Indict Dubya, article by Rosemarie Jackowski.
"Impeachment has its flaws. It trivializes the war crimes. It is better than nothing, but not by much. Impeachment can result in removal from office. The criminal prosecution of George W. Bush could result in a life sentence or the death penalty."
Eric said:
Bush is the kind of man that thinks he's done us all a favor by running his administration the way he has. He strikes me as the kind of man that wants to do the right thing, who thinks he's doing the right thing, but he's too steeped in his personal dogmas (and I don't mean in the religious sense) to listen to reason.
At this point I don't see any purpose in punishing the man. Impeachment would be a slap on the wrist, and imprisoning him or sentencing him to death doesn't make any sense when all the damage has already been done. Punishment for a leader is largely symbolic; it is a clear sign that we, the people, are not willing to accept what has been done. What power would that message have now? "We'll put up with whatever shit you pull while you're in office but as soon as you're done with your second term we'll let you have it!" That's like a parent that starts counting down when a child is doing something he's not supposed to be doing, and when the child doesn't cease the parent says how angry he is and starts another countdown.
The focus should be on fixing the mess and reducing corporate and governmental corruption. Perhaps punishing Bush would be a step toward regaining our dignity, but I get the sense most people don't care about solutions when they talk of his punishment so much as they are out for blood. The American people have to stop playing the victim and they need to stand up to daddy government. They've got no heroes but themselves and no one else to blame if things continue down a wayward course.
Eolake:
To me, the point of an indictment would not be to punish or correct Bush. Of course that's absurd, he is just a small cog. The point is to send a message to all Americans and to the whole world that unprovoked war-mongering is murder. Obviously many, many people need this message, otherwise there would be peace on Earth.
Update: it just struck me: Those who pushed the war said that the purpose of it was to get rid of the evil Saddam regime. They got rid of it. So how come there's still fighting?
14 comments:
Hopefully History will get it right and report that more Iraqi children were killed during the Clinton Administration than under both Bush Administrations...
Were these deaths as the result of US Military action or inaction? If through inaction would there been as many deaths if the first Gulf War had not happened?
One could almost thank Bin Laden for helping to end the "troubles" between UK and Ireland.
More Falkland Islanders died in the years between Spanish occupation and the Argentinian attacks than during the attacks themselves.
Seems like you never get the full truth without lots of research. Does anyone publish facts?
Let's not change the subject, please.
I love spin-doctors as much as anyone but we were on the topic of 'Dubya' and his fate, remember?
A criminal trial and/or the death penalty will never happen, and that's good, because he ought to be allowed to live with the disgrace and shame of being, in the words of one American journalist, 'the worst president this country ever had'.
- Ray.
I doubt he can feel shame. Otherwise he'd have taken his own life by now.
Feel shame? Heck, in his own twisted mind, he's certainly proud of the services he's rendered to his nation, and it's the rest of the world that is ungrateful.
Bush is the kind of man that thinks he's done us all a favor by running his administration the way he has. He strikes me as the kind of man that wants to do the right thing, who thinks he's doing the right thing, but he's too steeped in his personal dogmas (and I don't mean in the religious sense) to listen to reason.
At this point I don't see any purpose in punishing the man. Impeachment would be a slap on the wrist, and imprisoning him or sentencing him to death doesn't make any sense when all the damage has already been done. Punishment for a leader is largely symbolic; it is a clear sign that we, the people, are not willing to accept what has been done. What power would that message have now? "We'll put up with whatever shit you pull while you're in office but as soon as you're done with your second term we'll let you have it!" That's like a parent that starts counting down when a child is doing something he's not supposed to be doing, and when the child doesn't cease the parent says how angry he is and starts another countdown.
The focus should be on fixing the mess and reducing corporate and governmental corruption. Perhaps punishing Bush would be a step toward regaining our dignity, but I get the sense most people don't care about solutions when they talk of his punishment so much as they are out for blood. The American people have to stop playing the victim and they need to stand up to daddy government. They've got no heroes but themselves and no one else to blame if things continue down a wayward course.
To me, the point of an indictment would not be to punish or correct Bush. Of course that's absurd, he is just a small cog. The point is to send a message to all Americans and to the whole world that unprovoked war-mongering is murder. Obviously many, many people need this message, otherwise there would be peace on Earth.
As an anti-war American, I can only say that an indictment would not have the effect that you might intend. Just as the war in Iraq didn't have the effect Bush et al intended, and for similar reasons. The "law of unintended consequences" seems to be that the bigger the unfortunate act, the more massive the collateral damage will be... An international indictment against an American president would be less of a blip than a million dead Iraqis, but to the American people, it would still just be a blip.
What we would listen to is something that would impact our way of life, i.e., economy. And if we actually perceived that impact as coming from an identifiable source, someone would likely be disproportionately punished for that. We have a hyperactive immune system that way. We may not be able to win, but we can certainly create a lot of losers along the way.
I'm sure you're right, that very few people would get the message. Most would just attack as usual, either attack Bush or attack his accusers.
My experience tells me this is so, but my heart tells me they would *have* to be able to get so simple a message.
"The point is to send a message to all Americans and to the whole world that unprovoked war-mongering is murder. Obviously many, many people need this message, otherwise there would be peace on Earth."
The problem is that the people who really need to take this message to heart aren't going to change their ways regardless of what happens to Bush. If Bush is punished, they will learn what they shouldn't do if they don't want to get caught. You can't convince a psychopath that there is value in other human lives, and you can't convince a self-righteous zealot that he should take a different course of action.
This has to be dealt with on a more fundamental level. The average person could stand to be more aware of their own psychology and by extension the psychology of others, and we'd be better off as a species if more individuals took responsibility for themselves. We can't stop psychopaths and the self-righteous from seeking power but we can severely limit the damage they can do through greater awareness and a willingness to take action.
Bush's crimes are not my crimes. No individual American bears the weight of his sins, but as a nation we are as responsible for what he has done as he is.
"My experience tells me this is so, but my heart tells me they would *have* to be able to get so simple a message."
I think it's possible to get through to them, but it won't happen through reason or punishment or threats. It takes somebody that can get close to this person and unearth their humanity long enough to show them the humanity in others. That can be very difficult to do. Look at Dick Cheney; he has a lesbian daughter and he still opposes gay marriage.
Of course, punishment does send a powerful message if you catch and convict a war criminal that's extremely clever. When that happens all but the boldest and the cleverest of corrupt officials will dock their unsavory schemes. Bush isn't clever, Bush isn't subtle, and nobody has made a serious effort against him in the eight years of his reign. We could have sent a powerful message but we lost our chance.
The one way it could potentially help is if the officials that bring him to justice create a pattern of positive change, since that will send a very powerful message in the future. I would only want to see Bush indicted if it served as a stepping stone to greater victories.
Forget impeachment, which should have occured in 2003. Can somebody justify his friggin, this time uncheating, 2004 RE-ELECTION?!?
"he's too steeped in his personal dogmas (and I don't mean in the religious sense)"
You mean, not only in the religious sense!
Anybody who found God at the bottom of a booze bottle is a fool to be pitied (in the immortal words of Mister T.).
"[...]the evil Saddam regime. They got rid of it. So how come there's still fighting?"
I admire your mock candor.
Speaking of which, let's not forget that the original Kandor was ALSO at the bottom of a bottle!
Alex innocented...
"Seems like you never get the full truth without lots of research. Does anyone publish facts?"
Facts? You can't HANDLE the facts, junior!
Besides, facts are what the war's winners decide to be facts.
Ray utopised...
"A criminal trial and/or the death penalty will never happen, and that's good, because he ought to be allowed to live with the disgrace and shame"
As they commonly say in Lebanon, "he's without feeling". An expression meaning, as others pointed out, that he's by nature shameless, clueless, impervious to shame. So forgive me if I find your suggested punishment too "uncruel and usual". :-/
Anyway, we all know that George You-Double-Boobie is just a sorry puppet. The real deciding culprits will remain untouched in the shadows, counting their billions in blood money profits. Justice is not of THIS world.
Eric dared...
"Bush [...] strikes me as the kind of man"...
Well, he doesn't strike me as the kindest man. ):-P
Alas, according to my New Year predictions, the american voters are probably stupid enough to elect McCain and keep the mess going.
BlankPhotog confessed...
"We may not be able to win, but we can certainly create a lot of losers along the way."
Spoken like a true American! :-(
Eolake furthered...
"Most would just attack as usual, either attack Bush or attack his accusers."
Well, d'uh! Obvious definition of the US society. (And if you dare contradict me, I'll sue you for Free Speech impeding! And for your shirt.)
Eric worried...
"If Bush is punished, they will learn what they shouldn't do if they don't want to get caught."
Well, it's hard to conceal the evidence with some of the hugest crimes, especially if you're going to brag on worldwide TV about how noble a deed you're doing.
I dare say that even if Saddam actually had some of what was claimed in illegal weapons, it would be a very poor excuse for what was done to the Iraqi people. I mean, Abu Ghraib? How come a country that's been proficient at truth serum use since the Cold War espionnage started, still prefers to resort to torture, unless they thoroughly enjoy being sadistic racists?
If the Americans had WANTED to face an uncontrollable insurrection, I couldn't imagine a better advice than to do exactly what they've done.
Same in Afghanistan. I heard this on French news, in the wake of 10 of their soldiers getting killed in an ambush this week: today, the Taliban have pretty much complete control of HALF THE COUNTRY. Bloody Muhammad's beard! So much for the world's mightiest coalition armada's efficiency against a bunch of barefoot illiterate obtuse bedouins. My feeling is, the Afghans just don't want to be helped. They act pretty much like the Taliban in religious extremism, they have Taliban traitors potentially infiltrated in every one of their army units, and they grant amnisty to every Taliban (save for Mullah Omar himself... maybe!) who defects and agrees to change sides.
You can drag the billygoat to the water if you have a powerful enough tractor, but...
"We can't stop psychopaths and the self-righteous from seeking power but we can severely limit the damage they can do through greater awareness and a willingness to take action."
And a reluctance to elect them and hand them on a silver platter the power to groddy fwazz up!
"Bush's crimes are not my crimes."
But if you voted for him, you should stop beating around the bush. Instead, be a man and beat smack ON the bush!
But wait for your turn, because I'm definitely making the best of MY time.
"nobody has made a serious effort against him in the eight years of his reign. We could have sent a powerful message but we lost our chance."
Yeah, not even when the Democrats gained the majority in both the Congress and the Senate. Wusses, morons, or collaborators? No, don't tell me, I can't handle the ugly truth.
It is a simple matter of JUSTICE. Anyone who murders innocent civilians should be prosecuted.
rosemarie jackowski
Yes, but a huge portion of the American population supported the war, directly or indirectly. This makes "justice" problematic. Dubya could not have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis on his own.
I'm reminded of the Rwanda genocide. Millions took part in the rioting slaughter of million others. There comes a moment when there's no possible way to execute or even imprison all those undoubtedly guilty.
Slightly fortunately, in that region they have in their culture some sort of "ceremony of Atonement" (probably from the days of pre-colonial skirmish-style tribal wars), which has allowed the country to not disintegrate completely (though I'm not so sure it would be a bad thing...). This ritual makes all idea of vengeance get abandoned. But I don't think the pain is alleviated in any way.
My idea is, murderous warmongerers should all get bannished in a place where they would exclusively live among each others. That would rid the rest of us of their madness, and give them the best imaginable punishment: eat their own medicine till indigestion! They would also soon discover that war destroys crops and causes famin, epidemics... Basically, I recommend making them and them alone, "enjoy" the fate that they're inflicting more or less on the whole planet today. Let's make a world law stating that anybody who wants to wage war must move to the International War Zone with those of their enemies who agree to the "duel". I'm sure it's possible to find the space, with a large enough safety zone around the whole poorly-aiming nut-camp, equipped with everything but WMDs.
They would also be able to pollute only their own area, and I bet this would be globally very beneficial for the planet.
It's not even about inflicting punishment. It's about putting a healthy distance between peace lovers and the others. Said others would be left to alone create their punishment. I think it's pretty fair, and educational. Should they happen to calm down, they punishment would end by itself. Amen.
Okay, I confess: after combing my catnip-addicted feline, I smoked the hair. Gave me nice rosy dreams for a few minutes.
In real life, there is no way to separate the war lovers from the others. Because a vast majority will find some sort of excuse to "just wars". :-(
Many people tried to do the opposite. Create an isolated community of peace lovers. Usually they either started fighting among each other again, or turned into another typical cult where the strong freely abused the weak.
Welcome to Planet Asylum, inmates. "Pick your poison."
Ray rooted...
"I love spin-doctors as much as anyone"
The academically correct term is Gyrology Professors, or Weavists. They're the geniuses who invented the Tangled Web of Deceit, sometimes referred to as the Mind Cocoon among specialists.
The problem with the American people is quite a universal one. It's based on a phenomenon which modern Psychology calls "Cognitive Dissonance". Basically, it's about the lies one's Ego will resort to in order to preserve one's self-image. It states, and has been confirmed by modern experiments as well as being the principle behing brainwashing, that the bigger you mess up and go wrong, the more you'll unconsciously persuade yourself that you made the right decision and refuse to reconsider.
If the USA had had a small dispute with Russia, afterwards they would've said: "Okay, maybe we were wrong and it wasn't worth getting all worked up over." But if that same country launched a fully unjustified, vastly murderous war on a country that didn't deserve it and is worse off now than ever before, that's a huge mistake, and self-loving would encourage you as a citizen to deny the facts and rationalize everything that was done.
Why? Simply because the worse you fwazz up, the more it causes a dissonance in the harmony of your self-image, which is typically "I'm a loveable person", and the greater need there is for a courageous and spiritually advanced mind to admit you did something very wrong and bad, breaking the spiral of self-deceit. Post-WW2 Germany had that courage (proving they were indeed a civilized people at the individual level). G.W. Bush is the opposite. The worse he messes up, the more frantically he'll cling to his official specch (I quote very precisely): "I am convinced I made the right decision about the Iraq war, it was justified, and we're keeping course." A fragile and unintelligent Ego, such as of a former alcoholic, current bigot and lifelong self-righteous daddy's boy hypocrite, will never-ever accept the bitter truth, because it cannot handle the truth. Literally.
All cult leaders, fanatic religious preachers and charismatic dictators are experts, consciously or unconsciously, at inducing cognitive dissonance in their followers. Leading them to the only conclusion that makes sense to their self-misled minds: "It must be the whole of the rest of the world that's gone mad, if they all say that I was wrong." Self-justification is a terrifyingly powerful force. No antidote exists except education at a high spiritual level, which would teach full honesty towards oneself.
Which leads me to the logical, unavoidable conclusion: things will NEVER get better, EXCEPT if and when the world in its globality advances beyond pathetic narcissism.
Narcissism being tightly linked to paranoia, as I explain in my Anxiety essay (to be published soon). It's everything BUT an accident if today's U.S. society, and the U.K. and most of their most faithful allies in Iraq, are merrily sinking themselves into bewildering inside paranoia, all the way to a Parkinsonian granny snapping shots of her grandchildren in a public place, "most probably planning a terrorist plot of pedophile kidnapping with the goal to offend God and bring His wrath down upon our entire nation".
Post a Comment