Tuesday, April 28, 2009

There Will Be No "War-Crimes" Trials In The USofA

There is still so much hopeful, agitated rhetoric about bringing the Busheviks to "justice" for "war-crimes" that I feel it again impingent to inject a note of realism into the mix. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, repeatedly, permit me to (once again) outline in quite simple terms why I believe Obama is sooo reluctant to initiate any prosecutions--or investigations that were directed toward initiating prosecutions--against the bloody-handed, murderous, venal, dishonest, probably traitorous gang of thugs and gunsels that conducted a dictatorial coup d'etat over our heads, and quite appallingly successfully, between 2001 and 2009.

And THAT simply couldn't have been accomplished without at least the silent acquiescence, and more likely without the cooperation, compliance, connivance, and complicity of the WHOLE government establishment, including the soi disant "opposition." Congresscritters aren't priests of a civil religion. They are under no "moral" obligation to keep secrets which should not be kept. So the primary, pragmatic, practical, political reason that there will be no "legal" consequences for the law-breakers, the torturers (above the rank of Lieutenant), the lawyer-enablers, the propagandizers, et al, is that to do so would expose and embarrass the entire 'political' class, and possibly delegitimize--and thereby compromise--it enough to render it slightly more susceptible to public pressure for reform.

The obvious political down-side for the Owners and their overseers notwithstanding, nevertheless Obama has three categories of legitimate excuses to employ to rationalize his (political) reluctance to prosecute the Busheviks without bowing exclusively to the political one:
1) It is pretty much entirely unprecedented. That's a HUGE hurdle, just on the practical side. We SHOULD have prosecuted Nixon, which is the core of the current dilemma.

2) By bringing prosecutions, and creating a precedent, he'd be opening himself to the same treaatment by vindictive GOPukes at the end of his own regime. This is not entirely selfish, because he' also be making that the almost inevitable consequence for every subsequent presidency.

3) No jury in any venue in the USofA would now or will EVER convict Bush and his minions of crimes committed against despised, marginalized, demonized, rabid, foreign 'enemies' ("them fuckin' Hajis") in the stalwart 'DEE-FENCE!' of the country. You'd have to be institutionalizable not to see that.
Do the math: 75% of folks thinks its war-crimes. 25%, presumably, therefore don't thinks so. There are 12 members of a jury. 25% of 12 = 3. Three jurors, on average, on any jury panel will be already predisposed to jury nullification of any conviction that might be accomplished.

So, even if Obama tells Holder to go ahead, and Holder courageously ignores the problems and dilemmas posed by doing so (see points one and two above) and brings some of the malefactors to the Bar for war crimes, there's STILL (probably MORE than) a 25% it's all in vain--from the get-go...Utterly futile.

So he loses in court AND sets a pretty terrible (in the hands of the Pukes, let's say) precedent, and all for naught?

Here, let me spell it out again:

Na Ga Ha-apun...

2 comments:

themom said...

I'm volunteering NOW for jury duty!!!

Democracy Lover said...

Woody, I absolutely agree that it's not gonna happen, but if OJ can get acquitted, it's probably possible to assemble a panel of jurors who would listen to the evidence and judge accordingly. Of course, once the conviction was appealed to the Bushpacked federal appeals courts and the Supremes, it would be tossed out.

Also, the main benefit of a trial would be informing the American people of the evils done in their name. That of course would not happen either. I can see it all now..."Here tonight to review the day's proceedings in the trial of Bush and Cheney for alleged wrongdoing is our panel: Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor, and Michelle Bachman." Like you say, Na Ga Haapun...