Some see a brighter prospect in Barack Obama, should he be elected. The plus with Obama, says the former Church Committee staffer, is that as a proponent of open government, he could order the executive branch to be more cooperative with Congress, rolling back the obsessive secrecy and stonewalling of the Bush White House. That could open the door to greater congressional scrutiny and oversight of the intelligence community, since the legislative branch lacked any real teeth under Bush. (Obama's spokesman on national security, Ben Rhodes, did not reply to telephone calls and e-mails seeking comment.)
But even that may be a lofty hope. "It may be the last thing a new president would want to do," said a participant in the ongoing discussions. Unfortunately, he said, "some people see the Church Committee ideas as a substitute for prosecutions that should already have happened."
More on the excesses of this administration, surveillance edition. And, "excesses" means violation of the law, including constitutional law. That counts too. But, some seem to think people should have a pass. Even that this will help promote investigations, as if pardons are some sort of quid pro quo thing, not one less reason to help. Immunity for torture, immunity for breaking FISA, de facto immunity on most everything else. Except for a few small fry. Depressing.
Also, stupid. Cass Sunstein, who somewhere along the line departed ways with Martha Nussbaum (e.g., Liberty of Conscience), and married Samantha Powers. A pair of Obama advisers, one who apparently didn't put a foot in their mouth yet. Anyway, as GG notes (both were on Democracy Now! recently), CS is of the "let's not be intemperate" school. Oh, blanket pardons would be in bad form (and, apparently, there is little point), and on some level extreme crimes should be punished. It just seems that is just some token comment, the important thing is to trust Obama and investigate some.
The stupid. Well, putting aside his spin job on Obama's FISA vote, there is the words against impeachment. Same all b.s. There are pragmatic grounds against the move, but people like him find it hard to limit themselves to that. They have to raise the specter of "President Cheney," as if you can't impeach both (Cheney as or more guilty anyway) or that we seriously think Bush will likely be removed. The move honors the rule of law, forces full investigations and more, and the other side has to defend the guy. I just read about the horrendous Emmett Till case. The state prosecuted, even though it had almost no shot. There was a value to that.
CS also spoke about another impeachment so close together with another. The Clinton impeachment was such a good move. It hurt Clinton's reputation, burdened Gore, and the Republicans retained power. Sure they overstepped eventually, but that didn't do it. Also, it served as a sort of vaccine -- those too involve some weak virus to prevent a bigger disease -- against using impeachment against a real set of crimes. It's such a bloody joke. It's like a bad prosecution being used to justify not bring one when the evidence is clear. Can't have another one so close.*
Of course, you can toss in the "it's the end, anyway" line. But, that also is b.s. in that the whole thing was just some sort of running out the clock affair ("off the table" until it's too late to matter). Anyway, that doesn't quite work. As a nation of laws, seriously we are, there is a principle involved. And, a message. Immunity and being satisfied with some strong words (and potshots, ala Pelosi) sends a message too. Priorities. Politics. Surely not principle. The limitations of human governance won't disappear when Obama comes into power. (Knock on wood)
Can't be all carrots. If there are so little sticks now, how about when the President has a better shot at arguing he is not a total loser. [See Talking Points Memo et. al. for the latest McCain follies. No Bush II is enough for me, but every bit helps.]
---
* Heck, you can add that Clinton did break the law (he did lose his law license and pay a fine ... he and Libby can cry over some beer, maybe) in some fashion, so some "technical" breach apparently isn't enough. It's all political differences, right, though back then many wanted Bill to step down. Anyway, this sort of stupidity warrants some fine too, with me getting a finder's fee of some sort.