QUESTION

Here’s the thing about the value of punishing the guilty as proof of “your” good character — Saddam Hussein was executed because George Bush said we were such great people we couldn’t let Saddam remain in power and it was worth hundreds of thousands of lives to take down Saddam and prove what fine champions of justice Americans are.

And well — we know how well that war proved how strongly America despises torture and abuse, etc. We know how well that big show of virtue worked to make sure nobody else was ever tortured.

George Bush made plenty of public speeches about how evil it is to torture people — even as he was torturing people.

So — what good did George Bush making sure the “guilty” was punished prove or accomplish? None. Even people who originally thought it a good thing to remove Saddam aren’t so sure about that anymore. Bush’s actions served his self interest.

The same thing goes for the fixation with outing and prosecuting current war criminals and alleged war criminals. It would satisfy some people’s personal needs but it wouldn’t necessarily do ANYTHING to stop or prevent future war crimes. A future administration could certainly learn from the mistakes that brought Bush’s actions to light and work to avoid them — and continue torturing people. After all — it wasn’t like Bush invented the techniques and the black sites. They were there when he took office. He was different from past administrations in that he was cocky and reckless — and got caught. You don’ t prove your own virtue by punishing somebody else — you prove it by not doing those things.

To that end — I’m not about to sacrifice lives and other political causes at the alter of going after Bush/Cheney. That would make me just as obsessed with “justice” as they were and wouldn’t prove my personal virtue any more than it proved theirs. I’m more concerned with staying in office and putting widespread policies in place to try to STOP these things from happening.

The rationale that it’s not about any damage the leakers might cause — it’s about rooting out and standing up against war crimes is very much like the rationale that it’s not about the “enhanced interrogation” techniques — it’s about the rooting out and standing up to the evil terrorists. As they say — two wrongs don’t make right. Wrongs done in the name of doing good are still wrongs.

Who is injured because we’re not prosecuting Bush/Cheney? Whose life would be saved if we disregard our laws and render the value of the constitution and the rule of law meaningless in the name of prosecuting Bush/Cheney?

It’s not important to atone for past mistakes — that doesn’t add anything to anybody’s life. All that is a symbolic after the fact gesture — it doesn’t serve anything other than a psychological purpose. It makes the vengeful feel good that the guilty were punished — that’s all. It’s important to try not to repeat them — trying not to do it again does affect people’s lives.

The only “casualties” of not prosecuting Bush/Cheney are the dashed hopes of people who wanted them punished. Those hopes aren’t a priority for me. The only hopes I’m concerned about those for the future — facing reality and doing something to try to help prevent torture and abuse. That’s what trying to leave the people of Afghanistan with some kind of structure is about — trying to leave ordinary citizens with some capacity to protect themselves from the torture and abuse of warlords WE HELPED ESTABLISH. I am trying to do for the Afghans what I hope they would do for me if the shoe were on the other foot. I would hope they wouldn’t ruin my country and leave me at the mercy of bloodthirsty tyrants with little or no ability to protect myself.

I don’t “tolerate” war crimes. I accept that I can’t undo those that have already happened and focus on trying to prevent them in the future. I get no satisfaction from punishing the guilty after the fact — it doesn’t undo any damage. I prefer to devote my energy to keeping torture and abuse from becoming a fact.

Are we doing that? Yes. Even before Bush left office — due to the efforts of Democrats — we made changes in personnel and started programs in the military to help prevent abuses by soldiers. The Obama administration doesn’t have any “enhanced interrogation” programs going on and he’s increased the efforts to promote better behavior and address the mental health of our soldiers.

Making a statement is not important enough to make it the only cause — to make it so important that we LOSE the office and the ability to make changes to people who think it’s OK for “good” people to torture “evil” people. I’m not willing to risk it all to make that statement. There’s no payoff in that statement worthy of the risks to future military policy, foreign policy, health policy, the economy, etc.

And I realize that some of my wording might seem a little harsh — but I’m tired of people who disagree with Obama and the strategies I support assigning all kinds of evil to his — and by extension — my character and motives. That we don’t choose what you think we should in no way means that you are more virtuous or honest than we are — that we “tolerate” war crimes and lie when we speak against them.

While I may speculate on the underlying emotions driving people’s decisions — I certainly wouldn’t attack their overall character over decisions I don’t agree with.

Not once have I suggested that people who don’t agree with me don’t care about what happens to the Afghans. I may have said I don’t think they gave the consequences any or enough thought — but I never said they don’t care. We just have different priorities for whatever reason — and as evidenced by what you believe to be your way of saying you care being different from my way of saying I care — that concern for them just isn’t reflected the same way.

It’s not that simple. There is no guaranteed ONE good and honest way to proceed. I don’t aim for absolutely “right” answers — I’m not the authority on “right.” I aim for the answers that I believe have the most potential for positive developments. Of course — I suppose that’s how people who come up answers I object to would describe their answers — too.

So — to conclude — no — I don’t think this is a story about good vs. evil — a “hero” taking on the “bad guys”…it’s not about the righteous standing up to the unrighteous. It’s a story about different people having different opinions and emotions — that’s all.