- YoungBuns
- Feb 13, 2009
-
|
Eggnogium posted:
There is no precedent. A major presidential scandal will always be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Bullshit. Glenn Greenwald's new book came out today, and though I haven't read it I'm sure he has some interesting things to say on the subject:
MK: There has been much speculation on this, but why do you think the Obama administration did not prosecute Bush officials who violated US and international standards of law?
GG: Both parties - and successive Presidents - benefit from elite immunity. They know that if they protect each other, then they, too, can commit crimes with impunity. A November, 2008 New York Times article was incredibly telling in this regard. It reported on Obama's opposition to investigations into Bush crimes of torture and warrantless eavesdropping - opposition revealed only after he was safely elected - and it explained that "because every President eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor's tenure." As I wrote in the book about this article: "In other words, by letting criminal bygones be bygones within the executive branch, presidents uphold a gentleman's agreement to shield either other from accountability for any crimes they might want to commit in office."
It's the same reason that media elites and others are so opposed to these investigations as well: elites obviously benefit from elite immunity, and so have an interest in not subverting it when other elites commit crimes. I have no doubt that part of Obama's reluctance was political - a belief that applying the rule of law to Bush, Cheney and others would create political turbulence for him - but a significant motivating factor was undoubtedly the desire not to have his own actions investigated once he leaves office if the GOP controls the Executive Branch (and, thus, the Justice Department).
MK: The Iran-contra scandal is an excellent example of how officials at the highest levels of the US government broke the law (although Reagan had the excuse of "not remembering" what he authorized). Special Prosecutor Walsh had a pretty tight case. But ultimately, John Poindexter and Oliver North had their convictions reversed on a questionable legal technicality by partisan GOP judges. The "smoking gun" was found in the Iran-contra case, but still the perpetrators got off. How come?
GG: The Iran-contra travesty was the first time the template of elite immunity - solidified by Ford's pardon of Nixon - was applied to a new case. Basically, just a month before he was to leave office after being defeated by Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush pardoned his Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger, and four other defendants, just as they were about to go on trial. What made that so remarkable was not only, as you say, that the case against them was so airtight: Weinberger got caught red-handed telling multiple lies to investigators in order to protect himself and Reagan when a diary he never turned over was found. Far worse was that Bush himself was implicated in many of these crimes, so these pardons were really a way of ending the investigation and thus protecting himself.
But no matter. Most media stars and outlets banded together to praise the pardons. After all, Cap Weinberger was one of them: a member in good standing of Washington's elite class. He did not belong in prison, even if he committed serious crimes. Of course, the fact that they live in a city - Washington, D.C. - where huge numbers of mostly poor and minorities are consigned to prison every day for far less serious infractions (such as minor drug offenses), and they never object to any of that, isn't something that concerned them. That's the two-tiered justice system personified.
The special prosecutor in charge of Iran-contra, life-long Republican Lawrence Walsh, warned that the Weinberger pardon "undermines the principle that no man is above the law" and "demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious crimes in high office." That's exactly the principle this episode entrenched, and our "watchdog press" led the chorus cheering it, just as they did the Nixon pardon.
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 01:42
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2024 11:52
|
|
- YoungBuns
- Feb 13, 2009
-
|
I don't know that the Watchmen movie was particularly crappy but I thought it was a pretty straight take on the source material. Did anyone ever claim it to be a satire? If anything it seemed to be uncommonly true to the original.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 20:38
|
|
- YoungBuns
- Feb 13, 2009
-
|
PeterWeller posted:
While Watchmen was very faithful to the comic, Snyder still seemed to miss the point by a country mile. He presented the cast as actual super heroes and not just crazies playing dressup. All the wall punching and bone breaking undermined what's supposed to be one of the most jarring moments in the story, where Ozy actually catches a bullet.
Dawn is so good, I often forget he directed it.
Hmm, now that you mention it, portraying the principals a little more unhinged on the whole might have helped. The biggest objection I had to the film was Ozymandias obviously being the villain as soon as he came onscreen when he's supposed to be a paragon of virtue. Also, for maximum effect Tom Cruise would have been perfect for the Ozymandias role. But yeah, pretty faithful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2011 02:13
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 01:42
