1 Boring Old Man

So we’re in a  position of having to deal with a messy situation. On the one hand, we cannot refute the argument that the President and the National Security Council’s Principals Committee were in a unique situation dealing with very bad actors. We can understand their bending rules in a frantic attempt to prevent further tragedy and carnage. On the other hand, they went way beyond our established legal, moral, and behavioral limits, they kept it way too secret way too long, and we’re all painfully aware of the idiosyncratic biases that informed their course of action. Where do we draw the lines in reacting to the decisions they made in those days?

I am among those who believe that this Administration used the fact of 9/11 to grab a power they were already after, used the fact of 9/11 to underhandedly reshape our system of government in their own image. When they discuss what they’ve done, they say otherwise. They say one of two things: Either they are reclaiming powers that were taken from them in an over-reaction to Watergate. Or they are assuming powers made necessary by the facts of 9/11. They deny that they are changing our Constitutional system. And while those of us who feel the way I do often talk about individual instances, our charge is that the Administration, lead by Vice President Dick Cheney has committed a high crime by using our vulnerability after an attack by a foreign Terrorist Organization to infiltrate and fundamentally alter our government – plunging us into an unjustified war on false pretenses, essentially by keeping unjustified secrets and telling conscious lies. In essence, we feel that they parlayed the victim status into the role of perpetrator – a ploy as old as the history of man. Because you did this to me, I’m justified in doing this to you – "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." It’s called the Talion Law.

Why do we think that this is a high crime? First, we know in a thousand ways that what they’ve done – the war, the secrecy, the unitary executive, the signing statements, all of it was in their minds when they arrived in office – before 9/11. They were already on this road before any reasons appeared. This part of our argument has achieved the level of "fact." Second, we know that the "reclaiming" argument is absurd. It’s just something they think, not something that has ever existed. All of their examples are from extreme emergencies done by great Presidents – never from day to day American politics. And about Watergate – over-reaction? We didn’t hang President Nixon. I sometimes think it would’ve been a good deterrent to the likes of Cheney.

• The Administration refused to execute the Laws of Congress: This was done via Signing Statements in which the Administration selectively decided what parts of our laws they would enforce, claiming "unconstitutional" anything that they saw as remotely limiting their power. See the work of Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe for the Gory details. This is an easily confirmed "fact."
• Using the Office of Legal Counsel in the DoJ, they extracted secret legal opinions that justified breaking laws and treaties, keeping their breaking of these laws and treaties secret: This allegation has recently achieved the level of "fact."
• They falsely claimed that extremely shaky intelligence was fact justifying a declaration of War on another country – an expensive, destructive war, resulting in untold death and destruction: Speaking of "facts"…
• They continued their War even when the reasons for fighting it were disproved – carrying it into perpetuity: Speaking of more "facts"…
• They attempted to manipulate the election process by firing U.S. Attorneys who were not engaged in prosecuting opponents constituents: Oh look, another "fact."
• They manipulated public opinion by leaking information selectively to key media [repeatedly]: "fact."
• They have obstructed any attempts at Constitutionally approved oversight, including destroying evidence: "fact."
• They have used "Executive Privilege" in the service of obstruction of Justice routinely: "fact."

It’s just a start, but the gist of things is clear. Many of these points are grounds for impeachment. Taken together, it’s an air-tight case. So empathy for their difficult position after 9/11 is no longer justified. They’ve way used up that currency. Considering their claim of reclamation has been pushed into the theater of the absurd. They’ve clearly gone where no one has gone before.

Where do we draw the lines in reacting to the decisions they made in those days?

Who is guilty of high crimes? Is it just the really bad guys: Dick Cheney, David Addington, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, John Yoo, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, the Federalist Society, the American Enterprise Institute, and the lesser Dark Actors? Should we include the go-alongs like President Bush, all the other Principals, most of the DoJ and the DoD, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, etc.? What about the people who showed some signs of resistance, but failed to rise to the occasion like Colin Powell or John Ashcroft? What about the entire Republican Party? What about an America that let this happen?