For the good of the country

Brian Dickerson, in a column for the Detroit Free Press, laments that "Somehow, the country that produced the Bill of Rights morphed into one that spied on its own citizens." And that isn't the only morphing that was done. Alas, then he quotes Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor:

It is the hallmark of a sane and moderate society that when it changes leaders and regimes, those left behind should be abandoned to the judgment of history. It is in savage societies that the defeat of a ruling faction entails its humiliation, exile and murder.

Dickerson then suggests that while it would be poor form for Bush to pardon himself, Cheney, and others, it is appropriate for Bush to grant them all immunity. That way they will be able to actually answer questions about what they did without claiming the Fifth Amendment. Besides we should reclaim the world's respect rather than press for a temporary political advantage.

Does he really think Cheney will talk, even with immunity?

Contrast that with a column from a guy who calls himself, Kagro X. He notes a comment from Attorney General nominee Eric Holder's hearing: "We don't want to criminalize policy differences." He seems to have latched onto a GOP phrase (one wonders how long they've been carefully nurturing this idea), a phrase that is linked to doing something "for the good of the country."

And "for the good of the country" got used a lot when Nixon resigned (and pardoned) and again during Reagan's Iran-Contra mess (quietly swept under the rug). We certainly survived those incidents. But was that actually done for the good of the country? And did we really survive? Some people are starting to notice we end up doing this at least once during every chunk of time the GOP has the White House -- Watergate during Nixon-Ford, Iran-Contra during Reagan-Bush I, and now everything by Bush II.

Yet we hear "don't criminalize politics." Why are Americans not told whether what GOP presidents are doing is constitutional or not? Why are our leaders refusing to help us make that distinction? Why must we decide with the ballot-box as our only tool? Why do we tell Americans that they have to become the highest court without the benefit of rules of evidence, an understanding of precedents, or a common framework for deliberation? Criminalizing politics? More like politicizing crime.