Why I agree with President Obama that the Bush Co cabal should not be prosecuted.

[Savannahmann]

51. The idea of accepting the dirty tricks and unethical behavior began in Italy

Post World War II. The Marshall plan hadn't even gotten started yet. The Italian elections were due to be held, and it looked as if the Communist Party would win huge victories, and the loss of Italy to the Communists was considered unthinkable. So the State Department funneled illegal money to the anti-Communist parties and helped them win an electoral victory. Yes, we broke the law, but we learned that by doing bad things, we could get good results. We accepted and embraced the idea that the ends justify the means as far as the CIA and covert actions went.

That first step seems minor today, funneling money into a political campaign. We would laugh heartily if we found out that was all the CIA was up to today. We would giggle like school girls, literally. But from that first tiny step, there were other steps, and ones beyond that. Each step justified taking the next. Each step was the precedent for taking the next step.

So which step is wrong? Which step is too far? Torture is bad, so that step shall see people punished. Fine, but then was President Clinton wrong in bombing an Aspirin Factory? People died, and so we must hold him accountable right? Back another administration, and we're in another Bush. Was the invasion of Panama really legal? Don't we have to round up some people and hold a trial about that?

Each step led to the next one. The slippery slope argument played out since the end of World War II. We can do one bad thing, and if that works or not, it's the foundation of the next bad thing. We have to start by getting everyone across the line and telling them that this time nobody crosses that line, ever. Because if we object to the Torture, then do we have to hold people accountable for kidnapping suspects from nations without extradition and dumping them in the US where the courts have already decided that the way the defendant got here is irrelevant, the fact that he's here is all that is relevant?

So if the courts can turn their backs on Kidnappings that took place outside of the United States, what makes you think that they will decide they have the jurisdiction to enforce American law in other nations?

The ICC would work, but we're not a part of that. So where do we hold the trials?