Anthony,

Your point would be much stronger if you better understood the law and legal proceedure for prosecuting a past or current presidential administration.

First off, the office of the president is not the chief law enforcer of the land. That title belongs to the Attorney General, which serves at the pleasure of the executive (president) and Congress. The executive has nothing to do with law enforcement except to sign bills into law that may address such concerns.

The executive branch of government cannot serve as a check upon itself. Certainly President Obama could suggest Congress investigate. However, in order for Bush and his administration to be prosecuted, Congress would need to investigate charges to bring an indictment (or impeachment) before the Senate for a trial. Such a trial would include the Supreme Court, the other check upon the executive. The chief justice would arbitrate the hearing of the case with the Senate acting as jury. This is a constitutional mandate.

As for the charges you mentioned, Bush’s signing statements are not illegal. A signing statement on legislation is merely comment upon what the executive believes is an unconstitutional check by Congress upon the executive branch. If it could be proven that Bush directed departments in the executive branch to ignore such laws, that would be a charge worth investigating. As for Bush “lying us into war”, the lying itself was certainly immoral but not necessarily illegal.

As pointed out a number of times, Bush received authorization in 2001 from Congress to commit war upon any entity he believed involved in the attacks of September 11. This authorization did not require proof of involvement; only a presumption of involvement. In order for Bush to be prosecuted on this charge, Congress would have to acknowledge their own blunder in handing the executive a blank check to commit war, something it is unlikely to do.

As for the use of water-boarding and torture on terrorism suspects, it is certainly reprehensible. But again, the parameters of what defines torture by the military is in the hands of the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief. The notorious torture analyses from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were written in 2002 for US interrogators under directive of the President. These analyses narrowed the definition of what torture was. Many people abhor what these memos allow but, Bush committed no crime in having those memos drafted.

My humble opinion is that instead of “mugging” the law, Bush like many other presidents dances upon the precipice of what is Constitutional. The boundaries therin are rather wide and while we may not approve of actions taken by leaders like Bush, those actions do not become illegal because we think they should be.

Larry Sakin

I am fascinated by the idea that if one presents argument against certain progressive positions, that person is deemed an ‘apologist’ for the GOP. It reminds me of the old George W. Bush line: “you’re either with us or with the terrorists”.

You say you taught history and government. If that is the case, you would know that there is difference between the Constitutional mandate of the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ and the president being the chief law enforcement officer. The executive, in and of itself, has no powers of prosecution. It is idiotic to suggest that faithfully executing laws is somehow related to leading efforts of law enforcement. That the GOP may have said that Clinton was ‘chief law enforcement officer’ doesn’t make them right either.

As for signing statements, you now say that because of Bush’s ‘abuse’ of same, signing statements should be outlawed, which was not within the premise of your original article. Be that as it may, do you believe that Mr. Obama should have the ability to use signing statements? Are you willing to limit his powers as president?

Whether or not Democrats in the Senate at the time of granting Bush authority to go to war expected negotiations is moot. The authority was given to him. I believe we agree that giving Bush such a vague mandate was a horrible mistake, but considering Bush was talking about war with Iraq during his presidential campaign, it was a fait accompli. As for the torture memos, there are many sources for the information I presented. You may wish to look at the Harvard Law Review and also check out Find Law. They both have excellent analyses about the authority of the commander-in-chief.

One final point. While it’s certainly possible that the Bush administration committed crimes while in office, it’s a different kettle of fish to prove it. In law, one must understand both the prosecutorial side as well as the defense. My pointing out of defenses is not an apology for alleged crimes- it is offered so those suggesting prosecution know what they will be up against.

Larry Sakin

Both of you are correct. It would be good if the DoJ managed to set some kind of prosecution of various officials involved in fabrication and distortion to justify war. I’m sure a case can be made. Surely efficiance could be gained if they managed to make it class-action against multiple persons, or some such legal jumbo-mumbo. Paul Krugman said enough by way of why the Bushies should be hounded by the law: If nothing, or not enough is done, it would send the message that violation of laws is frowned upon, but that one would get away with it, so long as the violation was monstrous and vast beyond our ability to weather the trials and stay together as a nation-state entity. A lot of legalese and legal process depends on how the cases are prosecuted, by whom, and whether they use resourcefulness and imagination. My own knowledge of the law rather sucks, but I know a thang or two. My prediction is that some weak legal maneuvers will continue, but that significant prosecutions and convictions won’t happen. The crimes and incompetence were so vast that the country would implode if appropriate actions were taken. That alone is just as sad as the Downing Street Memos are proof enough. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, and whether anything resembling the USA can evolve constructively in the face of such contradictions.

Anthony,

Your charge of me ’selling out’ is ridiculous. Read any number of my critical articles of the Bush administration online. That being said, hurling accusations at me doesn’t make you right.

It is unfortunate that you and others are either unable or unwilling to look beyond your own perception of things and understand both sides of this issue.

Sheesh, calm down. I can only go by what you said HERE. And HERE you said some pretty silly things, including setting up strawmen arguments and insisting on hair splitting. It sure seemed like you were defending Bush. If you were not, that is YOUR fualt for how you presented yourself. Go back and read your initial post sir. Stop making excuses for yourself.

Be well.

You’re right Anthony, I do defend Bush. That I disagree with his policies does not preclude me from offering such defense, because that is how our system of justice is set up. Anyone accused of a crime is entitled to a defense. I don’t want to live in a country where anyone is denied such a right because his or her politics are different then mine or because I don’t agree with their perspective on things.

It’s very easy to castigate those we disagree with, jump on the bandwagon to ‘hang ‘em high’ because they are not like us. Following such movements might make us popular within a circle of people but in the long run, we are all much more poorer for it.

You request I go back and read my initial post. I request you go back and read the Constitution and understand that our forefathers abhorred the kind of selective prosecution you seek.

And for the record, if what you say is true, that the President is the chief law enforcement officer under the ‘faithfully executing laws’ premise, than Bush would have had the right to disregard laws he believed were unconstitutional. This is contrary to your position that Bush abused the use of signing statements.

Please sir, do not try to reframe the debate, your first post is sitll there for all to see. I used to teach US History and Govt - do not drag the constitution down to the level you need to excuse the war criminal Bush.

I do not have great hope they will do anything but they should or it sends a message that presdients are above the law.

But take care - sorry if my initial response was harsher than I intended.

Guys–Just because you use lower case instead of ALLCAPS doesn’t mean you’re not screaming; nor does using lower case mean you’re not making ad hominem argument. Larry, i think you got the discussion off in a wrong direction with your very first sentence: “Your point would be much stronger if you better understood the law and legal procedure [had been "proceedure". bob] for prosecuting a past or current presidential administration. reading that got my hackles up, as i waited for reaction. It came.

I would ask you to look at my article in the old We, titled: “Don’t Misunderestimate “The Division Thing”” Here’s the URL:

http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=123993&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1233249566

[I guess there shouldn't be breaks between the last character of one line and first character of the next, but i'm not computer savvy.]

anyway, as i see it, we need to work together to refine a progressive statement. I realize that it is difficult to disagree without hurting feelings, but it’s effectively impossible to avoid hurting a person;s feelings with arguments directed to the person instead of to the person’s point. bob

Bob,

I’m not sure why the opening sentence from my first discussion would get your hackles up. While Anthony is a fine writer and an even finer person, his essay and subsequent arguments makes it clear that he doesn’t possess the legal knowledge to make the determinations he has.

And more’s the pity, because there was a day when journalists/opinion writers looked beyond their own opinions about a subject, researching both sides of the issue at hand before submitting copy to be published.

To steal a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynahan and used in your article “Don’t Misunderestimate the Division Thing”": “Everyone is entitled to their on opinion, but not their own facts”. The age of the internet has made it easy for people to publish both their own opinions and facts, and we are all the poorer for it.

I have no problem with the idea of working together to a refine a progressive statement. I co-founded an organization that did just that (www.principlesproject.org). However, if that means all progressives catering to the idea that former president Bush is presumed guilty before indictment, not entitled to a defense or other ad hominem fallacies, I want no part of it.

Larry, I agree COMPLETELY with your final statement: “if that means all progressives catering to the idea that former president Bush is presumed guilty before indictment, not entitled to a defense or other ad hominem fallacies, I want no part of it.” I say that without taking a position of any sort on what Anthony originally wrote. That is, i support your statement formally, although in doing so, i take no position on whether or how or to what extent i see your comment as applying to Anthony’s essay.

I guess i could choose to critique Anthony’s argument, but that can wait for another time. My main purpose in this line remains to help you understand how the first sentence of your commen–”Your point would be much stronger if you better understood the law and legal proceedure for prosecuting a past or current presidential administration.”– “got my hackles up”. I assure you, it is not that I disagree with its substance; as i said, i agree that we need to make solid arguments, usbject to a proviso i’ll get to below.

Let me give you three reasons. First, what you wrote would apply to any argument made by anyone about any subject [X], as in: “Your argument [about X} would be much stronger if you better understood the law and legal procedures [pertinent to X]“–or other aspects of [X].

Second, in my reading, what you wrote not implies that Anthony’s understanding of “the law and legal procedure are inadequate, but also that yours *is*. I am *not* suggesting that your knowledge is somehow inadequate to argue from; nor an i suggesting that it is adequate. Rather, i am pointing to the problem of self-reference. I mean, who decides whose understanding is good enough? I could imagine the famously abrasive Antonin Scalia telling Anthony, you, and me that our argument would be “much stronger if we better understood “the law and legal procedures [pertinent to X]“–or other aspects of [X]. There’s always someone whose understanding really is better. I wrote an essay on that as well ” Is Expertise a Dead Issue? What’s a blogger to do?!”. It’s at URL =

http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=123308&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1233498078

One reply to one of the ideas i submitted to Obama’s Citizens’ Briefing Book was full of “‘cuz”s [sic], as in “because”.

Third, and finally, when i read that sentence to my sweetie (who proofreads most of my essays, though not this comment), she interrupted to ask, “Who wrote that?” When i asked her why she asked, she responded,” it didn’t sound like you.” So i asked how hearing it left her feeling, and she responded, “Condescended to.” So, at least two of your readers felt that way.

I take no position on the merits of any of the substantive arguments. I do agree that the more a person understands, the better their argument *may* be. But, sometimes people know more than they can write. For example, Michael Polanyi discussed this in his book, * The Tacit Dimension* Also, sometimes people can’t write up to the level of their knowledge–that’s usually my problem, for example.

Anyway, when i write, i find me attempting to get my arguments past an audience full of me’s [sic]; that is, an audience of neurotic critics. Amidst the paranoia and the neurotics, i try to write–and when i find a way to do so, i marvel at my good fortune!

And while i’m on this subject, i would like to acknowledge that i probably broke my own rules in commenting on Mary Lyon’s essay a few weeks ago (in part because i didn’t know that using ALLCAPS meant YELLING, and on one of Zepp’s essays last year.

bob