The single attack of 9/11 was not by itself grounds for reexamining and altering our basic principles, but the long-term nature of the terrorist/radical Islamist (and other problems) at least *might* be. Above all, I want an open national debate about that and the knowing consent of “the people” whatever we do, rather than things done in our name that are hidden, misrepresented, etc. Even then such corner-cutting requires constant oversight to avoid being abused (even more than its very existence may or may not be to start with.)

Note I didn’t say such a threat definitely was grounds for making a fundamental adjustment. I said just that it might be, and that the pressure the threat put leaders under was an extenuating circumstance for judging their responses (not the same issue as what the response should be.)

You made a good asterisked correction to your original rumination about whether Congress/Administration can Constitutionally practice war crimes. If we signed a treaty, the USC says we are supposed to uphold our word on that.

I’d be curious to know if Neil B. really thinks that 9/11 was in any way, shape, or form a real national emergency compared to Pearl Harbor or the outbreak of the Civil War or if he just taking for granted that the American public, in its current condition, is guaranteed to react to any threat with hysterical over-reaction and immediately jettison their principles when they feel something warm running down their leg . If the former, I disagree. He may well be right on the second interpretation, however.

*As I understand the Consitution, ratified treaties do have the same standing as any statute passed by Congress and signed by the President. If that assumption is valid, breaking the United Nation’s Charter and the Geneva Conventions do constitute crimes under American law.

That doesn’t keep e.g. John Yoo from being an overreach-enabling crank, Rumsfeld and others from having great culpability, Bush from not providing proper leadership. However, IMHO it isn’t the same as something just done under normal circumstances simply for gain. We need a big national debate over just what is right and wrong and in these times, and to get this clear so we either: fully uphold our classic values (preferable, but carrying some risk perhaps of vulnerability), or to decide that our survival requires cutting some corners. If the latter, it should be admitted to and justified as a last resort. It should not be lied about or flim-flammed as if still part of our prior attitudes and practices.

Gotta love your selective editing. We all can read the post in its entirety and context above. I will leave it to the learned readers here to decide if Sean is advocating accountability or has designated himself judge and jury and already handed down a guilty verdict.

e.

Apparently you did not read Sean’s post correctly. He wrote:

“It it literally sickening that we’ve come to this. But nobody can be surprised. The Bush Administration has been perfectly consistent in its behavior for the last eight years. It’s going to take some time to deal with the consequences, and it won’t be pleasant for anyone.”

That sounds like a verdict to me and its over the top.

If you want to hold him accountable you must be:

1) someone who hates America
2) hysterical and focused on this for political reasons only
3) making it up with no evidence to support it
4) not concerned about the threat of terrorists
5) too concerned about civil liberties
6) all of the above

How about let’s have an inquiry, based on ample evidence of wrongdoing, and see where it leads?

Bill Clinton got impeached for lying. Why can’t the standard be the same for Bush administration officials? And the consequences of Bushes actions are far more significant.

I don’t think Sean was announcing a verdict. I think he is asking that the evidence be weighed in an appropriate domestic or international forum.

Or did I not read his post correctly.

e.

Well said

Sean’s allegation trivializes the entire concept of war crimes.

Let’s take a look at the big picture. We recently mourned the passing of a great intellect, physicist John A. Wheeler. The following is an excerpt for his Wikipedia entry:

“Together with many other leading physicists, during World War II, Wheeler interrupted his academic career to participate in the development of the U.S. atomic bomb under the Manhattan Project at the Hanford site, where reactors were constructed to produce the chemical element plutonium for atomic bombs.”

John Wheeler was instrumental in building the bomb that instantly vaporized tens of thousands of people and horribly burned hundreds of thousands. These were non-combatant women and children living in the heart of cities far away from the conflict. Albert Einstein went to President Roosevelt to ask for the development of the Bomb. John Wheeler and his colleagues knew exactly what their efforts would result in. Are these people war criminals? The alleged torture inflicted under the Bush administration pales in comparison. Yet there has been effusive (and well deserved) praise for John Wheeler from the same people who want to convict Bush administration officials.

Even today, there are hundreds of physicists working on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy Labs (Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley, Sandia, Los Alamos). Does anyone question these physicists about what they are doing?

Sean and the rest of the herd have gone off the deep end. If their sentiments are typical of the nonsense that comes out of the academy, God help us all.

You are absolutely right selective and sanctimonius rage is a characteristic of ideologues of any kind (both left and right)… I amazed at the level of anti-Bush hysteria… blaming all of the world evils on one man is nonsensical and short-sighted. Wars and crimes and murder existed before Bush came along and will continue to be with us long after Bush is gone..