Washington villagers don't believe in the Rule of Law

Which matters more? The continued Rule of Law in Washington D.C. or assuaging the feelings of members of the Bush administration who don't want to be publicly exposed as criminals? Here's what Glenn Greenwald has to say:

A Washington Post article today on the need to restore confidence in the Justice Department quotes former high-level Clinton DOJ official Robert Litt urging the new Obama administration to avoid any investigations or prosecutions of Bush lawbreaking:

Obama will have to do a careful balancing act. At a conference in Washington this week, former department criminal division chief Robert S. Litt asked that the new administration avoid fighting old battles that could be perceived as vindictive, such as seeking to prosecute government officials involved in decisions about interrogation and the gathering of domestic intelligence. Human rights groups have called for such investigations, as has House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

"It would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time calling people up to Congress or in front of grand juries," Litt said. "It would really spend a lot of the bipartisan capital Obama managed to build up."

There is a coherent way to argue against investigations and prosecutions of actions by Bush officials: one could argue that they weren't illegal. Obviously, if one believes that, then that is conclusive on the question.

But that's not what Litt is arguing here. Instead, his belief is that Bush officials should be protected from DOJ proceedings even if they committed crimes. And his reason for that is as petty and vapid as it is corrupt: namely, it is more important to have post-partisan harmony in our political class than it is to hold Presidents and other high officials accountable when they break the law.

Post-partisan harmony is not worth the sacrifice of the Rule of Law. Litt would probably be one of the first to use the argument of "Moral Hazard" when bailing out individuals who made economic mistakes, but apparently does not see the moral hazard of not enforcing the law on government officials who may have broken the laws.

Our Constitution and laws are worthless pieces of paper unless there are institutions and actively used procedures in place to enforce their provisions. Those institutions and procedures are collectively called the Rule of Law. If they are ignored a moral hazard is created. No one follows a law unless they expect that they can be caught and punished for violating it. They learn by watching others around them violate laws and not be caught and punished.

Trying to maintain some vacuous "post-partisan harmony" at the priced of eliminating the Rule of Law will destroy the law and it will not maintain the harmony. It will just encourage more law breaking and thus increase the belief that there are no rules to be followed, so anything anyone does is legitimate.