Union Yes

Stanley Fish: University faculties need to unionize, so instructors have a voice in increasingly corporate universities.

William Cronon:
"McCarthy helped create the modern Democratic Party in Wisconsin by infuriating progressive Republicans, imagining that he could build a national platform by cultivating an image as a sternly uncompromising leader willing to attack anyone who stood in his way. Mr. Walker appears to be provoking some of the same ire from adversaries and from advocates of good government by acting with a similar contempt for those who disagree with him.

"The turmoil in Wisconsin is not only about bargaining rights or the pension payments of public employees. It is about transparency and openness. It is about neighborliness, decency and mutual respect. Joe McCarthy forgot these lessons of good government, and so, I fear, has Mr. Walker. Wisconsin’s citizens have not."

William Cronon is a professor of history, geography and environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

--TomRW

To Investigate Bush or Not

In response to William Fisher's "To Investigate Bush or Not" in the February 16, 2009, Huffington Post

This divergence of viewpoints - from doing nothing to appointing a special prosecutor - is putting President Obama in an uncomfortable position. ... But Obama appears reluctant to take any action that might further divide the country. Moreover, he may be loath to antagonize Republicans, whose support he may need on many other issues in the future.

There is always a divergence of viewpoints. Justice should not have to depend on consensus. Nevertheless, you say yourself that "a sizable majority of Americans favor an investigation into Bush-era misconduct."

Investigations and prosecutions are never pleasant. There will never be a convenient time. "Further divide the country?" It was the Bushies who were deliberately divisive. The November election and popular support for Obama since then shows that we are currently less divided than we have been for a long time.

Obama is in quite a lot of uncomfortable positions. That's what he signed up for.

Republicans have just as many reasons, if not more, to want an investigation into Bush-era misconduct. Weren't they doing everything they could to put distance between themselves and Bush during the election? And isn't it the fault of the Bushies that the Republicans performed so abysmally in the election?

The bottom line is that if we don't investigate and prosecute Bush-era crimes, we set ourselves up for more of the same in the future. There will be absolutely nothing to prevent future leaders from doing the same unless we go forward with the investigations.

Thank you, Dubya

There is one thing, and only one thing, that I'm grateful to George W. Bush for: my new sense of political engagement.

For most of my adult life, I have not been especially politically inclined. I thought politics was boring and that it didn't really affect me, and that nothing was as certain or as enduring as the pretty-much-okay status quo. I thought that American freedom was just a fact of life. I thought civil rights were a part of the scenery and as enduring as Mount McKinley. I never thought about the "Rule of Law" and thought the Constitution was an important historical document.

It wasn't until the 2000 election that I began really paying attention to the political arena. I was appalled at how the electoral college and the Supreme Court handed the presidency to the candidate who lost the election, at how the Florida recount was subverted. I felt an enormous sense of betrayal and a longing to live in a democracy where the will of the people was honored and respected.

On September 11, 2001, I was in a bookstore when I heard people talking the way they do when a great horror is unfolding. I decided I didn't want to hear about it from a stranger, so I dropped everything and went home to watch the news. All the way home, I kept saying to myself, over and over again: "Not while that guy is in office, not while that guy is in office." I didn't know yet what had happened, but I knew that Dubya would make whatever it was much worse. Talk about a prescient moment.

I had read enough to be firm in the belief that Dubya and the neocons would exploit the situation to accrue more power, to advance their antigovernment ideology, to twist the very foundations of the republic. I can't imagine a more horrific response to that national tragedy than the one we have witnessed these past seven years.

Under this president we were deceived into a preemptive war that many knew would turn into an unwinnable quagmire. We've seen the abandonment of habeas corpus, the introduction of torture and extraordinary rendition, unprecedented government secrecy, unwarranted surveillance of American citizens, the undermining of our government's checks and balances, and a "unitary president" who clearly considered himself to be above the law. The list goes on and on. The disasters that have befallen us during Dubya's term in office—9/11, Katrina, the collapse of the economy—are nothing compared to the disaster that his reign has been.

Thanks to Dubya, I now know the importance of the Rule of Law. I know that tyrants count on people not paying attention. I know what the founders of this country knew: that tryanny is always a threat and must always be guarded against.

Thanks to Dubya, I know that the Constitution is a precious gift, not only to the people of the United States but to the people of the world, and that it must be defended by all people who want future generations and people around the world to enjoy the rights and freedoms I used to take for granted.

Dubya taught me that what the ACLU says is true: freedom can't protect itself. U.S. citizens who love truth, justice, freedom, and peace have an obligation to pay attention, to engage, and to actively defend the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Rule of Law.

Thanks to Dubya, I've learned that we can't afford to just leave this up to the people who like politics.

My hopefulness about the incoming administration is tempered by my understanding of how horribly our government has been mangled in the last eight years.

I know that the office of the presidency now holds far more power than the wise founders of this country ever intended. I know that power like that is too much for any one human being to safely wield, regardless of how good or noble that person's intentions.

I still fear for the life and well-being of my beleaguered country. We're a long, long way from restoring the republic that I so foolishly thought would endure without my ever having to exert any effort to defend it.

I feel a lot like we're picking through the rubble of the last eight years, that the great virtues extolled and established and written into the Constitution by our revolutionary founders have suffered terribly from a sustained all-out assault. We're covered in dust and debris, wounded and disoriented, with only a vague sense of who we are and who we are meant to be.

I will celebrate this week along with everyone else. This is a great moment in our history. But it will take way more than one person, one inauguration, however historic, to put this country right. It will take the clear-eyed, fierce determination of all those who love freedom and justice to come to the aid of their country.

Change.gov Dodges Top Question

Today Change.gov responded to the second round of voting in Open for Questions. The question we've been following and endorsing, “Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor — ideally Patrick Fitzgerald — to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping,” posted by Bob Fertik of New York, who runs the website Democrats.com, garnered the most votes but was not addressed in the video response.

Our question is listed below the video response under the heading "Previously Addressed Questions."

These popular questions have been answered previously by top officials or in the prior edition of “Open for Questions.”

Vice President-elect Biden, 12/21/08: “[T]he questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed or a very, very, very bad judgment has been engaged in is—is something the Justice Department decides. Barack Obama and I are—President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past. We’re focusing on the future… I’m not ruling [prosecution] in and not ruling it out. I just think we should look forward. I think we should be looking forward, not backwards.”

Not very satisfying, is it? Pretty well skirts the issue. Not ruling it in or out.

Ari Melber wrote yesterday in The Nation that "ignoring the question that came in first out of 74,000 would turn this exercise into a farce. A terse, evasive answer would be similarly unacceptable." The answer that has been given seems pretty darned terse and evasive to me, and the number one question has been all but ignored, so far anyway. We're definitely skirting the edges of farce territory.

"[This is] something the justice department decides" sounds a lot like, "Hey! It's not up to us! It's up to those other guys over there!" The other guys in this case are what Obama has referred to as "my justice department and my attorney general." Doesn't sound very other to me. It's more like a pretty feeble attempt to pass the buck.

And "looking forward, not backwards" is eerily reminiscent of what Sarah Palin said to Biden in the vice presidential debate: "For a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going." (I can't believe I'm actually quoting Sarah Palin.) Biden's response? "Past is prologue."

Vice President-elect Biden, if past is prologue, as you so correctly stated in the vice-presidential debate, what would a failure to investigate the crimes of the previous administration say about the incoming one? To what future is that past prologue? How would not addressing the crimes of the Bush administration signal a break from the past?

Note that Biden's statement, which is given as the response to our question, was made after Dick Cheney admitted on national television on December 15, 2008, that he sanctioned torture (waterboarding).

In April 2008, Philadelphia journalist Will Bunch asked Obama "whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House."

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law." (emphasis mine)

Here there appears to be more of a connection between the administration and the justice department. And since then, during an interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News, Dick Cheney said, "I supported it," referring to waterboarding, which is widely considered to be torture. There you have it, Mr. President-elect; if that's not willful criminality, I don't know what is.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Rachel Maddow of MSNBC that this amounted to Cheney condoning torture. This is hardly "very, very, very bad judgment." This is a baldfaced admission, on national television no less, to having committed a war crime.

Although President-elect Obama may consider a pursuit of justice on this scale to be politically inexpedient, not pursuing this will signal that his administration does not have the political will to break with the past as we were encouraged to hope during the course of the campaign. And if members of the Obama administration don't give us accountability where the Bushies are concerned, how accountable will they themselves be?

Now is the time for principle, courage, and conviction, Mr. Obama. Now is not the time to be guided by political expediency and a desire to pursue "post-partisan politics" rather than the Rule of Law. This is way bigger than politics, and if you don't believe that, then you're not the man you told us you were when we elected you.

Take Your Stand

I have to ask this question again: How is it that we had the national "fortitude" (or whatever it was) to impeach Bill Clinton for something utterly inconsequential to us as a nation and yet we don't appear to have the will to hold Dubya and Dick accountable for the myriad ways they have treated the Constitution and the Rule of Law with utter contempt? This completely blows my mind. Of course, the question is rhetorical. How could there possibly be an adequate answer?

As if all the damage done by the Bushies wasn't outrage enough, it appears that it would be just too much—too divisive, too negative, too unpleasant, too ineffectual—to hold them accountable. I'm hearing things like "They'll never do any time" and "Nothing will really come of it."

The vortex of this lack of political will is none other than the Democrats in Congress, the Bushies' so-called opposition. Fearing political fallout, afraid that many will see them as complicit in Bush's crimes, they would prefer that we just go blithely on, as if the nation and the Constitution hadn't just been given a huge eight-year-long collective kick in the gut. It's been said before: "Bush's fecklessness is not an excuse for Democratic dereliction of duty."

Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, told the American Constitution Society in June that "we owe the American people a reckoning." So here I am, arms folded, tapping my foot, cocking my eyebrow. Well? How about it?

I have read that Obama wants to "let sleeping dogs lie." Shouting here: THESE DOGS ARE NOT SLEEPING!!! They are savaging the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Under what circumstances could that possibly be OK?

In spite of the walloping Republicans took in November, Obama apparently feels he needs their support in order to accomplish his admittedly ambitious agenda. Fine. You're a very persuasive leader, Mr. Obama. Convince the Republicans in Congress that holding the Bush Administration accountable is the absolute best thing we can do, not as a measure of political expediency, but as a measure of restoring our very identity as a nation. Isn't upholding the Constitution something we can all agree on?

Shouldn't Republicans be as angry as the rest of us—if not more so? Isn't it Bush's fault that they took such a trouncing in November? They're still doing everything they can to put distance between themselves and Bush (witness Senator Bob Corker thumbing his nose at Bush during the auto bailout hearings). Wouldn't agreeing to the establishment of an independent investigation of the administration's crimes be an excellent way to distance themselves from Bush?

This is not just one issue among many. Yes, there are many, many pressing issues confronting us. But if we cannot uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law, then we may as well just throw in the towel. This is ground zero, the foundation, the core of our being. Without it, we are not ourselves, we are not the United States of America. We are a third-rate autocracy, a powerful global thug.

Moreover, if we just let this slide, we are complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration. Our silence will condemn us, and not only us but our children and the founders of our country. Is this what they fought and died for? So that we could sit back and relax while the Constitution is flushed down the toilet by the Despot-in-Chief?

The point is not to get revenge, or to get a conviction or two, or even to drag what has been hidden (some of it well, some of it not at all) out into the light. The point is that we have a duty to stand up for what's right and good and true. The outcome is not ours to determine. We must take a stand, regardless of the odds against us or the likely result.

Here's an idea: Let's all rally around our beleaguered Constitution—all of us—and work together to repair the damage that has been done. Once we're done with this project, we can resume our partisan bickering. But can't we all agree, finally, on how precious and fundamental the Rule of Law is? This administration has treated not only the American people, but the Constitution of the United States, with utter contempt. They have shredded it, trampled it, spit on it, ground it under their heel. Such heinous transgressions cannot, must not, go unanswered.


Here, gentle reader, are some ways you can take your stand.

The folks at Democrats.com are very concerned about this issue. They have a petition, which you can add your name to here. Then ask your friends to do the same.

Bob Fertik at Democrats.com has also submitted a question to Change.gov, which he'd like you and your friends to vote for:

"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor—ideally Patrick Fitzgerald—to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"
—Bob Fertik, New York City

At the end of the first round [of voting] on December 15, our Special Prosecutor question was #6, but Obama's team only answered the first five, including one on the legalization of marijuana [pretty sure the answer was a resounding "NO"].

The second round began on 12/30 and ends at midnight on 12/31. [That's tonight, folks!] Once again, marijuana legalization is #1. We need your help to make our Special Prosecutor question #1!

1. Sign in at http://change.gov/openforquestions


2. Search for "Fitzgerald"


3. This will display several similar questions, so look carefully for "Bob Fertik"


4. Look right for the check box, mouse over it so it goes from white to dark, then click to cast your vote

When you all gather around the bubbly this evening, waiting for the ball to drop in Times Square, make voting at Change.gov one of your year-end festivities.

Change.org is also asking you to vote on the issues that are of most importance to you. "The top 10 rated ideas will be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009, as the 'Top 10 Ideas for America.' We will then launch a national campaign behind each idea and mobilize the collective energy of the millions of members of Change.org, MySpace, and partner organizations to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama Administration and Members of Congress."

Please vote here for "Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration" at Change.org. That round of voting will also end tonight. A second round will end on Thursday, January 15, so make sure to check back and vote again before then.

Finally, write to your representatives in Congress and to local newspapers about how desperate the need is for action on this. Talk to your friends. Pester your parents. Stop strangers on the street. It's really that important.

A Warning from the Universe

Years ago when I was in Amsterdam, many days I walked past a bridge with a huge sign on it, in English, that read "Abuse of power comes as no surprise." Much later I learned that it was a work by American conceptual artist Jenny Holzer. To me, that message seemed like a warning from the universe, and maybe it was. Every day I walked past it, it burrowed a little deeper into my consciousness and stayed there, ready for the day when I began paying attention to how power is used and abused.

Hardly a day has gone by, these past eight long years, when I have not thought about that warning. Driven by the ideology of the "unitary executive," the Bushies used the unending, ill-defined "war on terror" to amass more power than any administration in U.S. history. The founders of this country would have recognized the abuse of power for what it is, they would have been utterly horrified, and they would have known that loud, persistent, fierce dissent was the only antidote.

In my darker moments I have feared that, drunk with so much power, the Bushies would find some cataclysmic reason to assert that the transition to a new administration is too dangerous in these perilous times, that they would impose martial law and retain power, undoubtedly in the interest of national security. For the first time ever, we have standing troops in this country ready to intervene in the case of public unrest. I don't think I'm being paranoid here. I will breathe freely -- in every sense of the word -- when Dubya and Dick finally step down. Until then, I'm on edge. I don't trust them for a millisecond. Or, actually, I do trust them -- to subvert the rule of law and abuse their power to whatever extent they can.

In spite of my fears, it looks like the transition will indeed take place and that there will again be a peaceful transfer of power in the United States. The president-elect holds much promise; he is very popular, well liked, widely admired -- and rightly so. He has given us permission to hope for progress toward the ideals we cherish: liberty, justice, equity, peace, the rule of law, to name only a few.

The moment they assume office, Barack Obama and his administration will face crises and disasters and abuses on nearly every front. But these are not their only challenges. Obama is about to step into the most politically powerful role on this planet, his predecessor having substantially expanded the powers of the office. It is extremely rare for leaders to scale back their own power, but that is exactly what Mr. Obama must do. He must return this country to the rule of law, whether he himself would be a tyrant or not. He must unflinchingly demonstrate that no one--not even the president, and perhaps especially not the president--is above the law. He must work to restore the checks and balances of our government.

Of course, Congress must work with him toward this goal. And, most important, we the people must also. We must work to restore and defend the rule of law and the Constitution and to guard against abuses of power and the rule of tyrants. We put the fox in charge of the hen house when we let Dubya assume the presidency, a disastrous error that will take many, many years to remedy. By being alert and ready, by participating and raising our voices, we will do much to rectify all that has gone wrong in the last long eight years.

Our rights, our civil liberties, and the rule of law are not to be compromised under any circumstances. The founders of this country knew how precious and fragile liberty is, and many of them gave their lives for it. We can do nothing less than dedicate ourselves to restoring what has been lost and guarding it vigilantly until our last breath.

Today's Torturous Reading

I was distressed earlier this week that so few seemed to be taking note of Cheney's blithe admission in the ABC interview that aired on Monday (Dec. 15) to having authorized torture. Things are looking decidedly less distressing today, in the sense that more people are taking notice. Of course, the news itself could not be more distressing.

If you read nothing else, be sure to read Glenn Greenwald's post: Demands for War Crimes Prosecutions Are Now Growing in the Mainstream

And if you go on to read only one more thing, the New York Times weighed in today on its editorial page: The Torture Report

At Think Progress: Cheney Defends Torture: It "Would Have Been Unethical or Immoral" for Us Not to Torture

At the Huffington Post, David Latt: Cheney Taunts Bush, Pardon Me or Else

At Harper's, Scott Horton: The Torture PresidencyBlogger: The Worley Dervish - Edit Post "Today's Reading"

And finally, I believe every American should read the report released last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Levin, McCain Release Executive Summary and Conclusions of Report on Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody

Update: On her program tonight Rachel Maddow interviewed David Rose, author of Tortured Reasoning. Rose points out that not only is torture morally repugnant; it just doesn't work. The intel gained from it is generally useless.

Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration

Members of Change.org are voting for the causes they most want the Obama administration to pay address. I believe that holding the Bush administration accountable for its crimes is of paramount importance to our democracy (see my previous posting on Facebook).

Please go to Change.org and log in (or register if you haven't already).

Then go to this idea for change: Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration and vote for that idea.

Then e-mail it to your friends, post it on Facebook, Digg it, and promote it in any way you can.

There is no political will for this in Washington, and Obama won't do it unless we push him. This looks like another good way to push for the change we need.

Update: You can just click the widget to the right. Easy shmeezy!

"U.S. Vice President Admits to War Crime"

In yesterday's Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan declares "U.S. Vice President Admits to War Crime." Well at least somebody understands the implications of Dick Cheney's recent interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News.

Is it just me, or should Cheney blithely, casually admitting to authorizing torture interrogation tactics at least register in the media? Why this isn't being splashed all over every front page in the nation (and around the world) is completely beyond me. If this isn't big news, what is? And yet, it doesn't even seem to be treated as news at all. If it weren't for Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan (anyone else? if so, please let me know), the ABC interview would have escaped my attention entirely.

In his interview with Karl, Cheney says, "I think those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the terrorist surveillance program, simply don't know what they're talking about."

Huh? Am I the only one who is confused here? I thought it was well and widely understood that waterboarding is indeed torture. And, as Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show last night, the United States has prosecuted individuals who performed waterboarding as war criminals. Apparently Cheney feels free to define terms in whatever way suits him. Never mind that the rest of the world believes that waterboarding is torture and that torture is, well, bad.

In answer to Karl's very next question -- "Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?" -- Cheney says, without missing a beat, without an iota of hesitation: "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared. . . . It's been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves."

Excuse me? the results? Let's think: It is widely acknowledged that torture does not produce good intelligence. What it does do is engender hostility toward the United States, which does not have the effect of making us any safer. Just the opposite. Moreover, the international profile of the United States has been defiled by this reprehensible practice.

Does anyone else think Cheney seems a bit, oh, say, sociopathic? According to Wikipedia, a person with an antisocial personality disorder, otherwise known as a sociopath, shows "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others."

Karl goes on to ask Cheney, "In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?" Cheney's cheery, unflapped reply: "I don't."

Karl: "And on KSM, one of those tactics of course widely reported was waterboarding . . . even that, do you think was appropriate?" And again Cheney replies with his head held high: "I do."

Cheney's demeanor is every bit as alarming as his admissions. He's not hedging at all. He's proud, he's defiant, he's enjoying himself! You can tell he thinks this waterboarding is great stuff. Very successful tactic. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

This is a dark stain on our history that must be addressed legally and morally. We can't just go skipping along because, hey, we have some new guys coming in and we promise they won't do this nasty stuff. Oh yeah, we were just reeling from 9/11. We've come to our senses now. We promise we won't do it again. Does anyone really think that's an acceptable response?

Crimes of this magnitude must be addressed by the nation: in public, in a court of law. Otherwise we are all complicit in this monstrosity. It is a disgrace in which we all share. This is utterly, altogether, and in every way unacceptable. People of good conscience should not allow this to go unchecked, not to mention unnoted.

No more of this! We have to stand up against torture or it will eat away at our identity as a nation. As it is, this country is altogether unrecognizable to me. And I do not tolerate this horror without loud and repeated protest. Enough! Not on my watch! Not in my country!

Update: Glenn Greenwald is also duly outraged. Glenn rocks!

Update 2: The Guardian gets it!

Update 3: And check out this great post on the Lost Albatross: Disproportionate Force

MoveOn: Restore the Rule of Law

I wrote a few days ago in my Facebook notes about the importance of holding the Bush administration accountable for the various ways it broke the law. There is nothing more important facing our country in this moment; all our other crises pale in comparison--yes, even the rapidly downward-spiraling economy. Because a thriving economy can't offset the horror of living in a dictatorship.

Besides vigilantly upholding and safeguarding the rule of law, we have no other means of protecting ourselves from tyranny, and tyranny is more imminent than many may imagine. (For a truly terrifying account of just how imminent, check out The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf.)

I think Obama is unlikely to break the law or disregard the Constitution in any of the ways Bush has done. I believe Obama values the rule of law and intends to uphold and defend the Constitution. But I get the feeling there is very little political will on the part of Obama or the Democrats in Congress to investigate and prosecute the crimes committed by the Bush administration. And I believe that it's critically important that we do so.

Sooo.... that means it's up to us, the general rabble, to effect a groundswell demand that the Bush administration be held accountable. In thinking about how we could possibly do this, my first thought was to write letters: to our representatives, to President-Elect Obama, to newspapers. Still, it's a very tall order to create a noisy enough clamor to get Congress and the new president to act on something so difficult when we're in the middle of so many other national crises (Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, etc. etc.). All well and good. Letters do help, and I will be writing mine and posting them here.

But this morning I got an e-mail from MoveOn.org asking about what is the most important goal MoveOn should focus on right now. When I saw that timely query, I thought "hmmm... how to create a groundswell..." No matter what you think about MoveOn, you have to admit the organization has a lot of members and a fair amount of political clout.

There are lots and lots of important issues that MoveOn could focus on, but many of them will get plenty of attention with or without MoveOn's support: health care, the economy, closing Gitmo, ending the occupation of Iraq. But holding the Bush administration accountable won't happen if we leave Obama and the Dems to their own devices. So that's why I think MoveOn should focus on that, because without the clamor of the rabble (i.e., us), it just isn't going to happen.

So I'm asking you to go to MoveOn and add your voice to mine about the importance of focusing on restoring the rule of law. Here's the link: http://pol.moveon.org/2009/agenda/submit.html?id=15255-2716881-l6stWtx&t=3. Here's what I'd like you to enter:

1. MoveOn's top goal in 2009? (10 words max)

Restoring the Rule of Law; prosecuting Bush administration crimes

2. Category

Accountability for Bush

3. You can add your own explanation for why you think MoveOn should focus on the issue you chose. I quoted myself, and you can feel free to quote me too if you like:

If we don't hold the the Bush administration accountable, there's absolutely nothing that will prevent future leaders from believing that they also are above the law. It's an invitation to tyranny. If we're really against torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance, the undoing of habeas corpus, the establishment of the "unitary executive" (read: king), then we must act. If we don't, it will be clear to the world, to our children, and to our future leaders that we really don't have the courage of our convictions when it comes to the rule of law, we really don't care if they chew up our rights and civil liberties and spit them out. We absolutely cannot afford to let this slide. Nothing less than the future of freedom is at stake.

If you do add your vote to mine on MoveOn's site, would you please post a comment here letting us know that you did? Thanks! Let's get this groundswell going!

Should We Hold the Bushies Accountable?

Should we hold the Bush administration accountable? Or should we just let them slink away quietly while we get on with the business of trying to put right all that has been made wrong? Can we just reestablish the rule of law without going through all the unpleasantness of investigations and trials? Should we stir up controversy and unleash the anguish of political rancor and partisan conflict? Aren't the American people fed up with being so divided? Is it enough just to learn all the abuses that went on, or do we need to actually press charges and bring the perpetrators to trial? Can't we just go on as if the nightmare of the last eight years never happened?

Glenn Greenwald on the Bill Moyers Journal had this to say: "What happens if you allow serious law breaking to go unpunished is you're telling political leaders, current and future, that there's no need for you to abide by the law. There's no reason for you to consider yourself constrained or limited in what you do. Because even if you commit crimes while in office, we're going to be too afraid of creating divisiveness... And the damage that comes from that is infinitely worse than whatever this divisiveness is that so many people are afraid of when citing why we should let these criminals go free."

Continue reading the Moyers transcript: Part of the difficulty is that the Democrats, who are now and soon to be in power, are reluctant to hold this administration accountable because many of their leaders have been complicit in the crimes that have been committed. Congress has ceded much of its power to the "unitary executive," willingly, almost joyfully. There are few national politicians who are blameless in the great debacle that has overtaken our government.

However, in spite of the lack of political will on the part of the Democrats, we cannot possibly undo the damage that has been done without holding the Bush administration accountable for its actions. The damage that would be done by not holding them accountable would be much worse than whatever controversy is stirred up by establishing an independent investigation and prosecuting those who believed they were above the law and acted on that belief.

This nation needs better politicians, leaders who cannot be so easily bought and sold and silenced. We are never going to get them without doggedly pursuing justice, however uncomfortable the pursuit may make some of us, especially those of us whose reelections are on the line. But it's not up to them. It must not be up to them. It's up to us, the American people, to insist that our leaders be held accountable. And now is the time when we must make our voices heard or be condemned by our own silence.

Why on earth is it OK to hold Bill Clinton accountable for lying under oath, lying about something that's altogether inconsequential to the American people, but we should not pursue accountability for what is perhaps the most unlawful administration in American history? How can this possibly make any sense? Has our government just become a stage for the theater of the absurd? Are our rights and liberties really so insignificant to us that we can just let this go because it's not politically expedient for our elected officials?

It's entirely possible to appoint an independent, nonpartisan investigator to bring to light the crimes that have been committed. That's not to say that there won't be those who would try to politicize the process anyway. But the actions of the investigation can and should be above politics and above reproach.

If we don't hold the Bush administration accountable, there's absolutely nothing that will prevent future leaders from believing that they also are above the law. It's an invitation to tyranny.

If we're really against torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless surveillance, the undoing of habeas corpus, the establishment of the "unitary executive" (read: king), then we must act. If we don't, it will be clear to the world, to our children, and to our future leaders that we really don't have the courage of our convictions when it comes to the rule of law, we really don't care if they chew up our rights and civil liberties and spit them out.

We absolutely cannot afford to let this slide. Nothing less than the future of freedom is at stake.