Investigation and Accountability

Andrew Sullivan is one of more than a few bloggers praising Britain for its commitment to “accountability” regarding the false claims made which led to that nation following America into the Iraq War. Daniel Larison has a different take, claiming that airing all of this dirty linen without producing any indictments or sending anyone prison is not “accountability” at all.

I think I’m with Larison on this; not that I often agree with Sully anyway.

In light of that thought, Obama may just be doing us a favor with his “looking forward, not back” thing. Conducting the kind of Congressional hearings that are typical in this nation, or the kind of investigation that is common, where we wind up with all kind of nasty secrets out in the open and then a conclusion of, “Well it’s all too murky to actually bring anyone to trial,” would be the worst possible outcome. Such a result would more than ever firmly entrench the certainty that our highest officials can act as they wish with total and absolute impunity.

Consider the recent investigation into the actions of John Yoo, with the conclusion that he was guilty of nothing worse then “poor judgement.” The man is working comfortably today as a professor of law at a prestigious university. Well, okay, a law school in California, but still.

This is investigation, but it can hardly be called “accountability.”