Reply #30: It would be easy [View All]

[H2O Man]

to react to your attempted personal dig there, but I rarely look to do that which is easy. And because I think that you are sincere in wanting justice, I welcome the opportunity to not say "this is beneath you," or "that is over your head" .... but instead to say something that is intended as one friend talking to another.

There are three "potential" levels on which a person such as Colin Powell could be tried. The first is in the international court. The first is in the International Criminal Court, or ICC. We see good DUers say that they hope Bush, Cheney, and others are tried there for "war crimes." Yet, in saying this, they expose an ignorance of what the ICC is, and what it can and cannot do. Simply put, the ICC has jurisdiction only over nations that are party to the ICC treaty. This excludes the US, along with other nations such as China, Libya, and Yemen.

In a situation where the UN refers a case involving a person not covered by the ICC treaty, it takes the support of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all of which have veto power, plus at least seven of the ten countries that serve two year terms. Add to that the fact that the ICC lacks the power to execute its arrest warrents, and it should be evident that this option is extremely unlikely to happen.

Second, criminal charges could happen if the US Department of Justice opts to bring them in the federal courts. While Barack Obama has not actually closed the door on this option, I do not think it is likely. It would have been different if Congress had done its duty, and held the investigations into suspected crimes and abuses of the power of executive office that they should have done. Not only did they violate their oath of office, but they betrayed the citizens of this country.

This is important, because the federal courts have held (most recently during the Nixon years) that Congress has the greatest subpoena power when investigating "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the context of impeachment. In the tripod of federal powers, this puts two "legs" against the third. No ther situation is as clear-cut in terms of forcing the executive office to turn over the information that can lead to both impeachment (civil) and then federal prosecution (criminal) for crimes.

I certainly hope that the Obama administration will at very least keep alive the option of DoJ investigations of criminal activities involving members of the Bush administration. Yet, as I will explain a bit later, it is not the only issue that is of importance to me.

The third option would be for a state attorney general or a county/city district attorney to prosecute a member of the Bush administration on criminal charges. This is, of course, what Vincent Bugliosi advocates. Now, in terms of Bugliosi's qualifications as a DA: he may not be the "alpha omega of legality," but because we exist in the real world, rather than a perfect world, it is fair to say that he was among the best-known and most successful DAs of recent times.

Still, one is not obligated to agree with him on everything. Indeed, whenever any two people think exactly alike, it is evident that only one of them is thinking. But in order to be other than disagreeable, one should be able to identify what charges, for example, they would propose that a person such as Colin Powell be charged with by a state attorney general or a county/city DA.

Now, in terms of supporting politicians for elected office ..... it is a person's option to decide that an issue such as impeachment and/or criminal prosecution of Bush et al is so important, that they cannot support any candidate who fails to share one's opinion and stance on the issue. But it is not the only option, and to say that it is beneath a person to do otherwise seems a rather rigid view to me.

Between 2006 and 2008, for example, I was in frequent contact with the office of House member, Representative Michael Arcuri. I expressed my beliefs on the need to impeach Bush and Cheney. But Rep. Arcuri did not support this. It would have been easy for me to decide that I could not support Rep. Arcuri for re-election, despite the fact that he took many other positions that I agreed upon.

As I said, I do not tend to look for what is easy. As tempting as self-righteousness may be, I knew that Rep. Arcuri faced a tough re-election campaign. He was pitted against an area person who has been among a group who hosted none other than Karl Rove at a few republican picnics; in fact, that group and Rove are involved in an effort to put a power line through our rural area, that pits them against a wide range of upstate people. Both Rep. Arcuri and Senator Hillary Clinton have been active opponents of this republican effort.

So, my daughters and I worked for the Arcuri re-election campaign. And, at risk of sounding obnoxious, I am good at grass roots politics. The others in the county democratic headquarters took notice of my tactics, and in the final weeks of the campaign, I met there with Rep. Arcuri and some of his top staff. Long story short: one Election Day, I accepted an invitation to meet with Rep. Arcuri and his wife to talk shop. The election was expected to be very close -- and indeed it was. I brought a few things with me to document my belief that he would win, and that his margin of victory would be a bit less than the number of votes that my daughters and I had secured for him.

Now, was that "beneath" me? You certainly may think so. But I don't. He and I still disagree on the issue of impeachment. But we still agree on a number of other important issues. And I am confident, after talking to both him and his wife, that he will honor his offer to take any calls from my daughters and I. In fact, my daughters' school teachers, who were in my home on Election Night, are planning to take him up on that.

Peace,
H2O Man