Today's NYTimes editorial is entitled The Price of Our Good Name.
Several references in it refer to the illegalities and abuses of the Bush administration and its usurpations of power away from the Congress and the Courts.
But nowhere in it do they talk about their responsibility to call for impeachment that has been incumbent from the first moment that the editors determined Bush had committed his first crime.
Oh, the conservatives and GOP (not necessarily the same thing, we have learned over these last 8 years) have laughed at such assertions, that anything Bush has done rise to the level of criminal activity. And we, the rest of the country, have been bullied into accepting THEIR assertion that such actions by Bush are his rightful actions to take. Anything resembling a call for impeachment was asserted to be a radical left-wing case of tinfoil hats being worn too tightly, akin to multiple shooters in Dealy Plaza 45 years ago or a hollow earth.
Well, it is not and has never BEEN the place of any political party to determine what rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" enough to initiate the impeachment of a sitting President. That is for the House of Representatives to determine, as the defacto Grand Jury in matters of impeachment - ALL the House, not just one Party.
Since impeachment can only be undertaken in cases of "high crimes and misdemeanors", the House is the body that says, effectively, if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial before the Senate. According to that construct within the Constitution, it is the SENATE that determines if the actions are, in fact, illegal, i.e., "high crimes" or "misdemeanors". (or is that "high misdemeanors"? - has that ever been clarified?) Thus, it is not for the GOP or the right wingers to tell the country if the actions are illegal or not.
But clearly, the Editor in Chief of the NY Times is saying that HE believes that Bush has acted illegally, based on what his editorial says.
So, what does the editorial today say?
I will only address the main issue in the editorial:
...there is one thing Mr. Obama must do quickly to begin to repair this nation’s image and restore its self-respect: announce a plan for closing Mr. Bush’s outlaw prison at Guantánamo Bay. [emphasis added]
Now, the Editor of the New York Times surely knows what the word "outlaw" means, and certainly does not bandy the word around carelessly. If there is one thing that an Editor in Chief of a major U.S. newspaper - THE major newspaper - does, and that is make sure that words are not used irresponsibly. He did not say "suspected to be outlaw" or "allegedly outlaw". He is flat out asserting it to BE an "outlaw prison". One can only conclude that he is not saying that irresponsibly, either.
And yet... where is the call to action?
Here is what his own paper's definition (from WordNet) is:
The adjective outlaw has 2 meanings:
Meaning #1: contrary to or forbidden by law
Synonyms: illegitimate, illicit, outlawed, unlawful
Meaning #2: disobedient to or defiant of law
Synonym: lawless[emphasis added]
Now, it certainly isn't a far stretch to go conclude that an "outlaw prison" is one that has been created or is run in a "lawless" or "unlawful" manner, or is a prison "forbidden by law" or "defiant of law" which was also created illegally - and that the very act of creating such an illegal prison constitutes, in itself, an "outlaw" action which is also "forbidden by law", or "lawless".
The Editor clearly is using the world "outlaw" in its plain English meaning - and he KNOWS both THAT and that WE, his readers, know what he is saying. And the Editor is plainly calling George W Bush, the 43rd President of the United States of America an outlaw. He is saying Bush has broken the law, that Bush - in his opinion - is a criminal.
But where does the Editor then go with it? Amazingly - after tolerating such an outlaw prison for more approximately five years - he calls on the NEXT President to close it down! Well, I can appreciate that he probably did call on Bush to close it down, but is the Editor of the NY Times then aiding and abetting the continuing breaking of U.S. and International law on saying it is okay to have it, as long as he can "suggest" that it be closed down? As if the illegality will go away, just because it is closed at some point in time? Does he pretend that, once it is closed down, its outlaw status will somehow be cleansed of all illegality?
Of COURSE not! HE is telling ALL of us that we should be shouting from the yardarms, "IMPEACH THE OUTLAW!"
...Oh... But in reading that editorial, I don't really SEE that... WTF?
...If this were any ordinary citizen, upon declaring that such a person was an outlaw, the Editor would almost certainly be openly advocating a grand jury to consider the matter and "hold accountable" that citizen per the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
My question here is this:
WHY IS THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES NOT OPENLY CALLING FOR A FEDERAL GRAND JURY OR AT LEAST ASKING CONGRESS TO IMPEACH THE MAN WHOSE ORDERS CREATED AND CONTINUE TO "AUTHORIZE" THAT OUTLAW PRISON?
Why is he pointing out what he sees as outlaw behavior, but then not following it to its logical next step?
Anybody?...