Current News
Rabkin Debates "Truth Commission" in LA Times
Professor Jeremy Rabkin debates the pros and cons of a Bush "truth commission" in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, taking a position against such a commission, while Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr., chief counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, presents an opposing view.
The questions posed by the newspaper are: What are the pros and cons of having a commission investigate an administration that may have broken the law? What kind of precendent would such an inquiry into actions taken by the Bush White House set for future administrations and their intelligence agencies?
Rabkin cites concerns about true bipartisanship and rejects the need for a truth commission based on three concerns: who will likely serve on the commission, who will interpret the commission's findings, and who will interpret its findings for "a distracted American media."
"The most we can hope is that this truth commission only inhibits and intimidates U.S. security officials a little bit more," says Rabkin, citing government release of Guantanamo Bay detainees back into terrorist activities in response to pressure from critics to underline his concern.
A Bush 'truth commission': the pros and cons, Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2009. Point by Jeremy A. Rabkin; counterpoint by Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr.
Excerpt:
"This truth commission seems to appeal, for the most part, to people who wish we
could have prosecutions but realize we won't. It would be very hard to persuade
an American jury to convict Rumsfeld for doing what he thought proper to defend
the United States. But stirring up a lot of smoke and noise with a commission
report, that's much easier.
"And I think that's the main motive here: to
vindicate the most hysterical critics of the administration who are absolutely
convinced that someone, somewhere must have committed a crime, because Bush was
evil or a fool or anyway under the thumb of Halliburton and Dick
Cheney.
"Consider, in the next place, who would serve on this commission.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) has called for a 'bipartisan commission.' Who's
going to decide which Republicans get to serve? The Obama White House? House and
Senate leaders? And which Republicans would want to serve? What sort of career
incentives would a serious person have to sit on a commission to rake over
allegations of abuse against an administration now entirely powerless to punish
or reward Republicans serving on this commission?
"Finally, consider how
such a commission would probably distort our public debate, even if it operates
with more fairness and impartiality than we have any right to expect. Advocates
want to investigate 'abuses.' What counts as an 'abuse'? You and Leahy worry
about torture of terrorism suspects and rendition of suspects to countries where
they may have been subject to torture. OK, but what about releasing suspects
from Guantanamo Bay when we shouldn't have? Dozens of released detainees have
been found among terror operatives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last year, one such
former detainee drove a truck filled with explosives into an Iraqi army base,
killing 13 soldiers and wounding more than 40 others.
"Are we going to
review how Bush administration officials allowed that to happen? Is the truth
commission going to review the role of critics -- both at home and abroad -- who
pressured the administration to release dangerous terrorists when they should
have been kept safely locked away?"