Sen. Leahy's efforts to launch an anti-Bush "truth commission"
are being
dismissed as a fiasco. But they included some intelligent
moments as well, as when for instance George Mason law professor
(and longtime TAS contributor) Jeremy Rabkin presented
his opening statement. An excerpt (full statement is appended in
Comments):
…Suppose, after 9/11, the Bush administration had established
an "investigating commission" to identify persons responsible
for rallying support for terrorist networks, for raising funds,
organizing false identities and providing other forms of
assistance for terrorist networks. Suppose in the interest of
informing the public, the commission had been authorized to
publish its findings and name names of individual suspects.
Surely, such a procedures would have been denounced by civil
libertarians. Where there is enough evidence for criminal
prosecution, they would have said, the government should secure
indictments and proceed with criminal prosecution. Where there
is not such evidence, the government should keep silent.
Otherwise, the government can destroy reputations and inflict
terrible damage on people's careers and livelihoods, without
giving them any real way of defending themselves against
reckless or ill-founded accusations.
How is the proposed "truth commission" any less objectionable,
from the standpoint of due process? One might argue that
government officials should be more accountable because they
volunteered to accept special responsibilities to the public
when they assumed their offices. But one can argue, on the
other hand, that if we want capable and reputable people to
assume public office, we have to treat them with at a modicum
of respect and fair dealing. I think it is very hard to justify
imposing on public officials what we have not been willing to
impose on terror suspects.
