torture rebuttle

This is a rebuttal to the article of 5-3-09 by the executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, David M. Shribman.
Mr. Shribman's editorial in opposition to the practice of holding ex-Presidents legally responsible for the wrongdoings, legal of otherwise, of their administration is as myopic and self serving as the best of propaganda. Such disinformation could only exist under the banner of "freedom of speech." I say "legal or otherwise" because his first historical example in support of his position is the Revolution of 1800, as if this "revolution" had anything to do with President Adams breaking the law. Mr. Adams did not leave office with the disclaimer "I'm not a crook" on his lips. Mr. Shribman never sees fit to explain what laws the Adams administration violated. Regrettably this editorial fails to shed any light on how Thomas Jefferson established the precedent of Presidential immunity. Perhaps Mr. Shribman believes his editorial enjoys factual immunity.
Another example he sites is President Clinton not pursing prosecution of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in regards to the Iran-Contra affair. As I recall there were investigations and prosecutions, Col. North comes to mind. I can only wonder if there had been a more vigorous pursuit of the truth in that "affair" would the Bush administration have been so liberal in heir definition of torture.
Next he appeals to the American ego by reminding the reader that in America power is transferred from one president to another by the ballot, not the bullet! The unspoken he lectures us is: "Here presidents and parties do not criminalize the policies of their predecessors." The laws regarding torture were on the books prior to the Bush administration so the question is not "do we make his policies illegal" but rather "were his policies illegal?" If his policies are found to be illegal then do we not owe it to our future as a healthy democracy to prosecute? Does Presidential immunity trump the law of the land? Mr. Shribman goes on to say that "in the United States, sitting Presidents and winning political parties don't sit in legal judgment of their predecessors." Why not? Does this practice protect the America people of those in power who wish to perpetuate a custom that one day will protect them from prosecution? If their rule is just then why fear prosecution. If their rule is unjust yet they fear no prosecution is this not tyranny however subtle?
Mr. Shribman cites Nixon's failure to take on J. Edgar Hoover for the wiretapping of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as supporting evidence of the propriety of the ever widening custom of ruler immunity. He seems to think it's only natural that the President of the United States looks the other way when the Director of the F.B.I. breaks the law! Presumably since the President will expect the same customary courtesy when he breaks the law!
Mr. Shribman then points out that "politics is not an insubstantial factor, perhaps for the good of the system." His point being that if the Democrats pursue this legal review, than this assures that their successors will do the same. So let me get this straight. If the Democrats hold the Republicans accountable for breaking the law then we can expect the Republicans to hold the Democrats responsible for breaking the law. Oh my God! Where will it end? Our elected officials actually respecting the law, disabused of the notion that they are above the law. Poor President Nixon will be spinning in his grave over this invasion of privilege. Politics is never an "insubstantial factor" in government but the constitution is paramount and should never bend it's knee to politics. How is elevating politics over the System, e.g. the constitution, good for the system? What propaganda!
He claims Winston Churchill as having the greatest wisdom on the subject by quoting "If the present tries to sit in judgment of the past, it will lose the future." I should think that "he who forgets the past is doomed to relive it" is the greater wisdom here.