Your best friend comes to you, and tells you that he smacked somebody around at a bar the night before. He beat the guy up pretty bad, but he was drunk at the time, and the guy was provoking him. It wasn’t his fault. You hear on the news later that the guy died in the hospital… and you’re the only person who knows that your best friend killed him.
Do you turn him in?
If yes, you’ve just made a hard choice… if not, you’d better hope the cops don’t find out. Because if they do, you’re now what they call an ‘accomplice after the fact.’
What does this have to do with anything? Well… hang on.
The problem is… it needs to be pointed. At pretty much everybody. This is the problem with apportioning blame – you can’t just do it to the guys who lost. Well… you can, but that’s not the right way to do it. I haven’t spoken out much on this particular topic, because I’m not entirely sure where I stand on it.
Do I approve of hearings? No… not as long as those hearings are directed at or by a particular political group, and I can’t really see any way to avoid that. The article above points out exactly the problem – the Dem’s are basically saying “well, okay, maybe they did tell us they were doing it… but it’s not our fault for not telling them to stop, it’s their fault for doing it!”
Well, no… it’s BOTH your faults, so you both take the blame, and the consequences! Y’see, that’s how our justice system works – it’s called “accomplice after the fact.” So if you’re going to start charging members of the former administration, you have to start looking at members of the current one too. As the battle cry went among the members of the left when discussing the Iraq war and whether or not we were deceived into starting it – who knew what, and when?
Well, guess what. Sometimes, you find out that your best friend beat the guy up at the bar… and when you don’t turn him in, you become an accomplice. If you’re at the bar with him, and in a position to stop him, and refuse to do so? Congratulations – if you’re lucky, you won’t end up breaking your friendship after the trial! In fact, you might get a lot closer while you’re sharing a cell.
If the hearings would be wholly impartial, and apply the law equally to both sides, I’d support them. If they’re just going to run members of one group or another up the pike? No. If they’re just going to be an excuse to try and bring Bush up on charges? No. Because you can’t just toss out a sacrificial lamb and call it justice. Justice, actual justice, has to apply equally to everybody. Everybody who knew about this, who approved of it, who didn’t do what was in their power to stop it, has a share in the culpability for it.
That is justice. Anything else is a witch hunt, and the opposite of what our nation should stand for.
If you want to run them all up on charges? I’m all for it. Maybe we can engage in an open discussion of right and wrong, when it becomes more than a political weapon… and maybe we can actually figure out what we need to do about it.