Justice Now!

When I ask friends and family (excluding Hans of course) about our nation's recent political blunders in Iraq, the two replies I hear most often:

1) It's complicated.

And,

2) Everybody knows politicians are corrupt.

To address the first comment, is the world really that complicated? This explanation is little more than a tactic to divert attention. We live in a democracy, and if we are to select our representatives, shouldn't we be well informed of "complicated" situations when we vote so that "representatives" can represent our views, or am I not understanding the word "representative"? Or perhaps my country had adopted a style of democracy unfamiliar to me.

"Complex" is a relative term, so instead of saying "it is complex for people to comprehend" (Donald Rumsfeld) wouldn't it make more sense to inform the public, so that we can elect representitives more capable of handling these "complex" matters? It's the ultimate paradox (if you believe these issues really are too complex to understand, which they're not).

Sovereignty BY THE PEOPLE is paramount in a democracy, by definition. How can we rule ourselves if we don't have the facts? There is no room for opinions such as that provided by Katherine Graham, former editor of the Washington Post, when she states the following:

"There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."

I contend that democracy corrupts when a government takes "legitimate" steps to keep secrets. It seems the government has their own definition of the word "legitimate".

Now, let's look at the second response, the idea that many people believe politicians are corrupt, have been corrupt, and will be corrupt. My mom, although not afraid to disagree with my beliefs (especially when I claim Castro is a less affective dictator than Bush, but I digress...) she is the first to admit she smelled corruption from day 1 of the current US occupation in Iraq.

Now, if only I had a dollar for every time I heard "politics" and "corruption" in the same sentence, then maybe I could fund a campaign to do something about it.

The popular belief that national politics are corrupt held by at least half the population begs the questions: Why not do something about it?

If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their friends are suspected of altering intelligence reports to justify the invasion of Iraq, as reported by a government sponsored minority report (download pdf report), shouldn't there be a trial? Thanks to Mrs Woods, my first American Government teacher in 6th grade, I've realized for a long time that an important underlying principle promoting the efficacy our nation's government is the balance of all three governmental branches. I have come to understand that if any branch is not kept in check by the others, powers can be abused.

For the same reason that public dissent is a sign of a healthy democracy, prosecuting the accused regardless of citizen status is also healthy (because all citizens in a democracy are created equal, again by definition). The beauty of a system of checks and balances, is that everything should balance out in the end. If those suspected are found not guilty, then the verdict will reign supreme.

Aha, but there is one final question. What to say to those clamoring "If you prosecute Bush, then you'll need to prosecute his entire staff, the congress, the senate, every politician in every other country, etc. Then who will be left"? I have a simple answer. Prosecute them all. In general, if there is evidence tying a suspect to a crime, let the facts dictate the verdict. If suspects are not guilty, have faith that our justice system will sort it out. That's what it's for. That's why we are all innocent until proven guilty - terrorist suspects included.

Do something about the reality you know as corrupt politics. For the reasons stated above, I strongly support the prosecution of the current Bush regime, and you should too. If noone is held accountable for mistakes that have been made (and I think we can all agree that mistakes were made), how can we hope to deter similar mistakes in the future? With wishful thinking? I don't think so.