Display:
But AFAIK truth and reconciliation have yet to be tested on international crimes. And that aside, while truth and reconciliation will undoubtedly be a necessity for the mid- and lowlevel appointees [1], we need to put away Cheney, Rumsfeldt et al until they are old and grey - well, older and greyer. A lot of the top cronies are by all accounts simply incapable of truth and conciliation, nevermind reconciliation.

- Jake

[1] If for no other reason (and there are plenty of other reasons) then because you can't de-Nixonify the US by imprisoning every criminal involved - that would leave them almost completely without civil servants.

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 11:21:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It would indeed be new ground in multiple ways, and I would welcome long, long prison terms for the leaders responsible.

By US law, however, international treaties are themselves US law, and so at least some international crimes are automatically domestic as well. Also, the broader purpose of truth and reconciliation is the transformative effect of making past horrors common knowledge, which brings people closer together by giving them a shared understanding of reality -- this cannot not guarantee harmony, but it lessens a cause for discord.

And if the process didn't include a promise of immunity for the top deciders, it would help build the political consensus necessary for prosecution, and that prosecution being seen as legitimate.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 03:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series