Another instance of what's becoming a habit of mine - reactions to the reactions; in this case to the Huffpo story about what, precisely Eric Holder means to do regarding various allegations of criminal actions by the Bush Administration, such as torture, political firings, blowing an entire intelligence network, election rigging... oh, it's a target-rich environment.And the howls of outrage are hitting a fever pitch.
pepperdude says in comments:
"No TO INVESTIGATIONS, NO TO PROSECUTIONS. A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY AND A CRIMINALIZING OF POLICY ACTIONS."
Hm. So, it would be legitimate for me to establish a policy of, say, tasering all republicans in the genitals whenever they act out in public? Or what if I were simply to require them to register and wear an armband, so I could round them up should there be "civil unrest?" What if I simply read all their mail, tap their phones and use that information to selectively prosecute people that may be potential political threats or effective critics?
Would that be correct for me as an individual? What if I were a mayor? What if I were a State Governor? What if I were Obama?
See where this argument goes? It doesn't MATTER if torture or illegal detention was a "Policy Action." Obviously, it was. But it cannot be allowed to become a standard policy. That is why we consider it a crime - because of what happens when it DOES become a policy and is accepted as a legitimate tool of the state to be employed against enemies of the state.
There can be no better use of taxpayer money than re-establishing and UNDERLINING the rule of law. All who are not criminally culpable have a common interest in making sure this precedence is erased. With all due deliberation and without prejudice.
Tempting, and satisfying though a little sauce for the gander would be.
About Eric Holder
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment