Tuesday, October 19

I have a question.

I get it.

A tremendous outrage against an American citizen.

Ashcroft should have been fired, and should still be censured and tried for war crimes.

But I don't understand "suing" him. I don't get that. It's like the Al Capone conviction for tax evasion rather than murder, when no one is denying that Ashcroft actually treated an innocent American in an illegal, not to mention inhumane, manner.

Maybe I'm missing something. Are they arguing that this gentleman is going to sue the federal government for reparation? I don't understand the "suing Ashcroft" business. That sets a precedent for individual government employees who screw up to have their bank accounts raided for that mistake years later. That doesn't make sense, and when the tables are turned I can see teabaggers and Citzens United groups having a field day suing everyone from their congressman to a VA hospital nurse.

If we're talking about suing the government for reparations, and prosecuting Ashcroft for war crimes, I say affirmative. But if we're setting a precedent to go after Ashcroft's personal bank account, first of all that's too little too late, and secondly, I can smell campaigns by Karl Rove and NewsCorp to sue Barney Frank, just because, from here.


  1. You have answered your own question. If the governmental establishment, even with a supposedly left of center administration in place, will not act against the criminals who preceded them what recourse is there but to create a civil actions? You cannot force them to act in a civilized manner thus you must take matters into your own (non-second amendment) hands!

    I don't understand either your problem with this "solution" or your misunderstanding of the consequences of a just resolution. A policeman who harms a civilian unreasonably is subject to civil sanctions, even or especially when the authorities do not act, so the slippery slope is not a reasonable argument. It already exists. And Ashcroft is not a clerk in the Recorder's office but an actual policy maker.

    If the only disgrace you can cover him with is this limited action, so be it. However slight, it is, I would submit, a bit more satisfyingly effective than calling him names in a blog.

  2. Sorry, Blue Gal, but we are living in Post-Question America. So, you can make up any answer you wish.

  3. I completely agree with you albaz that if the alternative is "granting Ashcroft full immunity," and it appears that's what Obama DOJ is arguing for, that is not an alternative.

    That said, I don't wonder how this will be misused by others because I know they will. We lose either way, it seems.


I really look forward to hearing what you have to say. I do moderate comments, but non-spam comments will take less than 24 hours to appear... Thanks!