In Support of a Truth Commission to Investigate Bush Administration Crimes

[Time for change]

Last week I posted a post on DU titled “Amnesty International Presses for Truth Commission to Investigate Bush Detainee Abuse Crimes”. In that post I discussed Amnesty International’s history of commitment to human rights, some of their concerns over what they see as President Obama’s possible continuation of some Bush policies, and their advocacy of a truth commission to investigate Bush administration crimes. I ended the post by discussing the need to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes.

Though many DUers agreed with Amnesty’s (and my) stance on this issue, there were also a lot of criticisms against the use of a truth commission. Though the specific nature of the criticisms varied, they all had their roots in one central point: that the use of a truth commission to investigate crimes of the Bush administration would serve to obstruct or decrease the likelihood that those crimes will be prosecuted.

Because I had not anticipated that kind of criticism or concern, I had did not deal with that issue in my OP. After thinking some more about it and doing some research, I deal with that issue in this post in more depth than I dealt with it in my response to the criticisms in my previous post. I think that it is of some importance to address those criticisms because I would hate to see opposition to a truth commission from the left – which will most certainly be combined with opposition from the right – destroy the opportunity to address the Bush administration crimes in a meaningful way.

But before I get into the specifics of the criticisms and my responses to them, let me make one thing perfectly clear: I fully agree with those DUers who criticized the idea of a truth commission on the point that the Bush administration must be prosecuted for their crimes. Amnesty International did not advocate a truth commission as a substitute for prosecution, and neither do I (I’m not aware of anyone currently advocating a truth commission as a substitute for Bush administration crimes). I believe there are very few people who want to see Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators prosecuted more than I do. So my differences with those who criticized my OP are almost entirely based on our differing assessments of the effect that a truth commission would have on Bush administration prosecutions or on otherwise serving to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes.


The goals of truth commissions

Before getting into the specific criticisms of the use of a truth commission, it is probably best to start out with the purpose of truth commissions. Margaret Popkin and Naomi Roht-Arriaza describe four main goals for truth commissions (p 61):

1) Truth commissions seek to contribute to transitional peace by creating an authoritative record of what happened

2) Providing a platform for the victims to tell their stories and obtain some form of redress

3) Recommending legislative, structural or other changes to avoid a repetition of past abuses

4) Establishing who was responsible and providing a measure of accountability for the perpetrators.

My point in quoting this is to note that there is no inherent reason why truth commissions should interfere with establishing accountability for crimes. Far from it, establishing accountability is one of their purposes. That is not to say that prosecution is not a better way to establish accountability – only that there is no reason to start out with the assumption that a truth commission will interfere with accountability. Furthermore, it is worth noting that truth commissions can provide additional benefits.

With that in mind, let’s look at some of the criticisms that DUers have expressed about the use of a truth commission to investigate the Bush administration crimes:


Criticism: Truth commission don’t work

It is true that truth commission often have not worked to accomplish the goals that they set. But in evaluating their results one must consider the fact that they often function under very difficult circumstances.

The best analogy I could think of is war protests. War protests usually don’t work to end a war, and they certainly don’t prevent future wars from occurring. Yet the cumulative effect of such protests may help to end some wars sooner than they otherwise would have been ended. It is very difficult to know. But who would say that we shouldn’t protest against a war because it isn’t likely to work?

Regarding the effectiveness of truth commissions, Eric Brahm lists 27 of them and has the following to say:

Despite the growing prevalence of the truth commission phenomenon, we do not yet have a clear understanding of their effectiveness…. It is not clear whether truth commissions have effects or that there are other factors causing an impact. Evidence is often anecdotal. … Most of the lessons learned from truth commission experiences have thus been drawn from only a small number of cases. Still, they are intuitively appealing… The growing body of international human rights law is increasingly recognized as containing an obligation to deal with past crimes. As a result, the pressure to examine a legacy of human rights abuses is likely to remain strong.

Criticism: Truth commissions are for new nations – not for established nations such as the U.S.

It is true that truth commissions have historically been used for new nations, often to address the traumas that brought the new nation into being. And indeed, the language used to discuss truth commissions often assumes that such is the case.

But look at the purposes of truth commissions noted above, and consider whether or not they would apply to the United States at this time. Creating an authoritative public record of what happened is important and even necessary. Recommendations for legislative or structural changes may be quite useful. And establishing accountability for the Bush administration crimes is also important and necessary.

And finally, we do have a very different government now than when the crimes took place. Establishing a truth commission would emphasize that difference and also indicate that we take those crimes seriously and intend to do something about them.


Criticism: We already know what happened – Let’s get on with the prosecutions

Again, I am not arguing not to get on with prosecutions. But if prosecutions are not occurring, or even if they are, a truth commission potentially has a lot to offer.

Indeed, we do have extraordinarily good knowledge of the crimes of the Bush administration. I talk about this evidence to some extent in my most recent post, “Bush Administration Crimes and the International Criminal Court” (See the section, “Bush administration crimes in need of attention by the ICC if not prosecuted by the United States”). But the fact that we know what happened doesn’t mean that most Americans have a good enough understanding of it. Brahm has the following to say about that:

On a basic level, truth commissions uncover the details of past crimes. In many cases, they serve to officially acknowledge what many already know about the past… It is a way for a new government to establish legitimacy by espousing democratic ideals, the rule of law, formal legal equality, and social justice. As such, although they investigate the past, truth commissions are as much about looking forward as back. They are part of an attempted social transformation to bring about a more peaceful society.

In other words, yes, we already know about these crimes. But it is still, nevertheless, important to officially acknowledge them.

Government acknowledgement of the Bush administration crimes is especially important with regard to those Americans who have insufficient knowledge of them or who are manifesting psychological denial of those crimes. Not only can a truth commission function to establish an official, authoritative record of what happened, but it can also, in so doing, make prosecutions substantially more politically feasible.


Criticism: A truth commission would make prosecution less likely by “taking the air out of” the demand for prosecution

Of course, it is possible that the establishment of a truth commission could take the air out of the demand for prosecutions. But why should it? And why should we think that a truth commission would be more likely to decrease the demand for prosecution than it would be to increase it? Brahm notes that establishing a public record of the crimes is an integral function of truth commissions:

In order to have maximum impact on society, the report should be widely disseminated. It seems unlikely a truth commission can be considered a success if its findings are not made public.

Therefore, after establishing a very public record of the Bush administration crimes, it seems to me that the American people would not be satisfied merely to have the crimes recorded. Rather, it seems to me that they would be more likely to see that as a first step towards actually holding the perpetrators accountable for their crimes.

When Gerald Ford pardoned President Nixon with respect to his Watergate-related crimes, the American people were not satisfied that justice had been served by Nixon’s resigning the presidency to avoid impeachment. To the contrary – Only 12% of Americans favored the pardon.

Anyhow, if you are inclined to request your Congresspersons to support a truth commission, but are afraid that such an action might make prosecution less likely, then make it absolutely clear when you make your request that you will not be satisfied with a truth commission as a substitute for prosecutions.


Criticism: A truth commission would impede prosecutions even if they were initiated

It is true that some truth commissions in the past have impeded prosecutions. They have done so specifically because they were set up as a sort of compromise – a truth commission in return for a promise not to prosecute the perpetrators. But a truth commission need not make such a promise. When they have done so, it has generally been because the political and practical circumstances prevented any other option. Brahm notes this potential limitation:

Simply put, the truth commission's main goal is to establish what happened in the past. Truth commissions do not normally have the power to prosecute. They can make recommendations for prosecution, but this is quite rare… Often, when a truth commission has been established, the perpetrators of the abuses have been granted amnesty. Because of this, there may appear to be a conflict between finding the truth and administering justice….

There are many circumstances that determine what a truth commission will do:

When a truth commission is established, it is given a specific mandate by the authority that created it. The mandate covers such things as… what crimes are open to investigation…. How a truth commission will function is highly dependent on who is appointed to the commission.

And yet, truth commissions by no means have to interfere with prosecutions, and they can even play a positive role in holding perpetrators accountable for their actions:

As truth commissions have become more common and have gained more adherents, they have been argued to have alternative, inherent benefits of their own and should not be seen as simply a second best option to criminal prosecution. As such, in a number of recent cases, for example East Timor and Sierra Leone, truth commissions have been created alongside tribunals….

Despite the tendency to avoid assigning individual responsibility, some commissions have "named names" where a preponderance of evidence existed and have recommended that these people be brought to trial.

Other benefits of truth commissions

As I noted above, though holding perpetrators accountable for their crimes is one of the goals of a truth commission, there are other potential benefits. Brahm discusses them:

The commission's report provides recommendations for rebuilding society. One of the key aspects of the report is the highlighting of the institutional factors that facilitated the abuse of human rights…

Truth commissions also make recommendations for reparations to be given to victims of state terror…. reparations are another sign of the government's commitment to healing old wounds…

Truth commission advocates argue that calling perpetrators to account, even in a weaker venue like a truth commission, reveals the vulnerability of those once in power and knowing these acts have been firmly denounced is empowering to the general public… Findings may discredit those responsible. In short, the logic of truth commissions is that exposing the factors that allowed these crimes to occur goes a long way toward preventing their recurrence.

For those who are thinking that this description applies more to third world countries than to the United States, let me make a few points: Our society is in need of rebuilding; We do have many victims who are in need of reparation, and making those reparations would show our nation’s commitment to making amends for what the Bush administration did; and we do need to find ways to prevent recurrences of what happened under the Bush administration. Holding the criminals accountable is one very important means for doing that. But there are other necessary actions that need to be taken as well. Brahm notes that “It bears repeating that truth commissions are but one component of an effort to bring about peace.”


Use of a commission as a stepping stone to prosecution of the criminals

An article by Scott Horton in The Nation titled “Investigating Bush’s Crimes” makes several interesting and important points. He describes some factors that he feels are pushing our country towards prosecuting the Bush administration:

A growing number of Americans are concerned about what the Bush administration did and are eager to press the issue. The extent of public concern has been reflected in several recent public opinion polls, including one in February by USA Today showing that nearly two-thirds of Americans support investigations of the Bush administration's use of torture and warrantless wiretapping; roughly 40 percent support criminal investigations…

And the shift in public opinion is not the only thing transforming the environment in Washington on this issue… Torture is, of course, a felony under US law… A senior Obama Justice figure remarked… that it would be "impossible to sweep the matter under the carpet." That's a view that seems to be shared by US allies and United Nations officials, who… are asking why the United States has failed to introduce a criminal inquiry into how torture came to be practiced as a matter of US policy. Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention Against Torture require the United States to prohibit torture under domestic criminal law and to investigate and prosecute incidents in which it is practiced. The failure even to begin criminal investigations has placed the United States in breach of its obligations under the treaty…

Horton also describes the progress that is currently being made:

Investigations are still under way at the Justice Department and other agencies that touch on important aspects of the Bush administration's detainee policy. One probe is looking into the mysterious destruction of evidence of interrogations using highly coercive techniques that was sought in pending criminal cases. Another probe, nearly complete, is examining the circumstances behind the crafting of the notorious torture memos in the black hole of the Bush Justice Department, the Office of Legal Counsel… There are unmistakable signs of momentum in support of a commission approach in Washington…

Noting that President Obama is likely to be very politically cautious about getting out in front of this issue, Horton explains the importance of a commission:

The commission approach… may well suit Obama's needs for the commission to be the creation and initiative of Congress rather than of his administration. It would allow a comprehensive investigation without embroiling the White House in the process…

Most significant, if a commission recommended a criminal investigation to the Attorney General, and if it recommended appointment of a special prosecutor, that would deflect suggestions that the process was "political."

In my opinion, that may be the most important argument in favor of supporting a commission. It isn’t a question of either or. In the absence of the Obama administration getting out in front of this issue, a truth commission may very well provide the surest path towards holding the Bush administration accountable for their crimes.

[leftstreet]

1. If I commit a crime do I get a 'truth commission,' instead of a trial?

I didn't think so.

[Time for change]

2. It's not INSTEAD OF

I thought I made that very clear. Did you read the post?

[leftstreet]

3. Yeah, I did

But I've read similar things before.

Just don't see a need for an additional step in the legal process, that's all.

[Time for change]

4. And what if no other steps are forthcoming?

Would you rather see nothing done than taking a first step that might lead to other steps, just because it didn't start where you wanted it to?

[mmonk]

5. Better than nothing but a measure that most likely will fall short

of a vigorous defense of the Constitution and the rule of law.

[VP505]

6. It troubles me that

using a "Commission" to get to the truth might actually impede any real accountability. We claim that "NO ONE" is above the law, its likely that immunity will be offered which, IMO, does exactly that, it puts people above the law. A trial is a satisfactory method to get the truth for John and Jane Everyday Citizen, why isn't that good enough for elected public servants?

[Time for change]

10. As I said in the OP, I absolutely agree that there should be a trial

One of my main points though is that if there are no prosecutions, then a commission could be used as a way of providing the pressure on the Justice Department to either prosecute the criminals itself or appoint an independent prosecutor to do so.

Criminal trials can involve the offer of immunity just as easily as truth commissions can. There is no requirement that a truth commission offer immunity, any more than there is in a criminal trial. But if immunity needs to be offered to lower level people in order to get those at the top, then it is sometimes appropriate to do so -- either in a criminal trial or in a commission.

Here is a statement on what Rep. Conyers is aiming for in a truth commission:

The report, titled "Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush," contains 47 separate recommendations designed to restore the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. Recommendations include calls for continued committee investigation, a blue ribbon commission to fully investigate administration activities, and independent criminal probes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/support-john-conyers-trut_b_158016.html

That sounds pretty good to me.

[Somawas]

7. I can think of two excellent truth commissions: A grand jury and a petit jury.

nt

[ThomWV]

8. Thank you for a well presented argument - however you missed the single most important objection

I read your argument with great interest and hoped you would relieve me of my concern. Unfortunately you missed the one glaring objection I have to what has been proposed so far.

The strongest voice for some sort of Commission has been Senator Leahy. The Senator would have much to do with such a Commission from his post as Chairman of Judiciary Committee. The Senator has also broached and indeed suggested that immunity from prosecution for certain witnesses was on the table. For me, and many others, it is not on the table.

Would you address his statements about immunity please? If you can do that successfully you have my full support.

On Edit: I understand there are two sorts of immunity. First there is immunity to the individual testifying and only about those things which are disclosed in testimony. So once sworn a witness might say "I shot the sheriff" and be immune from prosecution forever afterward. The second sort of immunity is broad. In the second case the Commission might off immunity to all crimes committed in association with the subject matter - so that the Commission might say there will be no prosecutions of anyone associated with torturing prisoners once our commission has disclosed all facts known about it.

I object to either sort, though I might be convinced that the first sort could be justified under limited circumstance.

[Time for change]

9. Immunity is typically "on the table" for prosecutions as well as for truth commissions

It is standard practice in prosecutions to offer limited or even sometimes full immunity to lower lever personnel, in order to get information on the criminal culpability of higher-ups. If we could get to Bush and Cheney by offering some type of immunity to CIA agents who participated in torture, for example, I would be all for that.

In other words, there is no inherent difference with respect to immunity between prosecutions and truth commissions. It is a potential tool that could be used in either of them, to get to the people at the top, but it is not necessary to use it.

In the Nuremberg trials, for example, we didn't even go after the lower level Nazis. The focus was on those at the top, as it should have been.

I don't know exactly what Leahy has in mind when he discusses immunity. If he is referring to immunity for Bush and Cheney, I am totally against that. I think that it is generally believed that Conyers has a more aggressive notion of a truth commission in mind than Leahy does.

We can't be sure what is going to happen with a truth commission before it does its work. Sure, it can turn out bad. The 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission that investigated the JFK assassination were pure whitewashes IMO. I believe that that was because they were planned that way from the beginning.

But Conyers and Leahy both have been consistent and strong progressive voices in Congress for us, over a long period of time. I think that both of them would do a creditable job. But as it stands now, I like the way that Conyers' idea is shaping up better than Leahy's. Here is a blurb on Conyers' Commission:

The report, titled "Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the presidency of George W. Bush," contains 47 separate recommendations designed to restore the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system. Recommendations include calls for continued committee investigation, a blue ribbon commission to fully investigate administration activities, and independent criminal probes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/support-john-conyers-trut_b_158016.html

Also, it's not just a matter of supporting a commission or not supporting it. When we voice our support for it, we can always add what we want the commission to accomplish -- most importantly, we want to move towards holding criminals accountable for their crimes.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Wonderfully set up (as usual), time for a change

I fully support a truth commission, just as you said, as a possible precursor for prosecution, but just as importantly as a non-adversarial way of thoroughly documenting what happened during the Bush Administration.

Ironic that truth commissions, just as you said, are more common with newer nations, because I believe the initiation of a truth commission is actually a very mature act on a country's part.

When Ford pardoned Nixon, many made the specious argument that subjecting Nixon to prosecution would be bad for the health of the nation when in fact sweeping things under the rug instead of confronting them is what's bad for the health of the nation.

The first step in addressing our sins lies is confronting them. Thoroughly and completely. A truth commission should do this. And it could then be used as part of the discovery for a more focused prosecution.

[Time for change]

22. Thank you Rufus -- You make some very good points there

It is ironic that truth commissions are more common in new nations. Nobody needs to get to the truth of went went on in our country for the last 8 years more than we do.

This idea that it's bad for the health of our nation to hold high level government officials accountable for their crimes and to get the truth out has got to be gotten rid of.

A truth commission could be used to prod our government into prosecuting the Bush administration crimes, or it can be done simultaneously with them. My preference would be to do them simultaneously, but if that can't happen, then we should proceed with some other way to make an official record as to what happened during this period of time, with an eye towards perparing the ground for prosecutions.

[ThomWV]

12. Let me ask a fundamental question about a "Truth Commission", Can it operate in secret?

Can any part of the investigation be held in secret? That seems to me to be a fundamental question and it too might sway how I feel about contributing my support.

[Time for change]

19. That's a good point

This is what Eric Brahm (from the link in my OP) has to say about that issue:

One variable in commissions' operation has been whether its proceedings are public. Early truth commissions had little public testimony due to the fear of retribution. The South African commission was the first big departure from this trend... Making the commission public does risk security and unchecked accusations. However, public proceedings also lend the commission greater public legitimacy. The public can see how the commission is operating and there is less opportunity to suppress the commission's findings.

In other words, it depends on how it is set up. Since security is the main excuse for not making them public, I would think that there would be little if any rationale for making a U.S. commission secret -- and it is hard to believe that the American people would stand for that.

The 9/11 Commission, the Church Commission, and the Warren Commission were all public -- although the 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission were whitewashes. It is possible that some portions of one or more of these commissions may have been secret, but I don't think so. I think they would have a hard time justifying any portion of a U.S. commission of this nature being secret.

Of course, it could always be claimed that certain testimony jeopardized national security, and for that reason should be secret, but that happens in trials as well. So, my bottom line answer is that I don't think any parts of it would be secret, but of course I couldn't guarantee that.

[Larry Ogg]

13. To paraphrase what I’ve been reading and learning.

Ad hoc truth commissions are the lying ass pathocrats way of responding to enduring public outcry for justice. And in lue of any real justice these commissions have historically done nothing more than to ware out, distort and hide the facts from undiscerning minds, while elevating the official lie to authoritative finality resulting in nothing more than the reduction of moral values in society, and toothless legislation for political criminals. But then what is para-expectable all about?

Meanwhile critical thinking finds a place in people who have been around for awhile as well as those who are ‘half way to splatter’. To put it another way, it seems apparent that the numbers are growing among those who are no longer content with lowering their moral standards or way of life, they are feeling increasingly antsy about adhering to the authoritarian memes that dictate that we should simply ignore the overwhelming facts that exist, blindly believe in our leaders and search for a more comfortable premise for the sake of social / group sanity, which is crumbling in the waves of political injustice coming home to roost.

I think I know ware your heart is at on this subject Dr. Dale and I agree a truth commission would be a great thing if it was at all possible, but I honestly believe a paradox exist because it is allowed to exist, and it is the byproduct of unaccountability, and if the powers that be thought they could get away with it, they would appoint the previous White House occupants to head such a commission, not that that would be to obvious in the minds of our dumb-downed society, but by judging the past we could almost predict for certain that whoever was appointed as commissioners, would be sympathizers with and know all to well the crimes and the motives of previous administrations, and if they tried sweeping it all under the rug again we would simply see history repeating itself…

[Time for change]

21. Well

We certainly do have lots of grounds to be suspicious -- no matter what direction Congress and the President choose to go on this. But I don't think that it is correct to assume that we know for certain that a truth commission will be corrupt, any more than we know that a trial won't be corrupt. Yes, other commissions in the past have been white washes -- Most notably the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission. Remember though that the Warren Commission was picked under the watchfull eye of the man who most benefited from JFK's death. And the 9/11 Commission was most strongly influenced by the Bush administration -- enough said about that. Now we have a President and Congress who I think would be interested in seeing justice done -- though Obama is very cautious not to seem eager to proceed in that direction.

One more thing that manonfyre (post # 20, below) introduced into this discussion: From Glen Greenwald's blog:

The process of shining a light on government crimes cannot always be controlled once it starts, especially if genuine investigative powers are invested in an independent commission.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/25/prosecutions/index.html

[Larry Ogg]

28. Thanks for pointing out the link and Greenwald’s blog.

It addresses a spectrum important issues one being what I said above, a response to public outcry, and we can feel confident that that’s probably the only reason for having such a commission. Of course once this can of worms is opened will it be paramount to opening the gates of hell. Personally I think our country is in for some very bad and unimaginable times weather we prosecute these criminals or not, I just hate the idea that these psychopaths will roaming free, living high on the hog and still in the position of calling the shots and leading people over a cliff.

I agree we don’t know that a truth commission would be corrupt, and I hate to compare it to something like taking your life savings to Las Vegas and betting on the odds, with a justified perception that the peoples faith in our all our systems of government have been betrayed exponentially (with few exceptions) by the number of politicians in it. If I had a question it would be. Can there be a truth commission not stacked with or by corrupt officials within our government? Is this Sheldon Whitehouse for real? Will people like Denis Kucinich and the few other honest politicians be on this commission or will they be effectively ignored as usual.

[Time for change]

36. Those are very important questions Larry

Of course we must worry about the composition of a commission.

Yes, I believe that Sheldon Whitehouse is for real. I also believe that Leahy and Conyers are for real, though I was disappointed that Conyers didn't move for impeachment while he had the chance.

What I object to is the opinion that it is a CERTAINTY that a truth commission would be corrupt or worthless. I don't share that belief at all. It depends how it's composed, what mandate it's given, etc. Prosecutions can be corrupt too. But we don't dismiss them out of hand because of that possibility.

[Larry Ogg]

39. Well I can wait and see, it’s not like I’m going any ware...

But I am curious as to why you would object to opinions that show loss of faith? Maybe I’m missing something but I consider this as the consequences of past experience. I know you’re familiar with the following statement found in the Decoration of Independence.

” and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Maybe this is what it’s coming down to, people are getting tired of the being sold out, the future looks extremely grim, the promise is broken, the elusion is failing and there are rumors that our government has been taken over by unscrupulous characters despite what the M$M tells us and the recent so called election ware, once again we chose the lesser of two evils. Fact is that people are loosing faith in their leaders and as far as I can see it’s a justifiable loss. I use to wonder why it was taking so long, but now I know and all I can do is wait for a majority of people to wake up. Unfortunately for most, that awakening comes after they follow their leader over a cliff and are half way to splatter…

[Time for change]

40. It's not that.

I don't object to loss of faith in our government. As you probably know, I've lost quite a bit of faith in it myself -- even with Democrats in power.

What I said that I object to is opinions that show certainty about some of these things. But maybe saying that I object to these things is too strong a word. Let's just say that it makes me feel uncomfortable when people show certainty about some things, where I feel that there is just too much we don't know about them to be certain about them. And of course certainty shuts down discussion.

For example, there were some people who said they were certain that Obama would lose the election because the Republicans had control of the voting machines. I believed that they could steal maybe a couple million votes, but I never believed that it was a certainty that he would lose because of that. And what does an attitude like that get you? How could anyone get up the energy to work towards an election victory if one believes that it is certain that you are going to lose?

But hey, we have to be certain about some things, right?

[kentuck]

14. I think a Truth Commission might be better than nothing...

At least, it would keep the criminals in our consciousness. They should not escape so easily.

[barbtries]

15. i'm for it

unless it means that prosecutions won't be pursued. i want to see the fucks in prison.

[Time for change]

38. So do I

I don't see how a truth commission will interfere with prosecutions -- unless of course, that's part of the deal. It would be a very bad mistake to make a deal like that, and I don't think that the American people will be any happier with that than they were with Ford's pardon of Nixon.

[Gregorian]

16. Isn't this what courts of law were created for?

If I were to answer why I am leery of a truth commission I may also have to be critical of a court of law. So my real concern over a commission is politics. Which is also the same concern over a court of law.


The answer I want to hear is how would a truth commission be any less politically swayed than a court of law which has for example a Bush appointee as judge?

It sounds like the commission could be a pre-court trial. I'll keep an open mind, and wait to hear the benefits of a commission.

And I'll admit that simply the term "truth" is quite putting off. Maybe a Truth Discovery Commission might sound a little less whatever the word is. Contrived? No. I'm skeptical. And it may have more to do with the fact that if people had wanted to get to the truth of things, they would have already started. I have a bad feeling about this. Sort of a Warren Commission feeling. But circumstances are better. A Nancy Pelosi kind of feeling. And now an Obama who isn't sounding like a Kucinich.

[puebloknot]

18. Right. Kucinich already has compiled a list of impeachable crimes.

The Congress just needs to get on it.

A Truth Commission (I share your concern over the pompousness of that title) would bring out *more* material, but just as we send a serial killer to jail for life over one or two of his crimes which are the most easily proven, and let the others go because it would take years to prosecute them all -- and he's put away and can do no further harm -- we have sufficient material on the record from Kucinich's work, and John Conyers' compilation of a similar list back in 2006, to go forward with prosecutions. Too many in Congress are tuning up their fiddles to see if Rome is actually going to be burning 'ere long.

The very thought of a public trial of a President of the United States for crimes against humanity is so shameful that we recoil from the thought!

The very thought of an America that is willing to cover up the crimes against humanity of a President of the United States is so shameful that we who have a shred of decency left recoil from the thought!

[puebloknot]

17. I have personally written about South Africa's truth commissions ...

...with admiration, and have considered the possibility for this country.

(Quick disclaimer: I haven't read your first post on this subject, and the responses, so if I'm bringing up material already addressed, I apologize. I've just moved home and office, and am exhausted. I'll read your other post on this subject later.)

"Mere" anecdotal evidence can be very compelling, if not done in secret, and could act to build public support for actual prosecution under our existing laws. I am remembering the film "Judgment at Nuremberg" in which victims testified (though that was under oath and might not be considered "anecdotal") about their treatment under the Nazis. One testimony like that is worth a thousand words.

I am concerned over the oft-expressed consideration of "What Obama wants" in the matter of Bushco's crimes. It isn't Obama's choice. He needs to get out of the way and let Congress do its job. Crimes have been committed. From a purist stance, we only need Congress to hold public hearings and the evidence will pour forth. I consider it a sad day when we have to look toward a truth commission in lieu of simply pursuing justice in accordance with our own laws. But just as we should have seen impeachment already, it's not happening, and if a truth commission were held, it *might* act to awaken the public, and light a fire under Congress.

I'm reminded of that old phrase about Pancho Villa: "You viva first." Some of our recalcitrant Congresspersons might feel the heat of their constituents breathing down their necks and do the right thing if a truth commission engaged the public's sentiments. Except that half the country might "viva" in the other direction and insist that prosecution of Bush, et al. would be purely a cynical political act. Someone needs to stand up and say it isn't so. "They" are going to say what they will, but when I consider the tone of Obama's speech last night, and see the response to it, I am right back to what I've said for a long time: We need one strong voice telling the truth, and the country, being so starved for legitimacy, would likely fall in line. Obama is in a tenuous situation in that direct support for prosecution of his predecessors would possibly distract from his agenda. That's why others need to act in his stead, if he actually does support prosecution of Bushco, and as a constitutional scholar, I don't see how he can do otherwise, in his own private assessment. And I continue to remember that we "multi-tasked" very effectively at the end of WWII, and with far fewer resources than we have now; to wit, we held the Nuremberg trials *while* rebuilding war-torn Europe under the Marshall Plan. Yes, we can do it again!

We don't need a truth commission to recommend a new structure for our system of justice. We just need to follow our own laws. Failing that, a truth commission might have value, but it feels like sneaking in under the circus tent to me. Sheldon Whitehouse says an investigation of Bushco and torture is "going to be big," so I still hold hope that we will hold them accountable directly, without the need for a truth commission. If such a commission were going on, I fear the Congress would have its finger to the wind and not take action until they could see how things were shaping up politically, how the country would be responding to such a commission.

And another concern: I heard a conversation on Air America Radio the other day in which some legal scholars were discussing the matter of whether the Statute of Limitations would apply to Bushco's crimes, especially with regard to torture. A truth commission could take valuable time and delay prosecution.

The other thought I relish is that, just as We, the Allies, held the Nuremberg trials, some entity outside the country would hold *us* responsible for our war crimes. But this time around, We, the Perpetrators, hold the best cards and the biggest guns, and we've shown ourselves capable of rogue actions all over the world. The world is waiting for us to viva first.

[Time for change]

37. You make some very good and important points here

I share you concern that Obama should act upon what is right rather than what he wants. Keep in mind though that prosecutions would originate from the Justice Department, not Congress. So it is very important what President Obama does about that. Though it seems to me that all he really needs to do is allow the Justice Department to do their duty and prosecute the criminals. The Justice Department is supposed to act independently, though as we learned under the Bush admin., that isn't always the way it works out.

I agree with you that what a commission does (or a Congressional enquiry) has the potential to be politically based. But I also believe that most Americans want to see the truth uncovered. That's what current opinion polls show. I believe that if Congress and the President followed what the American people wanted we'd have both a Congressional investigation and prosecutions, though the Congressional investigations would likely come first. I agree with what you say about our country being so starved for legitimacy, and I believe that most Americans feel that way as well.

One thing I don't understand about what you are saying: "We only need Congress to hold public hearings and the evidence will pour forth. I consider it a sad day when we have to look toward a truth commission in lieu of simply pursuing justice in accordance with our own laws."

It seems here that you're making a big distinction between Congressional public hearings and a truth commission, while prefering the former to the latter -- and I don't think that is warranted. It seems to me that what a truth commission might accomplish and what a Congressional hearing might accomplish are very similar. The main difference between the two IMO is that a truth commission would be more independent than a Congressional hearing, in that it would not be subjected to the political pressures that Congress is. Of course, it depends on the composition of the TC. Another factor in favor of a TC over Congressional hearings is that Congress has got quite a lot on its plate right now.

Regarding the statute of limitations, I've hear some talk -- I'm pretty sure it was from Conyers -- to the extending the statute of limitations in order to make sure that high level criminals don't get off free.

More than anything I share your concerns expressed in the last paragraph, about us being a rogue nation that should be reigned in by the rest of the world. I dearly hope that the ICC gets its act together and finds away to bring Bush and his friends before them for judgment. I talk about that in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5111778

[puebloknot]

41. I like this kind of discussion because it allows us/me to kind of think out loud.

I am not of one mind about all this. I've been thinking for some time about what a truth commission would mean to this country. My comment about evidence pouring forth in a congressional hearing was kind of a harking back to the work already done (down in the basement) by John Conyers. It seems (and maybe I'm wrong here) that between that and the work Kucinich has done, we don't face years of getting to the truth. It seems it could be done quickly, if there were the will to do it.

Over the last 24 hours, I've been puzzling over Pelosi's sudden proclamation that she wants prosecutions, not the immunity that would be inherent, to some degree, in a truth commission. But even in a congressional investigation, it would be possible/likely that immunity would be proferred to some lower entities on the totem pole in order to get to the people at the top who gave the orders for torture.

I truly don't want to be a total cynic. I want to be hopeful. But today I was wondering if Pelosi is playing bad cop/good cop with Leahy, with an eye to pacifying the anger of the public without exposing the complicity of the Dems. When I consider the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission, I'm just left with total skepticism that we would see anything but a whitewash of Bushco's crimes, and our usual moving on to the next outrages, in 20 years, in lieu of the kind of democracy we all want to believe in.

Certainly, if a truth commission came into being and was done in public, it would be impossible to allow enough outrage to be revealed to the public that it might just be the catalyzing event that would start the prosecutory process. If the Statute of Limitations *can* be extended (and the radio exchange on Air America the other day presented some doubts about that), then we would have time to do things methodically and reasonably. Should that not be possible, a truth commission could be the perfect foil to any hope for justice.

I can't say how much I appreciate this chance to talk with you, TFC, along with all the other people who have contributed here. Isn't it great that at least we're sharing positive ideas, instead of hanging on and waiting for the end of all that the Bush regime brought to us. Here is the best I can do, instead of Champagne and flowers, to say I honor you for bothering to address these issues you write about so eloquently!!!! :fistbump:

Judy

[Time for change]

49. Thank you puebloknot

I agree with you that there is a ton of evidence that has already been compiled, and therefore this should be able to be done very quickly. Though it is possible that some sort of commission may be required prior to prosecutions in order to prepare the political ground that enables prosecutions to take place -- as noted below by L. Coyote with respect to the Watergate hearings.

I too am surprised by Pelosi's about turn. After her taking impeachment off the table for all those months, I really don't trust her, and I don't even have the energy to try to figure out her motivations.

I totally agree that the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission were whitewashes. But then, I believe that the Church Commission did a lot to enlighten our country with regard to numerous government abuses that had gone on behind our backs for many years. And it resulted in some good legislation (We shouldn't blame the fact that Bush violated that legislation on the legislation itself, as some people do). Keep in mind also that the Bush administration controlled the 9/11 Commission to a large extent. And the President at the time of the Warren Commission was the man who most benefited from the event that the Warren Commission was supposed to investigate. I don't believe that we are faced with similar problems today.

The one thing that I disagree with you about is this: "Certainly, if a truth commission came into being and was done in public, it would be impossible to allow enough outrage to be revealed to the public that it might just be the catalyzing event that would start the prosecutory process." I don't agree with that. Unlikely perhaps. But I can't accept impossible. Remember the Watergate Hearings, as one example. I recall that everyone at the time was saying that there was no possibility at all that Nixon would be brought down. Maybe it was unlikely, but it had to be tried.

Yes, it is wonderful that the Bush administration is gone. Which reminds me that there were those who said that would be impossible because of Republican control of the voting machines.

I always appreciate your discussion of these issues too.
:fistbump:


Dale

[puebloknot]

53. Quick edit: I meant to say ...

...it would be impossible NOT to allow enough outrage to be revealed." That was a poorly constructed sentence. I was basically trying to say that whether I like it or not, a truth commission would surely be the vehiclel for enough information to get out that it could turn the country toward support of actual legal prosecution. Although I think the country is there already.

Cheers!

Judy

[Time for change]

56. I got it

THAT is what I'm looking forward to.

[manonfyre]

20. Word search of any "Bush crimes/torture" diary: "Scott Horton" -- check!

Horton's views are indispensable in this discussion.

Also searched: "Glenn Greenwald."

See his latest -- VERY relevant to your discussion.

Thank you, Time for Change!

_____________________________________


DU readers are doubtless aware that the monstrousness of the Bush WH/DOJ/DOD-sanctioned torture-horror show went far, far beyond the confessed use of waterboarding.

If not . . .


"The CIA's Favorite Form of Torture," by Mark Benjamin

"The first thing that happens is extraordinary hallucinations akin to mescaline," explained McCoy. "I mean extreme hallucinations" of sight and sound. It is followed, in some cases within just two days, by what McCoy called a "breakdown akin to psychosis."

"Autopsy reports reveal homicides of detainees in U.S. custody," released by the ACLU

"47 year old white male detainee died while in US custody. Cause of death: Blunt Force Injuries and Asphyxia; Manner of Death: Homicide. Autopsy revealed deep bruising of the chest wall, numerous displaced rib fractures, bruising on the lungs, hemorrhage into the mesentery of the small and large intestine. Examination of the neck structures revealed hemorrhage into the strap muscles and fractures of the thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone. History of asphyxia, secondary to occlusion of the oral airway. Pleural and pulmonary adhesions. Hypertensive cardiovascular disease. According to report provided by the US army CID, the detainee was shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth at the time he lost consciousness and became pulseless. The severe blunt force injuries, the hanging position, and the obstruction of the oral cavity with a gag contributed to this individual's death. DOD 00329 refers to this case as "gagged in standing restraint" DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trama and choking; gagged in standing restraint." DOD 003324 refers to this case with a note indicating "Q by OGA , gagged in standing restraint."

"Deaths of Detainees in the Custody of US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan From 2002 to 2005," by Scott Allen, MD, et al

. . . 112 cases of death of detainees in United States custody (105 in Iraq, 7 in Afghanistan) during the period from 2002 to early 2005 were identified. Homicide accounted for the largest number of deaths (43) . . .

"Medical Investigations of Homicides of Prisoners of War in Iraq and Afghanistan," by Steven Miles, MD


"Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan," by Human Rights First


"Homicide Unpunished," a Washington Post Editorial

ONE OF THE most shocking photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shows a grinning guard giving a thumbs-up sign over the bruised corpse of an Iraqi detainee. Subsequent investigation showed that the deceased prisoner, an Iraqi named Manadel al-Jamadi, died of asphyxiation on Nov. 4, 2003: He was tortured to death by Navy SEAL and CIA interrogators who took turns punching and kicking him, then handcuffed his arms behind his back and shackled them to a window five feet above the floor.

"Down a Dark Road," by Richard Leiby

"Murder's torture," Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former Colin Powell aide, says . . . "Murder's the ultimate torture."

"Senate report links Bush to detainee homicides; media yawns," by Glenn Greenwald

The policies which the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously concludes were authorized by Bush, Rumsfeld and several other top Bush officials did not merely lead to "abuse" and humiliating treatment, but are directly -- and unquestionably -- responsible for numerous detainee murders.

"War Crimes," by Scott Horton

How often in our nation’s history has a Congressional Committee published a report which concludes that the President is essentially guilty of war crimes? Only once. It happened last week with the release of the Senate Armed Services Committee report on prisoner abuse. Put a sharper point on it: war crimes that produce the death of a detainee are punishable with the death sentence. And in this case we now have more than one hundred deaths potentially linkable to detainee abuse, linked to the President. Yet to the American mainstream media, which has made virtually no effort to comprehend the report, it was a non-event.

[manonfyre]

27. More from Greenwald today -- Pelosi says TC inadequate

Pelosi criticizes Truth Commission as inadequate, advocates criminal prosecutions, by Glenn Greenwald

[Time for change]

34. Very interesting

It appears to me that Greenwald mistakenly quotes Leahy as defending immunity. He links to Leahy's speech in which he presumably did that, but when you read the whole paragraph it doesn't sound to me at all that Leahy is defending immunity. Here is the whole paragraph from Leahy's speech:

Over my objection, Congress has already passed laws granting immunity to those who facilitated warrantless wiretaps and conducted cruel interrogations. The Department of Justice issued legal opinions justifying these executive branch excesses which, while legally faulty, would undermine attempts to prosecute. A failed attempt to prosecute for this conduct might be the worst result of all if it is seen as justifying abhorrent actions. Given the steps Congress and the executive have already taken to shield this conduct from accountability, that is a possible outcome.

I can't quite make sense of the whole paragraph, but it certainly doesn't sound to me like Leahy is defending the use of immunity.

[Time for change]

32. Thank you for all those very important references

The part from Greenwald's blog that seems the most relevant to me is this:

The process of shining light on government crimes cannot always be controlled once it starts, especially if genuine investigative powers are vested in an independent Commission.

And it's really important to emphasize the deaths as you did. An OP should be written on those. Too bad that so few Americans know about all this.

[bdamomma]

23. kick

[leveymg]

24. The only way a TC makes sense is if its impossible to prosecute. You fail to make that case,

as did Senator Leahy when he was on DKos earlier this month.

We've had TCs before (post-Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11. As I wrote in response to Senator Leahy -- to which the Chairman did respond, but not convincingly IMHO - I'll say again here: "Investigate, Indict, Convict, Incarcerate - nothing more, nothing less" will prevent another round of crimes of state.

TCs simply don't deter further law-breaking. Only jail for high responsible officials will do that.

[Time for change]

25. I have never argued that a TC would be an acceptable replacement for a prosecution

But in the absence of a prosecution, it could possibly do a lot of good and could lead to a prosecution. I DID make that point.

Also, if a prosecution is on-going, a TC could be a good accompanyment to a prosecution, as an important aid in educating the American people about what happened.

[leveymg]

26. So, if it's unacceptable, just stop arguing for a TC

You do understand there's a bit of a battle for the hearts and minds of progressive netroots going on about this, don't you?

Even Pelosi is posturing as a prosecution hawk. I think we should join her in that stance.

If prosecution is shown to be impossible, then we can start talking about unacceptable alternatives. Until then, I'll continue calling for a Grand Jury. You should too, unless you really want the other option. You don't, do you?

[Time for change]

29. I don't want TC in place of prosecution

I think I made that very clear in the OP.

But I don't see them as in any way mutually exclusive. I don't agree with the idea that the utilization of TCs will decrease the likelihood of prosecution. The Justice Department is responsible for prosecution, either by doing it themselves or by appointing a special prosecutor. Congress is responsible for a TC or other type of investigation. If we can't have one, we should have the other, and both would be preferable. We need as much light shone on this as possible.

[leveymg]

30. Political capital is finite. It shouldn't be used up by the weaker option.

Given the attention span of the American People, we've got one shot at this. Let it be the real deal, for a change.

[ThomWV]

31. Good point

Still, it begs the question. If the "Truth Comission" let to referals to the Justice Department then it really doesn't make much difference how jaded the public is.

I could see a time of great attention as the Comission did its public (I presume) work but then, as you say, the public appitite for it would be satisfied. However that wouldn't precude the Justice Department going forward with further investigation, collection of evidence where appropriate, possible presentation to Grand Jury, and so on leading to trials. Because the actual trials would be sometime much later, with little public attention to the meantime, it might get second wind when it was time to go to court.

[ThomWV]

33. Time For Change - Thank you for moderating a civil and serious discussion

This thread should be held up as a model for others. The tone has been more than civil and more importantly sensible comments have led to clear responses with good sound reasoning behind them. The entire string is really a pleasure to read, being devoid of the childish sniping that is so common. So, thanks again.

Thom

Hail to the Chief

[Time for change]

35. Thank you for you part in this Thom

Your questions made me think a good deal and try to organize my thoughts better.

[L. Coyote]

42. The best impact of Truth Commissions is the media attention to the crimes, then

the consequent shift in public concern that something be done. That scenario played out with Watergate hearings. The first day, the WA Post wrote that the hearings were boring! Before long, the whole nation was watching.

[Time for change]

44. Exactly -- The Watergate hearings are a great example. That's the way I see it.

[garybeck]

43. Do you understand what IMMUNITY is, or what?

Your long expose doesn't even discuss the biggest problem with Leahy's truth commission: IMMUNITY.

You say that the commision won't impede prosecutions, but that is 100% wrong because they will offer IMMUNITY to people who testify. That means that they CAN'T be prosecuted. It won't only impede the prosecution it will END IT.

[Time for change]

45. No

There is no inherant requirement that truth commission offer immunity. They might do it, or they might not. Most likely, they would offer immunity to some lower level offenders in order to get testimony that would be likely to implicate those with greater responsibility for the crimes.

The same thing happens with prosecutions.

[garybeck]

47. Leahy has said multiple times that his commission will offer immunity

yes, truth commissions by nature do not have to offer immunity

but THIS ONE, as proposed by Senator Leahy would. he has stated this many times, rather emphatically, that the only way to get people to testify is to offer them immunity. He did not say it is only for low level people.

the big flaw in your argument is that you are talking about generic truth commissions, but we have a specific thing going on here. you have to look at what Leahy is saying, not at generic truth commissions.

[Time for change]

51. We don't know to WHOM a Leahy commission would offer immunity

I believe that Leahy's words have been taken out of context. To the extent that he's mentioned immunity, he may very well be talking about immunity for lower level people, in order to get to the higher levels.

Here is a recent statement by Leahy on the subject:

Over my objection, Congress has already passed laws granting immunity to those who facilitated warrantless wiretaps and conducted cruel interrogations. The Department of Justice issued legal opinions justifying these executive branch excesses which, while legally faulty, would undermine attempts to prosecute...

You can find more on that at posts 27 and 34 in this thread. That doesn't sound to me at all like someone who is planning on taking the highest levels of the Bush administration off the hook. And Leahy has said plenty of other things too that cause me to believe that he doesn't plan to offer immunity to the higher level people. And besides, Conyers is also talking about a commission, and his ideas sound more aggressive than Leahy's.

[garybeck]

54. you are completely distorting the facts concerning Leahy's statements

here is what he said:

"We need to get to the bottom of what happened so we can make sure it never happens again … People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts …”

he also said specifically on the Rachel Maddow show, that everyone who testifies would be offered immunity. he said that's the only way to get people to testify (which is complete bullshit). he said specifically that there will be some who refuse to testify and those people would not receive immunity. you can directly infer from that, that those who testify DO get immunity. it's not taken out of context. it's what he said.

stop distorting the facts. All truth commissions do not offer blanket immunity, but that IS what Leahy wants with this one. he's been very consistent and clear on it.

[Time for change]

57. I've asked you for a link to support your claim

Instead, all I get are accusations that I'm distorting facts.

[garybeck]

58. you think i just made up the quote?

the quote I just gave came from an email letter to his constituents, just 3 days ago, asking people to sign his petition for a truth commission. i didn't make it up. in the same letter he also says that if we pursue criminal prosecutions, it will "divide the country," take a long time, and might not succede. Face it, he doesn't want indictments or prosecutions. I'm not making it up.

if you look on youtube for his recent appearances on rachel maddow show, you'll see where she asks him directly about immunity and he says it's the only way to get people to testify.

[Time for change]

59. The quote you gave me is this:

"We need to get to the bottom of what happened so we can make sure it never happens again … People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts …”

I don't see that as indicating that he plans to offer immunity to everyone. Nor do I see that as invalidating his hearings. It doesn't rule out criminal prosecutions by any means, and he may be using it just as a way to get things rolling.

None of the rest of what you told me is even in quotes. If you want people to take it seriously, and if you don't have a link, at least you could put in quotes the parts of the e-mail you received that make your point.

[ThomWV]

46. The question of immunity has been addressed several times above.

At the moment this is the case. A hearing will be held next wednesday. There are three witnesses already identified. None of the three has been offered any sort of immunity. Now I know that at this phase the question of immunity is moot - all that is being discussed is the possibility of creating a Commission and possible what its makeup and charter will be. So the question is obviously premature but it also shows us that from the beginning blanket immunity is not a queston. I expect that when the question is addressed - as it must be - we will have ample time to flood the phone lines and burry the Judiciary Committee in letters and emails.

[garybeck]

48. no

Leahy, who is driving this thing, has stated multiple times, rather emphatically, that immunity would be offered to anyone who testifies. if someone refuses to testify, they are the only ones who don't get immunity. so then we're reduced to just hoping that Rove and Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld refuse to testify, which they may, but that is a crap shoot.

just read Leahy's comments. he wants blanket immunity to everyone who testifies.

[ThomWV]

50. I have listen intently to him and he has not said that

He has spoken of immunity but he has not spoken of blanket immunity for everyone and of course as I noted - no immunity has been offered to anyone for he first session of the Judiciary Committee on this matter. However that doesn't mean you're wrong.

Call and tell them how you feel. Senator Leahy's number is 1 202 224-4242
The Judiciary Committee Majority Office number is 1 202 224-7703
The Judiciary Committee Minority Office number is 1 202 224-5225

Make your complaint where it might do some good.

[Time for change]

52. Great idea

I have never heard Leahy say anything of the sort of what garybeck is saying. If you read this, garybeck, please provide a link to back up that assertion.

[garybeck]

55. well you must not be listening to what i'm listening to

he's my senator and I get all his mailings and I've seen him on TV about this a bunch of times. he has stated clearly that the commission will offer immunity to those who testify.

[ThomWV]

60. Let me continue the discussion along another line ...

I wonder why we are considering immunity at all so long at the 5th Amendment stands? Clearly a witness can be compelled to come forward even if they don't want to answer questions and clearly they are protected from self incrimination - so, to use the words of our Republican friends, if they have nothing to hide why not come forward?

[Time for change]

61. Immunity

Typically, the purpose of immunity in criminal trials is to persuade the little fish to talk in order to catch the big fish -- those with the most responsibility for the crimes. I wouldn't mind at all if little fish are given immunity if it will help convict Bush and Cheney. I think that would be great. Keep in mind that at Nuremburg we didn't even go after most of the little fish.

The 5th amendment doesn't protect someone who incriminates themselves. It allows them to refuse to answer a question on the claim that to do so might incriminate them. But if they decide to answer the question and thereby incriminate themselves, the 5th amendment won't help them. So, I don't see how the 5th amendment dispells the need for immunity, for the reason I note in the first paragraph.

[ThomWV]

62. Here is my thinking - expanded version

I realize that invoking the 5th doesn't immunize anyone from anything, just allows them to sit silent.

I begin with no immunity for anyone but with witnesses called who must appear.

Questions are asked. At some point a witness invokes their right not to answer. At that point the Committee has to decide to offer immunity to the person or not. Let the committee vote to decide to offer this limited immunity. I realize it would slow things down and there may be other objections too.

I would also suggest this. If a Committee is formed it should include one non-voting member from the Justice Department. This member should be tasked with keeping the minutes and publishing the transcripts each day - subject to the daily approval of the Attorney General or delegated the authority of the AG to approve. That way should illegal activity be disclosed the Department of Justice can not deny knowledge of its existence.

[Time for change]

63. Your second idea sounds good to me -- I'm not so sure about the first one

In theory it sounds good. But I'm not sure how it would work in practice.

Consider a hypothetical witness against Bush, who could potentially be offered immunity to testify against him. It seems to me that unless there was some reason to believe that the potential witness actually would testify against him, s/he might not be subpoenaed to court in the first place. Only after immunity is offered would the potential witness supply enough information that it would be considered worth while to have that person testify in court. I'm not saying that it always works that way, and I'm sure that in many cases your idea would be preferable and is probably used a lot. But it also seems to me that in some cases, offering immunity may be by far the most efficient and practical way to get the ball rolling.