Watergate, Prosecuted. Why Not Water(boarding)gate?

The Nixon Administration bugged Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex. Their operatives were caught breaking and entering Watergate to replace a defective device. One of the operatives was a former CIA agent, James McCord, and at least one other had been involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Although it is true that, as conventional wisdom holds, the cover-up was worse than the crime, that is really only part of the Watergate story. The other part is that the investigation of Watergate and the cover-up revealed other illegal and rogue operations that were not, strictly, part of the break-in or its cover-up: the existence of the 'plumbers unit', the plan to firebomb the Brookings Institute, the break-in to Dr. Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Years later, Nixon proclaimed that an act is not illegal if the president does it, the first modern assertion of the imperial presidency.

Look where the imperial presidency got us then, look where it got us now.

The rightwing, the very same people who raise their hands in horror at every minor congressionally-passed regulation as an invasion of liberty, such as the Americans With Disability Act, resisted every step of the investigation into Nixon's rogue regime.

Enter, Dick Cheney (stage-right). Cheney had served Rumsfeld in the subsequent Ford administration, saw the imperial presidency dethroned, returning the country to Constitutional government. He did not like it, and, after selecting himself to be Bush's vice president, openly stated that one of his aims was to make the Presidency (or Executive) more powerful again.

It is no accident that the next imperial presidency was shared by Dick Cheney. The Bush administration was a rogue regime, unchecked by a partisan and then a cowardly Congress, in many areas, not just torture. It transformed the first country in the world founded on the Enlightenment by changing data and scientific findings to suit its needs. It signed laws and then issued statements indicating what parts it would ignore or enforce according to their whims. It directly interfered in the prosecution of justice. It was criminally negligent in its appointments to agencies, like FEMA, charged with protecting the citizenry. It claimed and exercised unlimited power in time of war.

No one at the time of the Watergate investigations suggested that there was anything wrong in "looking back". What would this country have become in the last 3 decades if no one were held accountable? Had Haldemann-Ehrlichmann-Colson-Mitchell-Dean-Liddy and others not have been investigated and prosecuted, Congress would have become an incidental part of government, and we would have telegraphed that there were no consequences for abuse of government power and violating others' Constitutional rights.

Nixon, of course, was pardoned by Gerald Ford, his self-picked successor. Although maintaining for many years that he pardoned Nixon "for the good of the country", Ford later admitted he did it out of personal concern for Nixon, responding to Nixon's daughter's repeated phone calls to save her father. It is a real question as to how much Nixon's pardon contributed to Cheney's (and thus Bush's) willingness to try it again.

Cheney has been taunting the administration by admitting in an interview that he approved Waterboarding, daring them to try to prosecute him. At some time, Addington, Yoo, Bybee or others associated with this policy will travel outside the United States and be arrested. What will they do? Defend an American overseas and thus put themselves on the side of violators of the Geneva Conventions?

Nixon left Ford inflation and recession, a war winding down -- i.e., not as big a mess as Cheney-Bush left Obama, but a good 'ole mess nonetheless. No one thought that that mess should preclude pursuing the larger Watergate affair, and the rogue regime that gave rise to it.

Mr. President: What makes Water(boarding)gate different?

Comments

[CherokeeGirl]

ask Eric Holder, the ball's in his court now.

the president has already called it torture and referred it to the DOJ.

we need to shift the pressure to Eric Holder.

[marbiol]

When the Congress made "waterboarding" (I cant find the date or the actual law) illegal ANYONE who then TORTURED a captive needs to be prosecuted--and if found guilty executed [or, better yet--waterboarded 183 times!!!).

Can someone point me to the Congressional record or ?? where Congress made "waterboarding" illegal??? I'm having trouble finding it!!! Then we'd know who was REALLY culpable (RUMMY!!!)--and when!!!

[LeftRight]

Um... since we prosecuted American soldiers for waterboarding in the Spanish American war in 1898, and we executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding after WW2 in 1945...... I would say that there's not likely a need to pass a law....

[CherokeeGirl]

I think it's been outlawed since 1898

but we let it slide after WWI

then Hitler came back even stronger not only with torture but genocide.

So, we came back stronger in 1949 at Neremberg and prosecuted war crimes, of which waterboarding is defined. The Spanish Inquisition used to waterboard.

Now, half of us have forgotten about how important these laws are.

The Geneva Convention, I think it's article 3.

[mosh]

'What would this country have become in the last 3 decades if no one were held accountable? Had Haldemann-­Ehrlichman­n-Colson-M­itchell-De­an-Liddy and others not have been investigated and prosecuted, Congress would have become an incidental part of government, and we would have telegraphed that there were no consequences for abuse of government power and violating others' Constitutional rights.'

In terms of the Bush administration, the Congress, either democratically controlled or ruled by republicans, became inconsequential as if Watergate never took place. Why is that? Is the political/public memory so limited we can't think back even 30 years? Or is something else afoot? Today, more than ever, the monied interests control Congress. The military industrial complex and the billions in no fee contracts it generates has a stranglehold on Congress as well.

Then there was 9/11 and we saw, first hand, just how cowardly we are as a people - giving up our civil liberties for some odd, shortsighted veneer of security - as evidenced by the passage of the infamous patriot act (opposed by one lone voice in the Senate - Russ Feingold).

Times have changed since Watergate all right - for the worse. Major corporations control most of the main stream media and people are content to be fed pablum and propaganda, to give up their civil liberties, so long as their 'leaders' make noises about keeping them safe.

[VirginiaDreaming]

I think the big question we should be asking is "Why is Mr. Obama really involved in this debate?" He is the chief executive and should be looking forward.
Congress has both the power and responsibility to investigate the Bush administration's actions. If they are criminal then Congress should retake its constitutional powers and prosecute the crimes. If not Congress should investigate and clear them. Yes this can be partisan, but all politics is partisan. If the Bush administration is not legally culpable, a Congressional investigation will embarrass them, but not convict them of a crime. If they are legally culpable, then it doesn't really matter democrats or republicans convict them - its still a crime and Congress will have reasserted its constitutional power. All presidents, including Mr. Obama, will have to tread a little more carefully in the future.

[kevsters]

I'm tired of letting Republicans reframe every single argument to make it benefit them politically. Democrats, please put George Lakoff on your payroll and start taking this country back.

This article says it nicely.

http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=517

[WilliamProc]

My question is why is there a debate about this at all?

As American citizens, you and I are held accountable to the laws of our land. Were I to kidnap and waterboard a person, for any reason, I get my "Go Directly To Jail" card. I won't get to make public statements about how my actions would keep my community safe-they wouldn't be entertained by anyone. Even if what I did saved some one's life, I would still get jail time because it is a crime. I'm a citizen of the US and I must abide by it's laws. Is Bush and members of his administration somehow exempt from those same laws because he happened to be POTUS? If your local police can't use "extraordinary rendition" and torture on suspected criminals without prosecution, what justification exists that gives a free pass to a politician?

If waterboarding is so harmless, try surprising your neighbor with a free waterboarding. Tell your day-care provider that it's OK to waterboard your child if they think he's lying. Waterboard your mother or father to find out if they included you in their will. See where it takes you.

[Ron]

As long as their is monetary, or political power gains from illegal executive branch actions without judical accountability, it will continue, and escalate into even more severe abuses by a president or vice president. Without accountability and failure by newly seated president to act with equal justice against previous political criminal acts, it will only undermine our basic phrase of justice for all, when in fact its justice for all thats not in a powerful political position. They are no better than a Senator or a House Rep. who are prosecuted when their actions go toward criminal acts and they are caught.

[Guglielmo Deidzoeb]

"Watergate, Prosecuted. Why Not Water(boar­ding)gate?­"
Same reason Nixon was brought down by Watergate, but not by bombing Cambodia. Because white American citizens were victims of Watergate, being lied to. The Bush administration ordered torture against non-white non-Americans. Torturing dark foreigners still doesn't measure up to lying to Americans (whites), as far as some Americans are concerned.

Ironically lying about the war probably caused more headaches for Bush & co than the crimes IN the war.

[invisihand]

The answer is simple: Cheney. He learned how to get away with high crimes from his experience in the Nixon administration. Cheney had his dirty paws on Iraq before 9/11, and it's too bad that the documentation from his secret "energy meetings" will never see daylight...probably destroyed long ago. BTW - where's Rummy these days?

Good article.

[mosh]

Cheney? What happened to Congress? What happened to the opposition party? What happened to the media? What happened to public outrage???

Even Cheney couldn't wreak the havoc he did alone, he needed lots of help, and he sure got it - from the Congress, from the media, and from we the people.

I would agree that the answer is simple: The answer is money. Who makes it and why. Think Haliburton and all those lobbyists. Think easy credit, no questions asked, and the housing bubble. Think upon the fact that the mainstream media is now controlled by a handful of Corporations. And finally think how dumbed down the electorate has become. Cheney had lots and lots of help indeed.

[invisihand]

Good point, mosh. Cheney wouldn't have pulled all of this stuff off if he were not enabled by the "do nothing" Congress, keeping in mind that this "do nothing" Congress was full of filibustering Republicans intent on blocking everything that didn't meet their agenda. Granted, the Congressional Dems were completely spineless as well and probably complicit (i.e. the money, the lobbyists, etc).

The MSM has been that way for a long time, but became painfully obvious as the last 8 years transpired.

Again, where's Rummy?

[overd0g1]

Because waterboarding is OK. Call me when you have evidence that we were kneecapping prisoners.

[gbrooks]

Waterboarding isn't good enough? I suggest you have someone perform it on you.

Oh, and we also slammed people's heads against the wall, isn't that close enough to kneecapping? How about the fact that some prisoners died?

Eh, even if we were kneecapping people, you'd say "call me when we're using an iron maiden."

pfft.

[rockyersocksoff]

Call you why? So you can have more JO material?

[kimleehan]

You tell them overdog1, Waterboarding works, how do you think we knew that Iraq had WMD's, Al- Qaeda told us after we waterboarded them.

[mosh]

Would evidence of murder suffice? Because there is evidence of that - see the pics from Abu Ghraib for starters.

[LeftRight]

So the very crime that we were prosecuting against our own soldiers in 1898, and executing Japanese soldiers for in 1945 isn't good enough?????

[mergina]

Why not LIED TO TAKE US TO WAR GATE?

[mongoose63124]

everyone knows this will never happen, yet people who hate bush continue to spin their wheels about it. Regardless of what you think about waterboarding and its effectiveness, bush will not face any heat from it, nor do the majority of the american people want to see him prosecuted...

In the now ironic words of moveon.org, move on people.....

[mosh]

This has nothing to do with hating Bush and everything to do with loving our country and valuing our civil liberties.

[mosh]

Well, that's not quite true. I do hate Bush. But I value our civil liberties more.

[johnthesavage]

What makes this different is that it was a policy decision openly taken by an administration after seeking expert legal opinion. The Congress was briefed and there was a public debate, if you'll recall. This was a policy that many disagreed with.

Watergate was an illegal at any time burglary gone bad, after which an administration did everything in its power to coverup its role. It was the coverup that brought down Nixon. This was illegal activity on a number of levels.

If we start prosecuting former administrations for policies that we do not like, we will have become a third world thugocracy,.

[MikeRdg]

It gives a flashback of Romney answering a question regarding the constitution saying he “would ask an attorney”, and Ron Paul going through the ceiling. All attorneys are not made equal.

[johnthesavage]

Romney gave a correct and well considered answer in my opinion. He would have made an ideal President for these times. That the Republicans did not nominate is no credit to the party.

[Techboy308]

Very nice. you've recited the Neocon talking points perfectly. Now go get your cookie from Dick Cheney.

[mongoose63124]

im sure we could go back and dig up dirt on bush 41 and bill clinton....why stop here right?

[wmfor]

mmm I see:

Breaking and entering -- Bad.

Torture and other inhuman practices upon human beings - Good.

Oral sex - Bad.

Beating random prisoners to death - I love Jesus and will go to Heaven.

[jimbeaux1961]

"... a policy decision openly taken by an administration after seeking expert legal opinion."

Well; where to start? First; Condi and Gonzales approved these methods A MONTH BEFORE they were given the legal opinions, which were written by an AG so "expert" that he can't now find a job. Second: The debate was AFTER the scandal at Abu-Ghraib, when the backlash these idiots were warned about became a reality. Third; This decision was so "open" that neither the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary Of State knew about it.

John, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to make things up and call them facts.

[mosh]

A policy decision to use torture?? Openly taken??

The banality of evil knows no bounds. Three cheers!

[crabcake]

I thought the Wall Street Journal did a very good article about why there should be no prosecution of former administration officials. If there was something illegal going on then impeachment proceedings should have happened. The time has passed. We are not a third world country that prosecutes and imprisons those formerly in power.

[LeftRight]

The time has NOT passed!

If you work for a large corporation, as the CEO, and your decisions kill 10,000 people in an American town, and then the board of directors votes in a new CEO, are you suddenly NOT accountable for your actions???

[GardenerNorCal]

I agree the time is not passed. The TIME IS NOW! before we lose our stomach for it. There is no statute of limitations on these acts of dishonesty to the American Public and the world. Auschwitz was over when the Nuremburg Trials were held, but the crimes had not been forgotten and the criminals were not excused..

[eichler1]

Actually, we *are* a third world country. Just check the state of our infrastructure, public education system and services against those of a real first world country. You need to travel more.

We also are a third world country in the sense that the public sat back and allowed a lawless regime that stole its way into the executive (twice), asserted imperial powers, and completely disregarded the nation's Constitution and laws for its own gain. THAT is the mark of third world leadership, if you want to call it that.

Prosecuting the lawbreakers of the Bush regime (note to mongoose: this is more than just "digging up dirt") would go a long way that we are (still?) a first world country that stands for the rule of law and holds accountable those who break the law, especially those who have assumed governmental powers and used them to murder, torture and destroy sovereign nations.

If we don't prosecute the lawbreakers in the Bush cabal, we might as well suspend all criminal prosecutions.

[crabcake]

Yes, I do need to travel more, but I wouldn't get on a plane, not anymore. I have too much respect for myself.

[wmfor]

No. We are a Third World Country whose leaders and their lackeys have total immunity from the law, whatever crimes they might commit.

It's only a matter of time before we elect a leader who thinks he's Pol Pot.

[mosh]

No, you're right, we are a third world country in the making that only prosecutes and imprisons the least powerful among us - we love doing that.

[Macready]

Great article . . very thought provoking . . . Thank you . . .

Obama must appoint a special prosecutor . . . America badly needs this investigation .. . it has a lot to due with the times . . . from what I can remember there was little discussion about whether or not to investigate the Watergate burglary . . . and it was Barry Goldwater who finally got through to Nixon to resign or face impeachment . . . the GOP and the country have changed radically since then and not for the better . . . there needs to be an investigation . . those responsible for crimes must stand trial . . . the president is an elected official who swears in his oath of office to uphold the Constitution . . so does his VP, etc . . . what the bush administration was allowed to get away with was illegal under the Constitution . . the craven Democrats who rubber stamped what the bushies did are not better than the Republicans . . . the stygian stable must be cleaned . . . what bush and his buddies were allowed to get away with must never happen again . . . failing to bring these criminals to justice . . .would be as great a travesty of justice and the ones they perpetrated