...
I've heard a lot of twisted reasoning employed to defend the full-scale immunity which Obama has vested in Bush officials for their chronic lawbreaking. But I doubt even Robert Gibbs would be willing to stand up in public and call it "courageous." Obama's decision to protect Bush-era crimes from accountability earned him the praise of conservatives, the gratitude of leading Democratic officials (petrified that their own culpability would be exposed), and the virtually unanimous support of the entire establishment media class. Initiating investigations and prosecutions of Bush-era crimes would have required substantial political courage; by contrast, blocking all such accountability was the easiest, most cowardly route, as it's what all of official Washington was demanding. That's the path Obama took.
...
That's when I knew ("we must look forward, not backward") he was just another of those looking to keep the status quo. Not showing any accountability for our crimes during the Bush administration showed the true hypocrisy of "American values". As Bush did after September 11th, Obama squandered the opportunity to polish the American brand once he was elected. He talked a great line everywhere he went, but when it came time for action, when others watched to see if we'd admit any type of wrongdoing by investigating at the least, Obama did nothing.
We had the chance to show we believed in the phrases we bandy about so frequently, "Rule of Law" especially, but once again we showed what everyone has come to expect from a hollow, shallow, superficial society. We are no better than any other tin horn dictatorship. Nobody pays except the little guy.
...
What's most extraordinary about this, of course, is that this is exactly the form of elite immunity we were not supposed to have. In fact, this is what the Founders waged a war to emancipate themselves from. As Thomas Jefferson put it in an April 16, 1784, letter to George Washington, the foundation on which any constitution must rest is "the denial of every preeminence but that annexed to legal office." Even the executive-power-revering Hamilton in Federalist 71 argued: "the fundamental principles of good government" require that even the President "be subordinate to the laws." "Law" simply makes no sense, and has no good function, unless all are subordinate to its dictates. [em in orig]
...
Refusal to hold those accountable who committed crimes in our name (regardless of party affiliation) makes Obama not only culpable but an accessory.
No comments:
Post a Comment