tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11093162.post5406281127282912048..comments2024-03-23T19:16:01.555-07:00Comments on Can it happen here?: Looking ahead to "after Bush"janinsanfranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07548452260456734928noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11093162.post-86278252523065723552008-07-23T07:12:00.000-07:002008-07-23T07:12:00.000-07:00Link to DN with Greenwald and Sunstein quoted abov...<A HREF="http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/22/obama_adviser_cass_sunstein_debates_glenn" REL="nofollow">Link to DN</A> with Greenwald and Sunstein quoted above.Nellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01969732734453586544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11093162.post-26060646497224843882008-07-23T07:09:00.000-07:002008-07-23T07:09:00.000-07:00In an appearance on Democracy Now with Glenn Green...In an appearance on Democracy Now with Glenn Greenwald, Sunstein was if anything worse: lying about the content of the new FISA law, dismissing Greenwald's points about accountability as "emotional", unable to pronounce the military tribunals at Guantanamo show trials, and (simultaneously!) more concerned about bipartisanship than justice wrt possible criminal trials of Bush-Cheney officials:<BR/><BR/><I> It’s important to think, not in a fussy way, but in a way that ensures the kind of fairness our system calls for. It’s important to distinguish various processes by which we can produce accountability. I don’t believe the courtroom is the exclusive route. Congress is our national lawmaker, and there are processes there that could have a bipartisan quality. There are also commissions that can be created, commissions that can try to figure out what’s happened, what’s gone wrong and how can we make this better. <BR/><BR/><BR/>When I talk about a fear of criminalizing political disagreement, I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t criminalize crimes. Crimes are against the law, and if there’s been egregious wrongdoing in violation of the law, then it’s not right to put a blind eye to that. So I guess I’m saying that emotions play an important role in thinking about what the legal system should be doing. But under our constitutional order, we go back and forth between the emotions and the legal requirements, and that’s a way of guaranteeing fairness. And as I say, very important to have a degree of bipartisanship with respect to subsequent investigations.</I><BR/><BR/>In the face of what we know about the policy of torture, the twisting of the Justice Department to partisan purposes, the hints about the scale and purpose of the warrantless domestic spying, and the complete and total Republican Congressional complicity in all this, having "a degree of bipartisanship" in the investigations seems neither possible nor particularly desirable except as a way to blunt them.Nellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01969732734453586544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11093162.post-178396273963561832008-07-22T08:39:00.000-07:002008-07-22T08:39:00.000-07:00Jan, Thanks for this. First I've heard of this an...Jan, Thanks for this. First I've heard of this and we need to think right now about post-election. <BR/><BR/>Could I add Medicare for All to your list...time's running out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com