I had an interesting discussion with my Pa, dealing with whomever is the next president- my Pa thinks that McCain is a basically honorable and honest guy, I think he is a bit of a bafoon in trusting big corp cronies,

The subject of discussion was this: I am quite sure, if Obama were elected, and he found evidence that GW had broken the law, that he would make this public, but I don't think McCain would. My Pa's answer was "if McCain thought it would be better to move on and not harm the country anymore, he would just let it lie"

So, in the principles and personal philosophy debate:

Would it be moral or ethical, if an incoming president found illegal behavior in some iron clad evidence, perhaps even classified by the former president, for the incoming president to keep this classified so the nation could "heal" (something like the reasoning Gerald Ford was said to have pardoned Nixon)

Or would it be the correct thing to declassify the material, arrest and try the president upon learning of this behavior?

Is it good for a country to prosecute former leaders for thier behaviors, and uphold the law, or to "let it go" and "let the healing begin"?

Quiet?

As for the rest of the questions if the fantasy is that now, since there won't be any Impeachment, Obama will save you all by frog marching Bush/Cheney to the Hague I guess you're in for more bitter disappointment. No wonder people like you are so damned angry all the time.

Happy Birthday by the way. I hope you got away from it all for a day. You really deserve and need to.

Actually- I was more thinking along the lines of Nixon- but sure, whatever- I am thinking- in this day and age, do we 'spare the nation the heartache and turmoil" or do we "do the right thing"

And BTW- I was thinking more of throwing them naked out of a former Enron corporate learjet at 40k feet- but hey- you have your wishes, I have mine.

[quote name='CruisingRam' date='Mar 9 2008, 04:51 PM' post='240004']Would it be moral or ethical, if an incoming president found illegal behavior in some iron clad evidence, perhaps even classified by the former president, for the incoming president to keep this classified so the nation could "heal" (something like the reasoning Gerald Ford was said to have pardoned Nixon)

Or would it be the correct thing to declassify the material, arrest and try the president upon learning of this behavior?
One of the problems with your scenario lies in the "declassification." There are laws regarding declassifying things, laws that probably would prevent your wet dream from being realized. That aside, the President's oath is to defend and protect the Constitution and the country. Ford's pardon of Nixon was the best thing that could have happened. Nixon was done and disgraced, nothing save the vengeance of his enemies would have been served by prosecuting him. There's no doubt that your motivation would be vengeance.

Is it good for a country to prosecute former leaders for thier behaviors, and uphold the law, or to "let it go" and "let the healing begin"? "Depends" What was the behavior? Treason? What's the cost of each course of action? The truth of the matter is simply this: We have so many laws on the books that I seriously doubt any of us can go more than a week without breaking one, and that includes the President. Which means that any authority type with an axe to grind can grind it on whatever poor sap they choose, including an ex-President. And everybody knows it, which works to undermine any "iron clad" evidence that comes forth. Vindictive prosecution, or even the perception of vindictive prosecution, bears the potential of being as destructive to the country as anything your fevered imagination conjures coming from the Bush Administration.

...and what of justice?

Do we let burglars and arsonist go free all long as everyone knows they're "disgraced"?

Vengeance my left eye, the only message Ford's pardon sent was that yes, some people really are above the law.

Only in cases directly to do with security is keeping quiet desirable... and even then special highly regulated courts should still deal out appropriate punishment.

Let some of these petty criminals go why don't you? How good does that sound?

It's crooks like Nixon that really deserved jail time.

Most here are too young to remember much about the Watergate days. It's one thing to read re-written history in black and white, and quite another to have lived through it. This nation was reeling. We had gone through the awful experience of Vietnam, scandals at the highest levels of the government, including the resignation of a Vice President, and faced the very probable possibility that a President would be impeached and removed from office for the first time in history. We were under economic attack from OPEC with their oil embargo, inflation was rampant and people were losing their jobs right and left. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was at peak power and had clamped down on reformist movements in Eastern Europe..... and got away with it. We couldn't challenge them. Not long before all of this, true leaders in our own country, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, and Bobby Kennedy were gunned down by assassins. Students were killed at Kent State by National Guard troops, and American military troops returning from the hell that was Vietnam were spit on and called "baby-killers" by their fellow citizens. Yeah, those were great times and so many of the self-proclaimed "experts" posting here seem to think we went downhill once Reagan took over.

Now, in the name of "justice" and 20/20 antiseptic hindsight we should have further stirred the pot and put a disgraced former President on trial. President Ford made a politically courageous decision to move forward. It most certainly was a large reason why he lost his election against Jimmy Carter. But, he made that decision for the good of the country. We had to move forward, not look back. A Nixon trial would have accomplished nothing other than to further rip this nation apart. There would have been no "justice" there at all.


Aquilla

Touching and irrelevant.

Would have done harm to the country to see the principles of democracy upheld against all odds?

Would it have been better had Washington just surrendered at Valley Forge so that everyone could just go home to a warm bed?

Ford showed cowardice not courage.

Rather than trust the our principles of equality and justice could endure the test of fair trial he chose to protect the powerful and betray the nation's spirit.

Your post is neither touching nor relevant to the issue of "justice". It's all about vengeance. "We've got Dick Nixon on the floor, let's kick him while he's down". That's not justice.



The system worked. Nixon resigned and we moved on.



What in the hell does this have to do with anything? Talk about irrelevant.




Oh really? How? If Nixon had gone on trial what effect would that have had on Ford? How did it benefit Ford to pardon Nixon? I can tell you how it hurt him, tell me how it helped him.




Our principles of equality and justice do not include vengeance.


Aquilla

...point to where I mentioned or implied vengeance.

You're grasping at straws now.

Nixon was a criminal and deserved to be sentenced according to the law. Ford's cowardice was in now facing down his partisans and allowing the legal system to take its course. He caved to his fellow Republicans and denied justice.

It hurt his personal ambitions, but then he knew he had no chance of winning anyway under Nixon's shadow. He cut his losses and kept the esteem of Nixon's cronies.

One part of the law is to prevent the same wrongdoing again, to hold the president to the same standard as any other criminal in the nation.


Aquilla, why should a guy that steals 40 bucks from a mugging get more jail time than the president for a coup attempt?

What we had there was justice denied- and Gerald Ford's actions- even he thought it best- has shown us the powerful get a "pass"- the only thing that happened to Nixon was that he lost his job- big whoop.

He didn't have all his money and possession taken away, and put in a jail cell to contemplate his crimes, in fact, he was more than a bit arrogant about the whole deal.

I have always wondered why we give a "pass" to the powerful, and don't make them take responsibility for thier crimes- but man, a welfare mom or black person- we are all about vengence, punishment, throwing away the key and "personal responsibility"

Why don't we have the same set of standards for our president?

Nixon's crime was an outright coup attempt- this would be treason- why not have actually hung him from the gallows- the crime was certainly bad enough to warrant it- I mean damn, we should at least have jailed him for the same amount of time that we gave someone that was convicted of simple Marijuana possession the same year Nixon did his thing- 20 or 30 years on jail in some states.

Aquilla- my point is there will NEVER be any "healing" as long as the powerful are allowed to escape justice like Nixon did.

You may have the basis for a malfeasance lawsuit against anyone who taught you American history of the 1970's. What purpose would putting Richard Nxon on trial have served other than to prolong the entire Watergate scandal? That certainly would have been good for the country.

Your partisan comment is completely ridiculous. It was Barry Goldwater who told Nixon to resign for the good of the country. Ford had no reason to court any favors. He was the President for goodness sakes. How much higher could he go? Pope?

There is absolutely no basis for your arguments here other than vengeance. To couch them as "justice" is quite frankly, less than honest.


Aquilla

Then you hold a person sentanced to jail for simple marijuana possesion as needing jail time- for what reason? than Nixon, for his coup attempt?

What purpose does it hold to NOT hold our most powerful to the same standards as we hold ordinary citizens?

...to use a little of your own reasoning what reason have I for dishonesty.

These are men who had passed into irrelevance well before my birth and this is after all just a net debate, nothing to do with he price of tea in China.

I am however pretty well versed in history and Mrs. Miller would no doubt be insulted that you maligned her AP American History class.

I shall notify the College Board forthwith!

You are arguing in platitudes saying that a fair trial would have been bad for the country because...

...it would have been emotional? Divisive?

Are we so weak a nation that we cannot endure the exercise of our own just laws?

Ford was not interested in rising higher, his fall was inevitable, his day as president numbered.

He figured better a "good old boy" than a morally victorious outcast.

What the HELL are are talking about? A coup attempt?

Maybe you should explain Watergate to me again...

Nah, if you haven't figured out 8th grade civics and what Nixon was trying to do, then I am not going to explain it to you either.

If Ms. Miller were here, I would be more than happy to debate her about 1970's American History. What I would do would argue the context of the times, the "big picture" argument. I would ask her to weigh he benefits of a protracted trial of a former President in the interest of "justice" against the continued division of this country in already troubled times. What good would putting Richard Nixon have done really? Would it have lowered crime on our streets? Would it have kept OPEC from stopping our oil supply? Would it have saved anyone's job or lowered inflation? Would we have been a better nation by looking back instead of looking forward and addressing the problems of the day? Richard Nixon was gone, some of his people were in jail and he couldn't hurt America anymore. Gerald Ford was the President and his responsibility was to lead the nation into the future. We had plenty enough on our plate without focusing on the past. Congress continued to do their thing and pass laws to make sure that the stuff that happened under Nixon and those before him would never happen again.

And, Ford's fall was hardly inevitable. He only lost by 2% of the vote.

Aquilla

Is it good for a country to prosecute former leaders for thier behaviors, and uphold the law, or to "let it go" and "let the healing begin"?

I don't think "let it go" and "let the healing begin" are necessarily the same thing. And on the other side, I don't think presecuting former leaders the minute they leave office - at least in the present day United States - is going to be very useful.

I think it is far more important, in the kind of circumstances we're talking about here, to have some kind of South Africa-style "truth and reconciliation commission" to find out specifically what happened, specifically what went wrong to allow it to happen, and specifically what reforms need to be made to prevent it happening again than it is to initiate prosecutions that will only open up divisive wounds along broadly party lines.

It matters much more that nobody in the highest office can ever be like Nixon again (or Clinton or Bush II or whoever your bugbear happens to be) than that Nixon (or whomever) be prosecuted for what the did or didn't do.

My old boss and I once had a conversation where I said a mistake is only a mistake if you make it twice. He agreed, but added that you should only be punished if you did it again a third time. The first time you didn't know any better. The second time you were human. Only if you did it again after that could anyone say you were stupid or malign. That's the kind of logic we should be applying here, I think.

To reiterate Turneas question then Aquilla- why incarcerate anybody- after all, if the thief or murderer loses thier job, and is humiliated pubically, what good does it do to incarcerate them- after all, they are mighty sorry for what they done.

Why hold the powerless to a higher standard than the powerful?

Welllll... Maybe to deter them from doing it again? Did Richard Nixon repeat his offenses by getting re-elected President and abusing the system all over again? Was he able to "get away with it", whatever it was he did? So what would have been the purpose of putting Richard Nixon on trial? Think that would have caused some guy who was going to rob a liquor store to decide not to do it. "Oh geez! They tried Nixon! Maybe I better not rob that store and instead go teach Sunday school." Think that would have happened? What would have changed if Richard Nixon had been put on trial for something? What would really have changed? I'll tell you what, not a damn thing. There would still have been the Church hearings and the FISA legislation and the infamous "wall" between the CIA and the FBI that bit us on our butt on 9/11. The only thing that might have been good about trying Richard Nixon is that Ford might have won the election and we would have been spared from the disaster that that was the Carter Administration. But, we survived that as well.


Aquilla

If the only purpose of our justice system was to prevent individual criminals from committing their crimes repeatedly it would be a colossal failure.

Our recidivism rate is sky high.

There is another goal of the justice system, to give incentive other criminals of the same type to think twice before they attempt to follow in their footsteps.

What do you think "scared straight" is all about? Politicians who know malfeasance could land them in a jail cell might try a little harder to uphold the public trust.

...and of course justice is its own reward its a basic value.

Then why jail murderers Aquilla- they have one of the lowest recidivist rates of any criminal of any kind?

What you and CR fail to realize is that the Watergate era in our history was not about a failure in our system of government. In fact, it was a success. A brilliant success. The system worked. A President who had been elected by an enormous margin just a few years before was forced to resign his office by members of his own party. The existence of the White House tapes was uncovered not by a partisan opponent of his, but rather by the chief counsel for his own party on the Watergate Committee - Fred Thompson. Nixon wasn't told to resign by a partisan Democrat like Ted Kennedy, he was told to do that for the good of the country by the dean of the Conservative Republicans - Barry Goldwater. The system worked. People put aside their partisan differences in favor of protecting the country and our system of government. Goldwater told Nixon it was important to the country that he not fight impeachment. Goldwater told Nixon that the nation was more important than Nixon was. Does anyone here think that lesson has been lost on future Presidents? Nobody here has been able to define with any specifics what good could have come from a criminal prosecution of Richard Nixon. My claim is that such a prosecution would have only served to focus the attention of the country on the past instead of on the problems that we faced in the present. Congress continued to investigate exactly what happened after Nixon left office and wrote legislation to attempt to prevent it from happening again. Meanwhile, we had other issues to address and at that time partisan bickering over Richard Nixon's trial would not have been helpful in addressing those problems at all. Ford thought it in the best interest of the country that we move on. I was never a big Ford supporter in those days, I was already a "foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution", but in this case, Ford did the right thing with the pardon.


Aquilla

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.

I know. I know.

...but the fact is arguing that things could be worse isn't the same thing as supporting a claim of unqualified success.

I don't really care to characterize the Watergate era in general.

History happens.

I'm speaking specifically about the propriety of pardoning a high-profile criminal who rather than admit his wrong doing sought to shield himself from justice at every turn.

Pardons should be given to the innocent or at the very least the remorseful and only a few of the latter.

What did Nixon do to deserve pardon?


That is the nature of criminal prosecution, it's all about the past. We don't have a pre-crime division just yet.

...but that's hardly a reason to deny justice.

As the head of the executive branch responsible for executing our laws, the US president is supposed to represent the rule of law more than anybody. He shouldn't even be speeding or jaywalking. If we look the other way when they bend and break the law and then we start setting a dangerous precedent of the president being above the law. We can argue all we want about how much it will help the nation to heal to let bygones be bygones, but the law is the law, and if we can't expect accountability from the greatest of us, how can we expect it from the least of us. If they can have congressional hearings, FBI investigations, and possible prosecutions of freaking baseball players (I don't buy baseball tickets but I have to buy congressional hearings on baseball) then we should have no qualms about doing the same for our president.

Public trust in politicians isn't very high right now. Prosecuting politicians for breaking the law- even the president- might help rebuild that trust. Not to mention it would help our standing in the world if we threw the Bush administration under a bus after they left. Seriously, revealing his administration's illegal actions (provided that their are some) and prosecuting him for them would go a long way toward mending our broken image abroad.

My momma has always said that the truth will set you free.

Before answering – would you like to present some evidence for your wild speculation? Just a guess – you have none.

Hmm, it depends on how much GW is able to shred I suppose- we haven't had a good special prosecutor allowed to really do a real wide ranging investigation- GW's regime has hidden evidence, blocked and stonewalled every attempt at investigation to date.

There are literally hundreds of issues I would like to see thoroughly investigated, at the least. Not demanding a conviction, just an allowable investigation with no barriers in front of it- in other words, at the minimum, a Starr type investigator that is allowed to go after anyone and anything he wants, and is allowed to throw people in jail and waterboard them (after all, it is not torture, and it is legal, right Ted? ) - and I would like some money behind investigation, couple hundred million for starters.

There very well could be a smoking gun- we certainly have one in the Plame case- where we have a conviction, and then a "commuted sentance"- that right there is evidence enough for me for criminal behavior by the GW admin.

Then we have the "energy commission" with Ken Lay and GW- I am willing to bet money there is a whole lot of wrongdoing there, too bad no one has been allowed to investigate it.

All I am asking for Ted, is a good investigation, with no barriers or stonewalling- what are they so afraid of TEd?