The Move On Defense of George W. Bush

John Barry has written what I will call the "move on" defense of the Bush administration in this week's Newsweek. The idea is that it is fairly clear that the Bush administration violated the law in several instances, but since we already know this and his party has already lost an election, let's just move on already.

You can read the piece here and you can see that I am not exaggerating at all. That is truly his argument. In fact, we will have Barry on the show on Monday to talk to him about this article.

If I seem incredulous at that argument, that's because I am. They never taught me that one in law school. "Look, your honor, we know my client committed this crime, we've already caught him and the victim is already dead. So, let's just move on already!"

To say Bush's defense is that his opponents want "political vengeance" is a non sequitur. Couldn't every trial in the country be characterized as some sort of "vengeance" based on this logic?

The reaction to his law breaking cannot be a defense for his law breaking. "Your honor, your attempt to try my client is an act of vengeance that justifies my client's original law breaking. Hence, he should not be held accountable for his crimes." Would that argument make any sense in the context of any other crime? You would get laughed out of court. They might revoke your admission to the bar.

But we're told that in the political context it makes sense. I think the exact opposite is true. I think it is even more important that we hold our elected leaders to an even higher standard than the average citizen. They are entrusted with enforcing the laws. If they are the ones who break them, society is in much larger trouble.

Bush clearly ordered spying on American citizens without a court order. Everyone knows this. Bush has even admitted it (after originally lying about it). This is clearly illegal. What is the defense? It's legal if the president does it? I think I've heard that one before.

This law is an admonition against the government. If no one in government can be tried for it because it would be "political vengeance" to do so, then the law has no meaning.

The same is true of torture. If a citizen waterboards someone, that is aggravated assault. If the state does it, it is torture. It is by definition a governmental crime. Who do we prosecute if the government has immunity because of the "move on" defense?

Torture is against federal statute and our treaties prohibiting its use are the law of the land. If you allow the Bush administration to do this without any repercussions at all, then you might as well take the law off the books. Because then the state can torture anyone they like. Because prosecuting them would be "political vengeance."

Some will argue that these things were not technically illegal because the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department authorized them. In these cases, the OLC was not an independent actor; they were part of the executive branch and a partner in crime. If Bush said he would like the authorization to kill innocent people and the OLC gave it to him, would it be legal?

By the way, this is not theoretical. The Bush administration's orders did in fact lead to the deaths of many innocent people, like the murder by torture of a taxi-driver named Dilawar at Bagram Air Base. That's what happens when you do illegal torture. Sometimes it gets out of hand. That's part of the treason we passed laws against it.

Now, some can also make a persuasive case for investigating the Bush administration's lies that got us into the Iraq War. There is almost no doubt that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to get us into that war, but I think that is a harder legal case to prove and it gets too close to policy-making for my comfort.

But these decisions are not mine to make. We should appoint a clearly unbiased independent prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald for example, and let him investigate what was and was not clearly illegal. Fitzgerald is a very careful prosecutor. As we saw in the Libby case, he is not going to overreach. I would be very surprised if he brought up charges on the Iraq War and I would be curious to see where he comes out on torture and illegal spying given the OLC defense. But at the very least, we have to have someone look into this. If we don't, our laws against government power become meaningless.

If the state can say that they have a "move on" defense and that any prosecution against them is an act of "political vengeance," then they will have carte blanche to break any law they like. For me, this isn't about politics. The American people have already rendered their judgment in that sphere. I'm very comfortable with their decision in that regard. I can even see some people's concerns that this might backfire politically on the Democrats. But that is not my concern.

This is about precedent. How many presidents can we allow to break the law before it becomes de facto legal for the president to break the law? In other words, before it becomes legal because the president did it!

Watch The Young Turks Here

< Poetry matters? Awright! | Outsourcing Of Drive-Thru Order Takers! (Seriously) >
 Display:

I hate how all of the arguments about torture get tied together in people's minds with the argument about lawfulness.  We can pass laws that make torture legal.  We can even pass a law saying that, as Cheney would say, "the gloves are off" for anyone the president deems an "enemy combatant".  But laws are written by Congress, not the President.  And under current law, torture is illegal.

It's also telling that Republicans are against even investigations into our torture regime.  The spectre of political vengeance is obviously not their chief concern when they won't even allow us to sort out what actually  happened.  Even after Bush is convicted, Obama can still pardon him, like Nixon.  They just don't want the truth to come out, because they know that when all the cards are on the table, public opinion is against them.

by johnpseudo on 01/26/2009 01:12:58 PM EST


 God, Cenk, why do you feel the need to rehash this old argument?  I mean, who died?


(pauses)


Uh... oh yeah.

/retracts his comment

by eallgaier on 01/26/2009 01:44:12 PM EST

Of course the premise of the original Move On was to censure the president and "move on" with our lives.

So I guess Mr. Barry in favor of formally censuring former President Bush?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/26/2009 02:08:46 PM EST

"That's part of the treason we passed laws against it."
    
Also, Move Along, rather than the more confusing Move On may have been a better phrase, but we can't let organizations steal phrases for their own purposes and thereby remove them from general usage. 

The thrust of this diary is to seek the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the previous administration's violations of law and treaty protections.  I, too, believe this is the correct action for Barack Obama's DoJ, but until the rethuglican obstructors in the senate remove the hold on Holder the rats will continue to hide the cheese.  

by gatekeeper50 on 01/26/2009 02:33:05 PM EST

I didn't notice that I had done that of course. But I will leave it because I agree that it's a great freudian slip. I think what they did dishonor America and was treason against its principles and ideals.

by Cenk on 01/27/2009 03:59:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"They only have two choices."

Choice number three, continue voting Republicans out of office until their party collapses and disbands, allowing a new honest alternative party to emerge.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/26/2009 03:03:59 PM EST

Do you find the vain boasting makes you feel better about losing the House, the Senate, the Presidency and the majority of Governorships? At this rate by 2010 you may very well have a complete shut out.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 01/27/2009 03:00:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Rethuglican partisans appear unable to grasp that there really are very few hard-core Democratic partisans.  A lot of us find Democrats a lot less offensive and a lot more sensible than their Rethuglican counterparts, but on the D side, that "Go Team!" mentality just doesn't have the same resonance it does for the R's.  Yes, we know how compromised a lot of Democrats are, but they're still a few circles less deep into hell than your guys.

The big difference is, when Rethuglicans get in bed with all the wrong actors, it's a happy marriage, enthusiastically made of, by, for, and in, hell; with Democrats, it's adultery, and a lot of us have no trouble calling bullshit on it.

 

by MixedContent on 01/27/2009 05:44:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity."Yeats

by kkdragonlord on 06/11/2010 05:45:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
was left by a "JimR" in the Huffington Post comments section:

"Sorry, but Barry is spot on, and I think you misrepresent his argument. You fail to mention that Congress failed the country every bit as much as Bush did. And what exactly do you hope to charge Bush with?
Lying about WMDs in Iraq? Bill Clinton said they were there. The United Nations said they were there.

Starting an illegal war? It was authorized by Congress (don't try giving me that pathetic excuse that it wasn't a vote for war. It damn well was.). And as Barry points out, only 3 members bothered to read the NIE.

Illegal wiretapping? All part of the Patriot Act, approved by Congress.

Torture? The Bush Administration expertly steered this issue into a legal gray area, and Congress did nothing to stop it.

We all have fantasies of bringing the bad guys to justice. But seeking criminal charges at this time would tear this country apart at a time when we desperately need to come together.

The good news is, in the executive branch, the bad guys are gone. The bad news is, some of the bad guys who helped him are still there in Congress, on both sides of the aisle."

by Tom Hanc on 01/26/2009 03:13:20 PM EST

At least.

 Well, first off, the illegal wiretapping was still illegal until the FISA-update bill passed.  It passed, probably because Democratic leaders were implicated in the illegal wiretapping, because due to cretinism, cowardice, corruption, or complicity, they got sucked in to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld One Fear To Rule Them All plan.

But it wasn't the Reid/Pelosi plan, was it?  They were just convinced that Cheney and Rumsfeld, walking around the table with baseball bats while Bush snickered creepily, were going to make soup out of their brains if they didn't play along.  They were weak and despicable in that sense, sure.  Not Liberty's finest moment by any stretch.  Now that Obama's won, it's easy to say that they should have stood up to the B/C/R bullcrap, but the evil of the follower is of a lesser scale than the evil of the leader, and make no mistake, the Cheney/Rumsfeld axis, with Bush as feeble-brained frontman, was the driving force.  Pelosi and Reid?  5 to 10.  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld?  20 to life, unless The Hague makes an exception to its policy of no longer hanging people.

 

by MixedContent on 01/27/2009 06:02:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On the one hand, many of us who thought the war was bloody nonsense from the get-go could see what this vote was going to lead to.  On the other, Bush *puh-romised* that he needed this vote so he could pressure Saddam Hussein to play nice *without* actually going to war, which he *puh-romised* he would do only as a last resort.  So as strongly as you say "it damn well was" a vote for war, that's how strongly you are saying that Bush was a lying sack of, uh, shaving cream.

by MixedContent on 01/27/2009 06:12:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This whole political argument against prosecuting the former (yip-pee!) administration for crimes is just total bullshit! Not only do we need to proscecute in order to prevent a precedent of anything goes if the President says so, but the United States stands (supposedly) as a beacon on the hill for oppressed citizens around the world who are trying to get some kind of "rule of law" established in their countries. Our letting the administration off scott free totally destroys our reputation, even worse than Bush did on his own. Bush tarnished it badly, but many held out hope that either Congress through impeachment , or the next administration through proscecutions would eventually remedy the problem and repair the reputation. If we intentionally let it slide for the sake of expediency, our reputation would become damaged beyond repair, and aslo give the green light to abusive leaders around the globe that they can do whatever the hell they want.

I've been pissed for two years at Pelosi & congress for having no balls. If Obama's administration fails this, he will be a flat out failure in my view.

Sure we have lots of huge problems that need to be solved and some see Bush proscecution as just a distraction, but remember this key point -  almost all the 'bigger' problems are directly related back to Bush behavior. Proscecution needs to extend way beyond just wiretapping and torture issues and should encompass all the things he and his croonies did that have destroyed the world economy.

 

by rolodex on 01/26/2009 03:51:10 PM EST

I thought that interview was spectacular.  That Barry guy started showing his cards at the end there.  He's an elitist who simply can't fathom the idea that we would prosecute sitting congressmen for their crimes. 

The key weakness of his argument is the idea that the Office of Legal Counsel has supreme authority to declare anything legal, and that the worst that could happen is impeachment.  The Office of Legal Counsel is simply the president's lawyer.  If your lawyer decrees that you are allowed to kill, that doesn't make it legal. 

Impeachment is a completely separate process from criminal prosecution.  Impeachment handles the political punishment, and prosecution handles the personal punishment.  Bush obviously wasn't politically punished, but he still broke the law and should serve time.

I don't know if criminal prosecution of Bush would bring our government to a halt.  I don't see Republicans leaping to his defense, but there will be a lot of people intensely interested in covertly impeding the process to cover their asses.  Like Cenk said, the key reason government was ineffective in the late 90's was that Republicans wanted to publicly crucify Clinton, making it impossible for them to work together and creating hyper-partisanship.  Bush/torture/spying are such toxic symbols that nobody will want to stand in front of the TV cameras to defend him.

by johnpseudo on 01/27/2009 02:21:42 PM EST

We already live in a divided country, and prosecuting the Bush administration now would not do much good. People should take steps to make sure these kinds of things don't happen again. In a way this is more political vengeance than other things, because it seems as if people could have taken actions to stop it while he was still in office. In your last paragraph you mentioned precedent, while you are right, what kind of precedent would it be for incoming administrations to arrest and prosecute the old one when a new party takes power. I owuld only like to see some sort of prosecution if it is done by republicans as well as democrats.

by nmaks on 01/27/2009 03:25:13 PM EST

If prosecuting those who knowingly flout the law, behave as if they were legally entitled to act as dictator, and as if the laws of the land, including international treaties, simply don't apply to them, if prosecuting such people would not do much good, then stick a fork in the American Experiment in Rule of Law; it's done.

 

by MixedContent on 01/27/2009 06:17:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

"what kind of precedent would it be for incoming administrations to arrest and prosecute the old one when a new party takes power. I owuld only like to see some sort of prosecution if it is done by republicans as well as democrats."

 

Hey, I've got a fresh idea here: I would only like to see prosecutions if they are for actual, significant crimes, and conducted according to law, how about that?

 

And no, a pompino doesn't count.

 

by MixedContent on 01/27/2009 06:28:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: