment, but an unintended indirect consequence was a lot of dead innocent civilians.

Can the bloody warhawks actually argue that the tons of dead and displaced Iraqis were really an unintended consequence of physical invasion?

And yeah, Mixner only cares about brown children (or poor white ones, for that matter) when he can use them as a political weapon.

You like poor white children so much Mixner? Come out and let's hear your full throated support of Obama's health care plan.

Posted by mike | July 19, 2008 2:18 AM

So you grab these folks up after they leave office (and ignore the pardon, you aren't charging them with a crime) and make them stand eight hours with Gwar playing at 130 decibels, then waterboard them for four and then they get their humanitarian four hours of sleep. Mix up the waterboarding with running them around on a leash. Drug them and make them think they have been shipped to Egypt and they are about to have their thumbs cut off if they don't talk.
That's how you get answers! Maybe they are the right answers, maybe not, but what the fuck it sounds fun! That's pretty much why all the sick business went down in the first place.
Posted by Ed Marshall

Then Ed, you face the consequences of 60 million Americans, most of the Veterans and active duty - that are armed and would be convinced that an assault on elected Americans leaving office would be a direct assault on democracy - and killing people like you would be the responsible thing to do.

No matter how disliked, like Bush is now, or past leaders like Clinton and Kissinger were - every officer I ever knew considered it a defense of the Constitution to free such leaders from any enemy, foreign or domestic...that attempted to negate the Will of the People.

I remember a General in Kuwait telling some incredulous Belgians after Pinochets arrest and them saying they hoped Kissinger was arrested by Belgian authorities - that Marines and the USA's AF would kill their way through any Belgians resisting to retrieve Kissinger or his corpse. NATO be fucked in the process.

The general was serious.

And domestically, lawyers intervening and encroaching on the Legislative and Executive by arresting key members of an outgoing administration rather than continue the tradition of peaceful democratic transition of power, would signal a Constitutional crisis that might have to be violently resolved by the military and mobilized, armed citizenry.

Posted by chris ford | July 19, 2008 2:19 AM

that are armed and would be convinced that an assault on elected Americans leaving office would be a direct assault on democracy - and killing people like you would be the responsible thing to do.

Yeah, right. Put down your copy of The Turner Diaries and put away your dick. And that general's dick, too. Hoo fucking ah, we've seen the generals made to look like Call of Duty noobs when confronted by a bunch of rag-tag pissed-off foreigners with al-McGyver skills.

If an incoming administration wanted war crimes trials, all they'd need is a very special TV event episode of American Idol on FOX at the same time.

Posted by ford boresus | July 19, 2008 2:37 AM

I couldn't have had my tongue further in my cheek but I think it's hillarious you picked an outraged portion of America to be about 20% of the country. That's about his approval numbers.

Assuming the third of the military that still approves of Bush is motivated enough to do something about it (presumably a military coup in the name of an "assault on democracy" by locking up a man holding no office) I think that works out fine to, they die trying or come up article 94 and get executed.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 2:57 AM

Ed Marshall - I couldn't have had my tongue further in my cheek....

Oh, me too, Ed!!

but I think it's hillarious you picked an outraged portion of America to be about 20% of the country.

No, that would be about the percentage that knows how to use weapons and would coalesce around oaths to duty they made to defend the Constitution - especially preventing co-equal Branches from being assaulted by criminalization.

The other 80% would fold very fast, and soon cheer the culprits who would seek to intimidate Executive or Legislative personnel with arrest for their war vote or executive decisions being taken into custody.

Posted by chris ford | July 19, 2008 3:11 AM

Co-equal branches? This is the executive vs. an ex-president who made up these powers in the first place. If it would help matters a theoretical Obama could claim Bush was building a dirty bomb.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 19, 2008 3:41 AM

"This isn't worth any real response to your anal OCD habits of demanding that every word be defined to your satisfaction else 'you win'."

Sums Mixner up to a T. Just add the words "asshole torture troll" and you've got him nailed down.

Ford: I got a better idea. How about we just wait quietly while fucktards like you and Cheney get old - then kill them equally quietly some night when they don't expect it.

Then we don't have to worry about your stupid ass military fucktards deciding to defend these scum - because there won't be shit they can do about it.

How do you like them apples? Moron.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 19, 2008 3:47 AM

Obama will let the malefactors in this case and others slither away in the interest of comity and harmony and coming together. None of this will materialize as the Reublicans try to destroy him from Day 1.

Posted by bob h | July 19, 2008 5:45 AM

Obama will let the malefactors in this case and others slither away in the interest of comity and harmony and coming together. None of this will materialize as the Reublicans try to destroy him from Day 1.

Sounds familiar. Oh right, I remember hearing ad nauseum from the Hillary camp that the Republicans would destroy Obambi in the general election. Those Repugs are scary!

Meanwhile meany Phil Gramm was uncermoniously dropped from the McCain campaign. I bet he's having a mental recession about those whiney liberals.

Posted by Peter K.. | July 19, 2008 8:53 AM

If not-as-stupid wants to present a case that Iraqis would have been better served by some alternative policy to invasion, he is welcome to clearly state what that supposedly superior alternative policy would have been, and make his case for it.

Posted by concerned citizen | July 19, 2008 3:12 PM

"mike"

The goal of the sanctions was not to cause the deaths of tons of innocent Iraqis, although, to be sure, that was the result.

You don't know what Clinton's intentions were regarding the sanctions. He may have intended them to kill "tons of Iraqis" for the purpose of inciting a popular uprising against Saddam. When Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was publicly confronted by reporters with the U.N. estimate that the sanctions had killed 500,000 iraqi children, she didn't challenge the number but instead replied that the administration believed the deaths were "worth it." This is why we need a "truth commission," to get to the bottom of this, with a potential criminal prosecution of Clinton and his henchmen to follow.

Of course also, when it became clear that that was the result, Clinton implemented 'oil for food' and there was much talk about 'smartening up the sanctions.'

"Oil-for-food" was baloney. Richard Garfield (the same Richard Garfield who was a co-author of the first Lancet study into the number of "excess" deaths during the first year of the war) estimated that, as a result of the sanctions:

the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000.

Garfield later estimated that by the end of 2000, that number had increased to 350,000. This was several years after the oil-for-food program had gone into effect. By 2002, Garfield's low estimate of the death toll caused by the sanctions was 400,000. And that's just deaths of children. The sanctions undoubtedly also caused the deaths of many adult Iraqis from malnutrition and lack of medicine, especially the sick and elderly.

Dennis Halliday, the first UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, who was in charge of administering the oil-for-food program, resigned from his position in disgust in October 1998 so that he would be free to criticize the sanctions policy. He wrote:

I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide.

Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, lasted two years on the job and also resigned in disgust. In 2001, von Sponeck decried the proposed "Smart Sanctions" reform intended to reduce the loss of life as follows:

What is proposed at this point in fact amounts to a tightening of the rope around the neck of the average Iraqi citizen.

Clinton knew perfectly well that his sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands of people, so the "ignorance excuse" just won't fly.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 3:29 PM

Clinton certainly continued the sanctions. But they weren't "Clinton's sanctions", except by the property that use makes ownership. They were George H. W. Bush's (Sr):

President George H. W. Bush, Address to Congress, September 1990:

We're now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders. We owe much to the outstanding leadership of Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar. The United Nations is backing up its words with action. The Security Council has imposed mandatory economic sanctions on Iraq, designed to force Iraq to relinquish the spoils of its illegal conquest. The Security Council has also taken the decisive step of authorizing the use of all means necessary to ensure compliance with these sanctions. Together with our friends and allies, ships of the United States Navy are today patrolling Mideast waters. They've already intercepted more than 700 ships to enforce the sanctions. Three regional leaders I spoke with just yesterday told me that these sanctions are working. Iraq is feeling the heat. We continue to hope that Iraq's leaders will recalculate just what their aggression has cost them. They are cut off from world trade, unable to sell their oil. And only a tiny fraction of goods gets through.

http://tinyurl.com/BushSrSanctions

UN Resolution 687, which maintained the earlier sanctions (referred to before) for the post-war period and created the Oil For Food program. Introduced in April of 1991.

President George H. W. Bush, Statement on the Persian Gulf Ceasefire Resolution (687), April 3, 1991:

I am extremely pleased that the Security Council has voted in favor of Resolution 687. Fourteen times now the United Nations has demonstrated its determination to contribute significantly to the prospects for lasting peace and security in the Gulf region...

...Certain sanctions will remain in force until such time as Iraq is led by a government that convinces the world of its intent both to live in peace with its neighbors and to devote its resources to the welfare of the Iraqi people. The resolution thus provides the necessary latitude for the international community to adjust its relations with Iraq depending upon Iraq's leadership and behavior.

http://tinyurl.com/BushSr687

Bush, Sr. Not Clinton. Bush Sr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Resolution_687

So yes. Clearly Clinton should be harshly condemned for maintaining such murderous Republican policies, policies launched & vigorously supported by the current Republican President's dad.

Posted by El Cid | July 19, 2008 3:57 PM

El Cid,

Clinton certainly continued the sanctions. But they weren't "Clinton's sanctions", except by the property that use makes ownership.

More gibberish. The sanctions weren't "property." They were United States federal government policy. The fact that the sanctions began under Bush I is irrelevant to the fact that Clinton continued, expanded and vigorously defended the sanctions policy that was killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. During Clinton's term in office, they were most definitely Clinton's sanctions.

Where's your demand for a "truth commission" to investigate Clinton Administration Iraq policy, El Cid? Where's your demand for a criminal prosecution of Bill Clinton, Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright for their war crimes against the people of Yugoslavia, Ed Cid?

Oh, that's right. If the war criminals are Democrats, war crimes don't matter. If the mass killing of Iraqi children is done by Democrats, it doesn't matter. It's only when Republicans do these things that they somehow become important.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 4:15 PM

So yes. Clearly Clinton should be harshly condemned

Well, get to it, then. Start condemning him. You know how much you love to condemn. I'm sure your first thought on waking up in the morning is "Who can I condemn today?" Or, rather, "Which Republicans can I condemn today." Condemning Republicans is what you live and breathe for, isn't it, El Cid?

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 4:21 PM

I don't care what your idiot response gibberish is, Mixner. You may not like the fact that you've been screaming for days about "Clinton's sanctions" which were launched by Bush Sr, but that isn't my fault.

My comment was for the board, to clear up an asserted nonsense going around on the extreme war-hawks' side that these were just the Democrat Clinton's sanctions. Of course not this is a line of nonsensical propaganda put out to try and veneer a bit of humanitarianism on a bloody war. The sanctions regime was a completely bi-partisan policy of support for death and destruction, as is of course applicable for so much of U.S. foreign policies.

Any other concerns you might have, you're free to air them, whine about me, or shove where ever you'd like, I don't care, along with your claims to give a crap about the Iraqi children killed by at least 4 U.S. Presidents.

Posted by El Cid | July 19, 2008 4:36 PM

El Cid,

You may not like the fact that you've been screaming for days about "Clinton's sanctions"

While Clinton was president, they were absolutely Clinton's sanctions.

Of course not this is a line of nonsensical propaganda put out to try and veneer a bit of humanitarianism on a bloody war.

Er, lots of Democrats supported this "inhumane" and "bloody" war. By the way, is it now merely "inhumane?" Previously, it was "an illegal war of aggression." Has that piece of gibberish now been retired from the anti-war fanatics' lexicon, or is it still active? I'll assume it's still alive until I hear otherwise. 29 Democratic Senators voted for this "illegal war of aggression." Hillary Clinton voted for this "illegal war of aggression." John Edwards voted for this "illegal war of aggression." Barack Obama has repeatedly voted to keep this "illegal war of aggression" going with money and troops. Where's your condemnation of all these Democrats who support the "illegal war of aggression?" Where are your calls for "truth commissions" and criminal prosecutions" to investigate Democrats for their role in starting and perpetuating this "inhumane," "bloody" and "illegal" "war of aggression?"

You want to open this pandora's box, let's go for it. Let's put everything on the table. Hell, why stop at recent history? Let's convene a "truth commission" and a criminal trial of Democratic President Harry Truman for his "crime" of dropping two nuclear bombs on Japan. How much longer are the good people of Japan going to have to wait for their day in court? How much longer until we hold Truman accountable for his "war crimes?" Justice must be served! The truth must come out! Go for it.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 4:58 PM

Mixner: What did I say forever and a day ago, you simpleton? If the aliens could come so that these things might actually happen on this world, instead of in a blog, yes, I'd gladly open that Pandora's box. Gladly. Without hesitation. Bipartisan settlements on history be damned.

I realize you're very angry now that I emphasized the Bush Sr. origins of the sanctions you've just spent the last 1,000 paragraphs condemning as murderous Clintonian policies. I get it. It's just a game for you, it was all about trying to play the game regarding Clinton, and you thought that you had the Democrats by the wringer then, and you no more care how many Iraqi children died under 4 different U.S. presidents than you care about how began the sanctions regime you've been muttering about.

And you're an odd, OCD duck for presuming that because I used particular words, I would not call this war an illegal war of aggression. Of course I would, and I don't particularly care how many Democrats would go along with that, nor what percentage of Serious People would ridicule me or embrace me through the ages.

This is why you are completely deserving of the ignoring that I really, really should have had the will to maintain -- this sort of weird, literalist, must be in front of you at all times obsessiveness. I dunno. Maybe you're paid for this nonsense. A lot of people are. Maybe you actually think someone's under some obligation to come back here and type to your heart's content about the notion of wars of aggression back to the Archean life-form period, complete with footnotes, outlines, and every link you might ever want.

Responsibility for both the sanctions and the current illegal, aggressive war & occupation could be easily shared among members of two political parties who backed it. But it was, in both instances, Republicans who drove the creation of the policies -- Bush Sr. for the sanctions, and Bush Jr. for the invasion & occupation.

I'd be more than happy to start with a Truth Commission for this historical period, given the immediacy of the damage and the ultra-rightist maniacs' attack on the government and Constitution broadly, and if this were more than a run-for-the-ice-cream truck fantasy, I'd be happy for it to expand backwards. I'd be happy to compare Clintonian complicity for the Bush Sr-launched sanctions on Iraq for the gleeful support of Reagan and Bush Sr. administration officials for more direct genocide in Guatemala.

But this is truly it. I'm winding up on this one. Condemn me, lambaste me, whatever. I'm not responding any more to any of your nonsense.

Posted by El Cid | July 19, 2008 5:22 PM

El Cid,

If the aliens could come so that these things might actually happen on this world, instead of in a blog, yes, I'd gladly open that Pandora's box.

Er, you're already trying to open it. You just want to limit it to Bush and the Republicans. But that won't fly. Bill Clinton and his henchmen would be on the line for their own "war crimes" in Iraq and Yugoslavia. All the Democrats who support what you claim to be "an illegal war of aggression" would also be on the line, including a majority of Democratic senators. And we could hardly let Harry Truman's nuking and firebombing of Japan and Germany go uncondemned. All these "crimes" must be exposed via "truth commissions" and criminal trials.

By the time your witchhunt's over, there wouldn't be anyone left standing. Salem has nothing on you.

Posted by Mixner | July 19, 2008 7:09 PM

The embargo of Iraq was (as Mixner didn't point out) a UN embargo.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2008 9:01 AM

Mixner: world's worst dodgeball player.

Posted by Mixnermatosis | July 21, 2008 9:10 AM

Mixner: I don't know why you have this particular mental problem, but you keep describing a (admittedly fanciful hypothetical of) "truth commission" as a "witch hunt".

The whole point of "truth commissions", as they have been known through several examples, is to eliminate witch hunts in exchange for public testimony.

What kind of witch hunt let the witch off if they admitted being a witch? The point of actual witch hunts was to kill, or destroy, accused witches.

You're right -- Salem has nothing on me. If I had been at Salem, the first to be compelled to testify would be the lunatic witch hunters, and both they and their accused witches would have escaped with their lives and freedom, you pinhead.

Posted by El Cid | July 21, 2008 9:22 AM

Yes, bring on the truth commission.

Perhaps then, finally, you all will stfu about these fictitious "war crimes"

Posted by anon | July 21, 2008 10:09 AM