Here's an opinion written by David Corn in Mother Jones:
These liberals all want to see alleged Bush administration wrongdoing exposed. But there's one problem with a special prosecutor: it's not his job to expose wrongdoing. A special prosecutor does dig up facts--but only in order to prosecute a possible crime. His mission is not to shine light on misdeeds, unless it is part of a prosecution. . . .That's a sobering thought. We could wait years for a special prosecutor to bring charges and then have his judgment be that there was not a winnable criminal case and, therefore, the records are sealed. And the public learns nothing.That's what happened with Patrick Fitzgerald. He could not share with the public all that he had discovered about the involvement of Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove, and other officials in the CIA leak case. Under the rules governing federal criminal investigations, he was permitted to disclose only information and evidence that was directly related and needed for the indictment and prosecution of Libby. Everything else he had unearthed via subpoenas and grand jury interviews had to remain secret. Repeatedly, Fitzgerald said that his hands were tied on this point. A special prosecutor, it turns out, is a rather imperfect vehicle for revealing the full truth.
So that may not be the best route to go -- especially if it is the only route taken.
Ralph
In fact, that could even be an advantage to perps-in-chief. Call for a special prosecutor to "lay all these false charges to rest." Then, if he concludes there is no prosecutable case, they will claim to have been exonerated.
ReplyDeleteThat would be risky, however. Because he might find prosecutable crimes.
I've pondered that myself. As much as I'd love to have a Truth Commission and maximize our access to every detail, I found two objections to that route. First, it's not Obama's Style. And second, the real center of all the issues is the rule of law.
ReplyDeleteIt feels to me like the country has come to grips somewhat with what happened. Supporters, die hard Republicans, Limbati know what they did but still agree. It's the kick-some-ass set. Liberals, Democrats, and 'right-thinking' people see it all as shameful. I doubt that a Truth Commission would do much other than solidify currently held positions.
So I ended up thinking along with Frank Rich that these things belong in the courts. Even though we didn't learn everything we wanted to know in the Libby Trial or get at the kingpins, we learned a lot. And if you take out the incorrigible, that decision seems to stand as 'guilty' - a fact. The downside of a Special Prosecutor is who do you charge with what? I have several candidates - doctoring intelligence, U.S. Attorney firings, and Torture.
If I had to choose, I'd pick the middle one [It's because it's about Karl Rove].
I agree that, of the three, that's the most important to prosecute, and I would add this reason:
ReplyDeleteDoctoring intelligence and torture as issues will bring the defense that well-meaning people were only trying to protect the nation and maybe went too far, but they thought what they were doing was the right thing to do under the circumstances of terrorists threats. A jury would be less likely to convict them.
But I really don't think there is a defense for the politicization of the Justice Department and the attempt to use executive power to control the judiciary.