WHY WE SHOULD PROSECUTE BUSH . . .

Unfortunately, President Bush and his administration – and not liberals or the media – have drawn a new moral line in the sand for America. The issue of whether to charge and prosecute Bush administration officials who participated in torturing prisoners raises, once again, the issue of what America represents.

On one side, we have those who believe we are a City on a Hill, a shining beacon for humanity. On the other side are those who believe the ends justify the means.

Respect for “inalienable rights” and the belief that the rule of law is driving force in human history . . . or chaining naked and soiled prisoners together, then waterboarding them . . . which route best promotes American ideals? This used to be clear.

My friends, America represents an ideal as much as it is a country. And only America can live up to it's ideals.

We simply cannot persuade the world that we wear the White Hat when we embrace acts that are morally repugnant as a matter of policy. Let me give you an example how this works. After WWII the U.S. was faced with a dilemma: What do we do with captured Nazis? We had every excuse and – many thought – every right to seek reprisals against those who acted on behalf of a cruel, vile, criminal state. At the time many wouldn’t have cried foul if we had summarily executed, tortured, or even forced labor on those suspected of working with the Nazis.

In the end, however, this wasn’t the route Franklin D. Roosevelt took. Presented with two policy paths – one well known to human history, the other less recognized – FDR followed the lead of Frost’s fictional character, and took “the road less traveled”. And as history has demonstrated, the choice he made “all the difference” in the world.

Let’s take a look at what FDR – and Harry S. Truman – ultimately rejected.

In 1944, with victory over the Axis powers on the horizon, FDR asked the War Department to devise a plan for bringing war criminals to justice. But before he received it Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, sent his thoughts on the matter. His “eye-for-an-eye” proposal called for shooting prominent Nazi leaders on sight, and advocated banishing others to distant corners of the world. Under the Morgenthau Plan German POWs would be cast as modern slave labor, and forced to rebuild Europe. According to noted historian, Walter LaFaber, the treasury secretary's goal was to destroy Germany's remaining industrial base and turn the country into an agricultural, pastoral economic wasteland.

And then there was the Secretary of War’s proposal.

Henry Stimson saw things differently. Recalling how the serpents of Nazism crawled out from the rocks of national humiliation, economic depression and the tattered remnants of Versailles, Stimson was convinced that an economically healthy and vibrant Germany was necessary for European recovery.

The proposal Stimson endorsed called for trying responsible Nazi leaders in court. The Stimson Plan would label war time atrocities as war crimes and categorized the Nazi regime as a criminal conspiracy.

FDR was faced with a decision that many believed allowed for and justified punitive measures. After initially endorsing Morgenthau’s plan – vengeance is a difficult emotion to control – FDR supported the Stimson Plan.

In the process humanity won out. The significance of forgoing the enslavement and brutal treatment of captured Nazis cannot be overestimated.

Because of FDR’s decision the West was able to focus on discrediting a vile movement, their leaders, and their ideas. We established the Nuremberg Trials, which showcased Nazi ideals. This allowed the world to judge Nazi party hacks and their deeds on the merits. No martyrs were created. Nazism was exposed as a wretched idea, with those on trial exposed as humanity's backwash. The world saw how false nationalism and fear mongering, combined with a lack of conscience, had pushed the human experiment in the wrong direction.

By exposing the acts of ideologically driven zealots the United States not only showed how civilized societies function, but demonstrated that certain “inalienable rights” are a gift for the ages that can be shared with the rest of the world.

An added benefit was the imprint our actions left on the Germans who had lived through the excesses of Nazism. They – many of whom cheered Hitler’s tactics and his goons – saw with their own eyes how their POWs had returned. Family and friends had returned healthy and whole. This generation became admirers of America, and ambassadors of the American ideal.

The Nuremburg Trials served to transform Germany’s understanding of justice and human dignity. An ugly set of ideals was disgraced for generations. Today Germany stands as a lesson in democracy.

Over two hundred years the U.S. has experienced revolution, civil war, two global conflicts, and endured a divisive painful civil rights movement. Though the ugliness of war and racial conflict, what emerged was a set of ideals that legitimized America’s moral standing. We lost this moral ground over the past 8 years.

The Bush administration’s initial wink and a nod policy on torture, and Bush and Cheney’s now clear embrace of these disgusting policy tactics are once again pitting those who understand the American ideal against a group of zealots who had no problem sacrificing America's moral authority to the Alter of Fear.

Prosecuting those in the Bush administration who designed and participated in this ugly moment in American history would go a long way in rebuilding America’s moral authority around the world. We should bring culpable Bush administration officials up on charges.

Which side are you on?

- Mark