Torture Prosecutions
Tyler Cowen points out a probably fatal flaw in the idea of prosecuting the Bush war criminals:
At many blogs (Sullivan, Yglesias, DeLong, among others) you will find ongoing arguments for prosecuting the torturers who ran our government for a while. I am in agreement with the moral stance of these critics but I don't agree with their practical conclusions. I believe that a full investigation would lead the U.S. public to, ultimately, side with torture, side with the torturers, and side against the prosecutors. That's why we can't proceed and Obama probably understands that. If another attack happened this would be all the more true.
On top of everything else, major Democrats in Congress are likely complicit and the Democrats as a whole hardly made this a campaign issue in 2004; in 2008 the economy was their winning issue, not torture.
The public, or a large fraction of it, still believes in torture. Chances of a "Not Guilty" verdict are excellent. Inability to convict is a good reason not to try them.
There is one egregious crime that the public might convict on: The lies and betrayal that sent the Abu Ghraib guards to prison for crimes commissioned by Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Rice. They all knew the truth and they all lied or kept silent to send those guards to prison. Try them for that first.
Comments
Post a Comment