Question for the Candidates: “Is Pursuing Justice, Partisan Bickering?”

In a recent post, “Bush’s Aspirational Words on Timetables, and Torture,” I briefly touched on the Bush administration’s sorry record when it comes to the issue of torture. It would be my hope that, one day, those guilty of trampling our Constitution, our laws, and international Conventions and treaties on any issue, but especially on the issue of human rights, would be made to face Justice.

Sadly not everyone has the same expectations.

In a recent Newsweek article (“The Truth About Torture“), Stuart Taylor Jr. tells us that, “To get a full accounting of how U.S. interrogation methods were used, the president should give those accused of ‘war crimes’ a pass.”

More specifically, and for the sake of getting “a full and true accounting of what took place” Taylor proposes:

President George W. Bush ought to pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution for interrogation methods approved by administration lawyers.

With respect to Bush pardoning Vice President Dick Cheney or himself, Taylor finds this “unseemly,“ but takes solace in the hope that “the next president wouldn’t allow them to be prosecuted anyway—galling as that may be to critics.”

Taylor gives various reasons for all of us to forgive and forget any and all criminal acts that may have been committed by administration officials:

“Legal”: “The officials involved appear to have approved only interrogation methods found legal by administration lawyers, and in particular by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to long tradition, the OLC is considered a sort of Supreme Court of the executive branch.” And, “officials could raise a nearly airtight defense of good-faith reliance on advice of counsel—OLC memos on approved methods would be like “get out of jail free” cards.”

Compassionate: “The goals [of Taylor‘s substitute for criminal investigations, a “Truth Commission”] should not include wrecking the lives of men and women who made grievous mistakes while doing dirty work.”

There are even shades of the Nuremberg Defense: “dirty work…they had been advised by administration lawyers was legal.”

And, of course, the national security issue: “dirty work…which they believed was necessary to prevent terrorist mass murder.”

But the main thrust of Taylor’s argument for convening a “truth commission,” and for all of us to just get along would be to:

“Explore every possible misdeed and derive lessons from it…to uncover all important facts, identify innocent victims to be compensated, foster a serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be, recommend legal reforms, pave the way for appropriate apologies and restore America’s good name.”

Excuse me, but who are we going to “compensate” if there were no “war crimes” and thus no victims?

“Foster a serious conversation about what U.S. interrogation rules should be?” I thought we already had such rules—before the Office of Legal Council, and others, rewrote them or ignored them.

And, didn’t we go through similar “pardoning“ experiences along with “serious conversations” after the Watergate and Iran-Contra “scandals,” effectively “destining” us to repeat history—as we clearly are.

“Restore America’s good name?” By pardoning the criminals, by “paving the way for appropriate apologies,” and by singing Kum Ba Yah?

Perhaps Taylor’s most “compelling” argument for giving those accused of war crimes a pass, are his concluding comments that sweeping this national tragedy under the rug will make it possible for our new president, especially if it is Barack Obama, to get “beyond partisan bickering.”

Investigating and prosecuting criminal conduct, “partisan bickering?”

And, has anyone bothered to ask Barack Obama (or John McCain, for that matter) whether he considers pursuing justice to be “partisan bickering?”