But perhaps the "Divorce Court" analogy didn't work for you. Let's bring it home. Let's say your brother had gotten himself into a bit of a financial scrape, and owed a hundred thou to some folks who never accepted ??I'll get it for you payday, right now I'm broke ? for an answer. Indeed, if anything was likely to be ??broke, ? it was kneecaps. So, because you knew someone in a bank, you made your brother's problem go away. But now the banker is in trouble . . . with some federal officials; call them FBI agents. And these FBI agents are interviewing you about some conversations you might have had with your friend the banker. And you're going to tell them you don't remember? The banker? The conversation?
Unlike many, I do not want to follow the neocon Republican compulsion to execute first, and hold the trial later. The country and the world paid and continues to pay too dearly for those trespasses of the previous eight years. We cannot be better by being them. If we're to cling to presuppositions on behalf of the rule of law, we've got to follow the rule of law, regardless how it might rankle. But that is the point, after all, isn't it? The current administration might prefer to ??move forward, to not devote too much time looking backward. ? But there is that stickler . . . you know, the one about the rule of law.
Not revisiting the past must not be an option for Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, Secretary of the Justice Department. Nor must it be permitted to be an option, no matter how much else is on the administration's plate. To somebody, justice is always inconvenient.
?? Ed Tubbs
Palm Springs
Unlike many, I do not want to follow the neocon Republican compulsion to execute first, and hold the trial later. The country and the world paid and continues to pay too dearly for those trespasses of the previous eight years. We cannot be better by being them. If we're to cling to presuppositions on behalf of the rule of law, we've got to follow the rule of law, regardless how it might rankle. But that is the point, after all, isn't it? The current administration might prefer to ??move forward, to not devote too much time looking backward. ? But there is that stickler . . . you know, the one about the rule of law.
Not revisiting the past must not be an option for Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, Secretary of the Justice Department. Nor must it be permitted to be an option, no matter how much else is on the administration's plate. To somebody, justice is always inconvenient.
?? Ed Tubbs
Palm Springs
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
