Display:
Truth and reconciliation is probably good for whatever low-level apparatchiks who possess sufficiently useful skills to be retained in the absence of political patronage. But I am not sure that it would be a good idea for the highest echelons.

There has been an unfortunate history of American administrations committing crimes against humanity and walking away with barely a slap on the wrist. The truth and reconciliation committees worked in part because there was a very real threat that those involved would have been tried and convicted and lived out the rest of their lives in prison. I don't believe that anyone in the Bush regime believes that this is a realistic option when it comes to their crimes, so prosecuting a few of the end-of-level bad guys would show the rest of the gang that you mean business.

Actually prosecuting some of the bushies and putting them behind bars for a very long time would also demonstrate to the rest of the world that there are limits to the atrocities that US administrations can wreak with impunity. I should not think that I need to stress the effect this would have on the image and soft power of the US.

- Jake

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 Jun 15th, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Focused criminal prosecution, to be completed post-election, has few problems that I can see. As you point out, there would be great value.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 at 03:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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