Spin vs. proof
My problem is with what I view as relative accountability. In the President and Prime Minister’s cases there is no realistic chance of their being legally held accountable for their actions. Appointing someone who can then tell you that you have an arguable case, which they can help you sell to your public, is rather different to actual risking a ICC trial for illegally invading another country, or ordering someone’s torture, and then having a court weigh that advice and imprison you if they disagree with your legal advisers. If my lawyer tells me he thinks he can get me off any DUI, as long as I keep getting my repeat prescriptions for a medicine that gives false positives on alcohol tests, I need to be very sure because his assertion will be put to the test. Get powerful enough and you only need to be able to spin reasonable doubt not prove it. Even the failure to spin it might loose you re-election but will not land you in jail.
Bookmarks