..out of the dark

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So this is essentially the issue that's been driving some of us insane over the last decade. It didn't start with the argument that certain crimes should not be prosecuted if they caused political polarisation. That was just a way to stab us in the gut after we had already lost. Just think about the concept: that you can only prosecute your political allies and those who agree with you. Those who disagree over policy-issues cannot argue for prosecution. That was the final insult. Not the first one.

No, it started with the fact that there was a willingness in certain circles to believe that laws and treaties did not matter. That in order to fix things, we would have to do whatever the hell people thought was right. That argument was lost. And afterwards, nothing has changed.

The worst irony of all time, really. At least Soviet had to maintain their propaganda with force. In the US, they don't even need that.

Just think about this for a moment, though. If you believe that you're in danger of being whisked away by G-men for having socialist leanings in the US, you're absolutely wrong. If you are a citizen, and not necessarily even a white citizen, there's no danger whatsoever of actually being targeted by government. There's inconveniences, sure, and obviously no one likes to be put on lists. But there's no danger of reprisal for saying: "God damnit, he's committed war-crimes and he's bragging about it in his memoirs, merely three years after he left office". None.

Prosecuting leaders, specially after they left office on their own after packing their rugs and curtains, is not going to affect the governing of the state. There's going to be no effect on the way the US does day to day business in the short term if Cheney and Bush was prosecuted. Or, if officials in the current government were prosecuted for what until recently was treated as crimes.

But even wishing for that. Under, say, the reasoning that the state would be stronger and more robust if we were ruled by law rather than politicians who decide to go around the UN on a whim, and then start wars at random. And then insist that the human cost would be insignificant, because the rebuilding process would pay for itself thanks to the oil-revenue, etc.

Even wishing for that - to have officials prosecuted for crimes - is not there. In fact, suggesting we should prosecute politicians for committing crimes is considered to be something wrong and almost unheard of.

The question is: how does that kind of sentiment come into being in a state that doesn't have, say 70% analphabets? That would be interesting to know, no? How it's so easy to shove aside any objections, and create a core circle of leadership elites where opinions and megalomania magically turns into policy. And where in the end it's considered social, and therefore in turn political suicide to voice dissent?

I'm sure I don't have to spell it out.