By now everyone has seen the spectacular Broderism of Broder last weekend:
But now Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more -- the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations.
Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the perpetrators, there can be no accountability -- and therefore no deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.
Speaks for itself, no? But I'm still rather horrified by the fact that Broder thinks a consensual sex act in the White House was somehow more perverted than the Vice President and a number of cabinet secretaries choreographing torture in the White House. Maybe that's just my unworthy and vengeful heart speaking.
Along the "nobody is above the law in the United States, but these people should be above the law" lines of High Broderism, there's Newsweek's Jon Meacham:
And to pursue criminal charges against officials at the highest levels—including the former president and the former vice president—would set a terrible precedent. . . . That is not to say presidents and vice presidents are always above the law; there could be instances in which such a prosecution is appropriate, but based on what we know, this is not such a case. [emphasis mine]
Presidents and Vice Presidents are just sometimes above the law, and by all means, that should include potential war crimes.
Then there's the "torture is horrible but the terrorists are worse" arguers. Take Richard Cohen:
But it is important to understand that abolishing torture will not make us safer. Terrorists do not give a damn about our morality, our moral authority or what one columnist called "our moral compass."...
If Obama thinks the world will respond to his new torture policy, he is seriously misguided. Indeed, he has made things a bit easier for terrorists who now know what will not happen to them if they get caught. And by waffling over whether he will entertain the prosecution of Bush-era Justice Department lawyers (and possibly CIA interrogators as well), he has shown agents in the field that he is behind them, oh, about 62 percent of the time.
Huh? So the world thinks it's hunky-dory when the U.S. tortures? And now terrorists know what won't happen to them so their job is easier? Huh? I somehow don't think Cohen talked to the rest of the world, particularly Spain when he penned that one.
But the cake goes today to Tom "Suck on This" Friedman.
Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has testified to Congress that more than 100 detainees died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, with up to 27 of those declared homicides by the military. They were allegedly kicked to death, shot, suffocated or drowned. Look, our people killed detainees, and only a handful of those deaths have resulted in any punishment of U.S. officials.
The president’s decision to expose but not prosecute those responsible for this policy is surely unsatisfying; some of this abuse involved sheer brutality that had nothing to do with clear and present dangers. Then why justify the Obama compromise? Two reasons: the first is that because justice taken to its logical end here would likely require bringing George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials to trial, which would rip our country apart; and the other is that Al Qaeda truly was a unique enemy, and the post-9/11 era a deeply confounding war in a variety of ways....
So, yes, people among us who went over the line may go unpunished, because we still have enemies who respect no lines at all. In such an ugly war, you do your best. That’s what President Obama did.
That's some "situational" law at its extreme. The murder of 29 detainees shouldn't be prosecuted because they were terrorists. But what happens if any of those 29 murdered detainees just happened not to be terrorists, but instead were among the innocent that got picked up in this war? Because we know that happened, too.
Apparently war crimes only happen in some kinds of war, and not in wars against a "unique enemy," in which you can only "do your best," which might include committing war crimes. So, in a "unique war" shit happens. After all, we were just "doing our best," and it's time to move along now. If America does it against a terrorist, it's not a war crime. Friedman indeed speaks for the Village.