(Tampa airport) The rule of law means that individuals may not be prosecuted unless they have violated specific laws. Of course, when they do violate such laws, they should be punished. The people who most need to be punished are those with power, above all those who wield public power secretly.

It’s important that officials in the national security apparatus react to any illegal proposal with immediate resistance. They must think, “We can’t do that–it’s against the law.” There’s a widespread view that to expect such scruples is naive. In popular fiction, presidents and CIA agents casually break laws all the time. But I actually believe that respect for the law (perhaps tinged by fear of the law) is very widespread in the intelligence and military worlds. We saw it when numerous officials balked at illegal acts in the Bush years.

Yet there is reason to believe that certain high Bush appointees violated laws. One example was the deliberate authorization of domestic wiretaps in violation of the FISA law. Regardless of whether that law is good, the president’s men had no right to ignore it. Another obvious set of cases involved torture. No court has proven that officials like Donald Rumsfeld violated US laws by authorizing torture–but that charge is believable enough to be investigated. The Senate Armed Services Committee says, for instance, that Rumsfeld directly caused detainee abuse at Guatanamo; and Susan J. Crawford has concluded that some of that abuse constituted “torture.” That amounts to a claim that Rumsfeld committed a serious crime.

All the political considerations argue against an investigation by the executive branch under President Obama. The public has never shown much concern about the mistreatment of foreign prisoners. Most people define “torture” very stringently. I think voters are mad about the war, but invading Iraq was legal under US law. I don’t think they are mad about the abuse of people like Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker. In general, prosecuting the previous administration looks vindictive. And investigating the intelligence agencies could make them into very formidable enemies of the new president.

These political considerations should count. President Obama will have difficult tasks to accomplish in the essential interests of the nation, including deep economic reform during wartime. He cannot win many battles at once; he must choose. Not to address a given issue isn’t a failure–it can be an essential tactical choice.

On the other hand, we cannot tolerate a culture of impunity. If high officials are basically known to have broken the law, and nothing is done about it, the rule of law suffers. Impunity is common around the world. To the extent we have avoided it, that is one of our great strengths.

I think I would prefer to see investigations proceed without much connection to the new administration. Civil lawsuits would be great if they have any chance of succeeding (although I suspect they are impossible in national security cases). Congressional investigations are welcome as long as Congress manages to get its other work done as well. We might be lucky if federal attorneys chose to bring cases in their own districts. And I suppose the Obama Administration could launch a slow, deliberate, “Truth Commission”-style process that would take a couple of years to get near the senior Bush people. That way, the economic agenda would have succeeded or failed by the time there were any high-profile hearings.

(Tampa) We saw the movie Slumdog Millionaire over the weekend. It was very enjoyable–suspenseful, beautiful to look at, and romantic. It did pose a philosophical or theological question that I’ve pasted below the fold–because I can’t discuss it without spoiling the suspenseful conclusion.

Continue reading →

The Corporation for National and Community Service, other federal agencies, and various private groups have been working for some time to turn Martin Luther King Day into an opportunity for civic work–a “day on,” not just a “day off.” The Obama Administration seems likely to ramp that up, starting this year. King’s birthday (Jan. 19) is also the day before the Inauguration, and the Obama and Biden families will themselves participate in service. USA Service.org is a new vehicle for posting service events so that other citizens can find them. You are encouraged to post your events there.

Service is best when it includes elements of analysis, deliberation, collective planning, and reflection. It would be very helpful for individuals and groups to post events on the USA Service website that go somewhat beyond “service” in its narrowest sense. Deliberations, dialogues, organizational or planning meetings, charettes, and even cultural events with strong civic components would be good additions, in my opinion. They would help to portray a wider range of civic work.

My first post was on January 8, 2003. This is post number 1,493, which equals just slightly less than one per work day over the six years. (I am compulsive about blogging.)

I don’t think I changed my approach to the blog much this year–I’m still serving up a mixture of commentary on politics (with a strong civic/populist lens), some light cultural criticism, and some links to civic projects. I’m pleased that there are more and more fellow bloggers professionally committed to civic renewal–please see my blogroll.

I continue to feel that there’s no tradeoff between blogging and other work that a researcher/academic does. When I’m working on an article, speech, or lecture, I usually post notes or excerpts here first. And sometimes a post leads to a publication. For instance, I was asked to turn this entry on the Kennedy-Hatch Serve America Act into a scholarly article; and I gave permission for this one to be reprinted in a high school textbook–in Canada, I believe. Thus, as long as I’m functioning, I’m confident I’ll keep blogging in ’09.

We’ve recently returned from some vacation time in our former hometown of Washington, DC. I was struck by the depth and breadth of excitement about the inauguration and the new administration. We didn’t interview a representative sample of the city’s population, but we did talk to people from many walks of life, including individuals who have no professional connection to politics or government. Virtually everyone has a plan for Inauguration Day, an opinion about the new appointments, and an eagerness to talk about various aspects of the Obama Administration. In the Metro, the regular commercial advertising (for instance, Ikea’s posters) almost all makes punning references to “change” or “yes we can.” The Metro tickets themselves show Barack Obama’s face. The Post has a daily “Inauguration Watch” feature, and everyone knows when the Obama kids are arriving in town.

Part of the reason is that DC voters chose Obama over McCain by 92%-6%, and Obama over Clinton by 76%-24% in the primaries. Obama was a great fit for most of the voting blocs of the city: working-class African Americans, highly educated African Americans, progressive political activists of all races, and young tech-savvy folks.

In the Boston area, some people are sophisticated about national politics. They may teach it, or they may have done stints in Washington, or they may be political junkies. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible to ride public transportation every day or talk to parents of your kids’ friends and not hear a word about the transition. In DC, you can’t go more than five minutes without an opinion, a plan, a comment, or a prayer.