home

Ruth Marcus' Inadvertent Argument For Prosecuting Bush Administration Officials

Via Balloon Juice, in a WaPo chat today, Ruth Marcus wrote:

[Q]: But many of us do not want criminal prosecutions which would be almost impossible to achieve since most of the evidence (e-mails, et al) has been ďlost.Ē We simply want the facts about torture, illegal spying, habeas, etc. made public so the next time a President seeks to break the law, he will think twice.

Ruth Marcus: Thatís a different question. Iím more agnostic on investigation in a non criminal sense. What Iíd like to know is, What needs investigating that has not already been investigated? What information that could reasonably be made public has not already emerged? But do you really think the prospect of investigation would have deterred Bush? Didnít seem so.

More . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Seems like Marcus is saying the only thing that will deter future lawlessness is criminal prosecutions. I am not sure she is right about that but I think Marcus has placed herself in the following position -- either support criminal investigations into law breaking by the Bush Administration or accept that lawbreaking will occur again. I think the reality is Marcus is in favor of the latter, or at least if it is done by Republicans.

Speaking for me only

< Supreme Court Extends Police Immunity for 4th Amendment Violation | Hillary Clinton Confirmed As Secretary of State >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Perversely, I think (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 03:15:41 PM EST
    if the facts come into the open AND there is no prosecution, future Presidents will be more likely to engage in the same behavior.

    oddly, by your (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    "logic"

    Is the left so deranged as to think that a partisan attack job against an exiting president is the real way for our government to bring "change".   It would evaporate about 25% of Obama's approval ratings, what's left of this congress and mire Obama's legacy in partisan infighting

    clinton should never have been impeached because, you know, it would have been a "partisan attack job".

    and yet, he was. i guess that only counts for democrats, huh?

    obama isn't dumb enough (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    to engage in persacution.

    Pelosi and Reid are but they will probably just hold hearing, make a bunch of partisan noise and that will be that.  At the worst some poor sclub will take the fall.   That would be ironic for the left to take out a fall guy when we all know who they really want in cuffs.

    Is the left so deranged as to think that a partisan attack job against an exiting president is the real way for our government to bring "change".   It would evaporate about 25% of Obama's approval ratings, what's left of this congress and mire Obama's legacy in partisan infighting.

    Obama's waaaaayyyy to smart to let that happen.

    Keep dreaming.  

    Why should those who break the law (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    NOT be prosecuted, particularly for behaviors that are so heinous and so ruinous to our system of law?

    Cripes.

    Feh.

    Parent