Selective Preemption and Ducks

George Bush didn't grant any of the preemptive pardons that were expected, such as for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, or any of his other partners in crime. It's hard to know whether it was because he felt, in his arrogance born of ignorance, that he and his fellow criminals had done nothing wrong, or whether he, for once, had some good legal advice.

Had he granted preemptive pardons to those who are guilty of participating in, promoting, aiding and abetting or complicit in his crimes, they would not have the right to take the Fifth Amendment protection of being "a witness against himself," since they would have been already pardoned for their crimes and would not be subject to prosecution. Given that exemption from prosecution, they could have been confronted with evidence and compelled to testify about Bush's and their crimes.

By not pardoning his partners in crime, Bush insured that they can be called to testify, but have the right to the Fifth Amendment's protection, and can invoke it for not testifying, thus denying prosecutors the opportunity to compel them to testify.

We'll never know who tried to explain what for Bush would be an incomprehensibly subtle legal maneuver, but we know, from the total lack of pardons, that Bush took that person's advice.

From the result of no pardons, the fact that all of his loyal Bushie partners in crime can now clam up and cannot be made to say anything about their or Bush's crimes, speaks for itself.

Bush's preemptive wars of aggression have no consequences for him. They're easy for him to do because they have no affect on him, he was secure in the White House, continued to sleep well, eat well, and tell his name to an admiring bog, as Emily said.

But, preemptive pardons are another matter. They could have had consequences for him. They could have had an effect on him. His people would have had to tell about his and their crimes. So, no preemptive pardons.

It's a sad commentary on the lack of justice for the world to be had from Bush that the only consequence, the only time he was forced to do something, anything, that he didn't want to do was caused by, appropriately, an Iraqi who threw shoes at him.

It appears that the only price Bush has had to pay, the only direct effect on him of his illegal war on Iraq and the death and destruction he brought to that country is a couple of slight ducks to his left. That hardly seems a proportionate punishment for what he has done. And yet, it will probably be the only thing to happen to him.

At the Nuremberg war crimes trial, there were a dozen or so people, very much like the people who surrounded Bush, placed in the dock, tried and convicted and hanged or imprisoned for waging aggressive war, just as Bush and his people did.

If hanging or prison was justified in the case of the criminals at Nuremberg, then it is justified for Bush and his people for doing the same thing. Or, are we going to sit around with our thumb up our ass and let Bush get away with just a couple of ducks to the left? I, for one, am not satisfied with that. How about you?