World Press on Rape Is Encouraged By Moral Policing, Human Rights And Impeachment Of Trump: New Age Islam's Selection, 12 January 2021
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
12 January 2021
• When Rape Is Encouraged By Moral Policing
By Shuprova Tasneem
• We Are Israel's Largest Human Rights Group – And We
Are Calling This Apartheid
By Hagai El-Ad
• Why The Democrats Should Not Impeach Donald Trump
By Simon Jenkins
• Never Forget What Ted Cruz Did
By Mimi Swartz
• Why We Are Introducing An Article Of Impeachment
By David N. Cicilline
• Only Impeachment Can Save Republicans
By Bret Stephens
-----
When Rape Is Encouraged By Moral Policing
By Shuprova Tasneem
January 12, 2021
On January 5, 2020, a second-year student of Dhaka
University was raped in Kurmitola after she mistakenly got off at the wrong bus
stop at around 7pm on her way to a friend's house. This was only the first in a
string of violent attacks on women (and children) throughout the year—minors,
elderly women, disabled women, indigenous women, housewives, domestic workers,
college students, madrasa students—none were spared. The more gruesome ones and/or
the ones that triggered the most protests stayed in the national spotlight for
longer, while others—the garments worker molested on her way back from work,
the unchaperoned child abused by her neighbour—slipped under the radar.
The nationwide protests against rape in 2020 led a storm of
debate surrounding violence against women in Bangladesh and raised some very
serious questions about the inefficiencies of the justice system, the sincerity
of law enforcers when pursuing rapists and the abuse of power, the failure of
the authorities in protecting the rights of women and the shortcomings of each
of us in society as we fail to deal with rape culture. These protests and
debates ultimately influenced lawmakers to amend the existing law and make
death penalty the highest possible punishment for single perpetrator rape.
However, many experts warned that this is not an effective
deterrent for rapists, especially when there are such low rates of conviction.
This was unfortunately proved true when 2021 started off in much the same
manner as 2020—with the gruesome rape of a student, who in this case was a
minor and did not survive the violence of the crime, bleeding to death shortly
after. These latest events feel like a grotesque repetition of last year's
incidents, complete with confusing statements from law enforcers (why did the
police list the victim's age as 19 in the inquest report when all official
documents state she is 17, and then begin an investigation into her "real
age"?), accusations of abuse of power (her family alleges the confusion
over her age is a deliberate attempt to "lessen the merit of the
case"), and of course, a constant in every discussion related to rape in
Bangladesh—the moralising and victim-blaming of the "ek haate tali bajey
na" brigade, otherwise known as the "what was she wearing"
faction, usually made up of social media commentators hiding behind the shield
of anonymity. Take all of this together, and you begin to understand why it is
so difficult for women to come forward after they have become victims of rape
in this country, and how little has changed over the past year, despite the
intensifying discussions on the rights of women.
It is an unfortunate truth in Bangladesh that the more
"popular" or widely discussed the rape, measured according to front
page headlines, breaking news bulletins and the scale of protests, the more
likely the chance of speedy trial and retribution—a recent report in The Daily
Star highlighted the delays in justice for rape victims with the example of two
13-year-old gang rape survivors from Badda in February 2020, where it took nine
months for the charge sheet to be submitted, even though the Women and Children
Repression (prevention) Act stipulates 60 working days for police to complete a
rape case probe. However, the other side of the coin of a highly publicised
rape case is the life of the victim being opened up to public scrutiny, leading
to a favourite pastime of our homegrown gossipmongers—deciding who is really to
"blame" for what happened.
When there is a murder or a burglary, we seem to be able to
reach the consensus that the murderer or the thief is to blame for the crime.
Not so in the case of rape—for some reason, the unspeakably violent act of
violating another human being's body must always be seen through the lenses of
morality, honour and shame instead. In 2020, a lot of people asked, why was the
DU student wandering about at night on her own, going to a friend's house to
socialise instead of sitting at home and studying like a good girl? And in
2021, the grotesque parody repeats itself to the point that it is not just
anonymous social media commentators blaming English medium educated girls for
"free mixing" and "room dating"; even journalists from
reputed television networks are seen questioning the grieving mother on whether
the rapist was the victim's boyfriend or not, and whether they actually went
back to his place to study or "something else".
When Major Sinha was killed by police, I don't remember
hearing anyone question why he was out at night in an unknown part of Cox's
Bazar making documentaries, instead of sitting in the safety of his home and
doing something more respectable. When BUET student Abrar Fahad was killed for
the simple act of updating a Facebook status his murderers didn't agree with, I
don't remember anyone questioning why he was wasting time on social media
instead of concentrating on his books. So why are even journalists demeaning
themselves by discussing the details of a rape victim's personal relationships,
and probing her reasons for going to what would later become the scene of a
brutal crime? And what exactly is the implication here? Is it okay to rape
girls who have boyfriends? Do we really live on a diet of famous love stories,
starting from Layla Majnu to whoever the latest sweethearts of Bollywood are,
only to argue that young people who enter into relationships of
"love" are somehow immoral and therefore do not deserve the same
justice that the righteous and the moral do? Who draws these lines of morality
anyway? And why do these unwritten norms of morality only seem to extend to
women?
Every society in the world faces this conflict between
modernity and morality, and this is a debate that we need to stop shying away
from not only for the sake of freedom, but for the sake of justice. Because
regardless of whether we admit it or not, this narrow-minded and often
misogynistic line of thinking that results in moral policing doesn't just
affect the trolls on Facebook—it is the reason behind police officials being hesitant
to accept cases of rape (let's not forget that even Nusrat Jahan Rafi was
turned away by the police before her abuser arranged her coldblooded murder);
it is the reason behind families staying silent after their daughters are raped
so she can keep her "reputation" intact; it is the reason behind a
justice system that is so biased against women that in 2021, it still allows
for the character assassination of rape victims in courts as a part of legal
proceedings, and it is why a lawmaker can stand up in parliament and shame
women and victim-blame without anyone else present batting an eyelid.
However, it would be wrong to consider this as a social
issue and not a political one. If the authorities are truly serious about
giving justice to rape victims, they need to make their stance clear—do they
truly believe in the equal rights of men and women, as enshrined in our
Constitution? If so, the use of character evidence in our courts needs to be
banned immediately, compensation funds and witness protection laws must be
established and our legal system needs to be reformed so that it can provide
justice to all, and not just the select few who are "lucky" enough to
have their abuse widely protested against or reported on in the media. At the
same time, our nation's role models—whether they are our lawmakers, our
teachers, our cricketers, film stars or our writers—need to play their part in
making one simple idea clear to the general public: your (unwarranted) opinions
on a woman's morality has nothing to do with her rights as a citizen in a
democratic country.
-----
Shuprova Tasneem is a member of the editorial team at The
Daily Star.
https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/news/when-rape-encouraged-moral-policing-2026097
-----
We Are Israel's Largest Human Rights Group – And We Are
Calling This Apartheid
By Hagai El-Ad
12 Jan 2021
One cannot live a single day in Israel-Palestine without the
sense that this place is constantly being engineered to privilege one people,
and one people only: the Jewish people. Yet half of those living between the
Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are Palestinian. The chasm between these
lived realities fills the air, bleeds, is everywhere on this land.
I am not simply referring to official statements spelling
this out – and there are plenty, such as prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
assertion in 2019 that “Israel is not a state of all its citizens”, or the
“nation state” basic law enshrining “the development of Jewish settlement as a
national value”. What I am trying to get at is a deeper sense of people as
desirable or undesirable, and an understanding about my country that I have
been gradually exposed to since the day I was born in Haifa. Now, it is a
realisation that can no longer be avoided.
Although there is demographic parity between the two peoples
living here, life is managed so that only one half enjoy the vast majority of
political power, land resources, rights, freedoms and protections. It is quite
a feat to maintain such disfranchisement. Even more so, to successfully market
it as a democracy (inside the “green line” – the 1949 armistice line), one to
which a temporary occupation is attached. In fact, one government rules
everyone and everything between the river and the sea, following the same
organising principle everywhere under its control, working to advance and
perpetuate the supremacy of one group of people – Jews – over another –
Palestinians. This is apartheid.
There is not a single square inch in the territory Israel
controls where a Palestinian and a Jew are equal. The only first-class people
here are Jewish citizens such as myself, and we enjoy this status both inside
the 1967 lines and beyond them, in the West Bank. Separated by the different
personal statuses allotted to them, and by the many variations of inferiority
Israel subjects them to, Palestinians living under Israel’s rule are united by
all being unequal.
Unlike South African apartheid, the application of our
version of it – apartheid 2.0, if you will – avoids certain kinds of ugliness.
You won’t find “whites only” signs on benches. Here, “protecting the Jewish
character” of a community – or of the state itself – is one of the thinly
veiled euphemisms deployed to try to obscure the truth. Yet the essence is the
same. That Israel’s definitions do not depend on skin colour make no material
difference: it is the supremacist reality which is the heart of the matter –
and which must be defeated.
Until the passage of the nation state law, the key lesson
Israel seemed to have learned from how South Africa’s apartheid ended was to
avoid too-explicit statements and laws. These can risk bringing about moral
judgments – and eventually, heaven forbid, real consequences. Instead, the
patient, quiet, and gradual accumulation of discriminatory practices tends to
prevent repercussions from the international community, especially if one is
willing to provide lip service to its norms and expectations.
This is how Jewish supremacy on both sides of the green line
is accomplished and applied.
We demographically engineer the composition of the
population by working to increase the number of Jews and limit the number of
Palestinians. We allow for Jewish migration – with automatic citizenship – to
anywhere Israel controls. For Palestinians, the opposite is true: they cannot
acquire personal status anywhere Israel controls – even if their family is from
here.
We engineer power through the allocation – or denial – of
political rights. All Jewish citizens get to vote (and all Jews can become
citizens), but less than a quarter of the Palestinians under Israel’s rule have
citizenship and can thus vote. On 23 March, when Israelis go and vote for the
fourth time in two years, it will not be a “celebration of democracy” – as
elections are often referred to. Rather, it will be yet another day in which
disfranchised Palestinians watch as their future is determined by others.
We engineer land control by expropriating huge swaths of
Palestinian land, keeping it off-limits for their development – or using it to
build Jewish towns, neighbourhoods, and settlements. Inside the green line, we
have been doing this since the state was established in 1948. In East Jerusalem
and the West Bank, we have been doing this since the occupation began in 1967.
The result is that Palestinian communities – anywhere between the river and the
sea – face a reality of demolitions, displacement, impoverishment and
overcrowding, while the same land resources are allocated for new Jewish
development.
And we engineer – or rather, restrict – Palestinians’
movement. The majority, who are neither citizens nor residents, depend on
Israeli permits and checkpoints to travel in and between one area and another,
as well as to travel internationally. For the two million in the Gaza Strip
travel restrictions are the most severe – this is not just a Bantustan, as
Israel has made it one of the largest open-air prisons on Earth.
Haifa, my birth city, was a binational reality of
demographic parity until 1948. Of some 70,000 Palestinians living in Haifa
before the Nakba, less than a 10th were left afterwards. Almost 73 years have
passed since then, and now Israel-Palestine is a binational reality of
demographic parity. I was born here. I want – I intend – to stay. But I want –
I demand – to live in a very different future.
The past is one of traumas and injustices. In the present,
yet more injustices are constantly reproduced. The future must be radically
different – a rejection of supremacy, built on a commitment to justice and our
shared humanity. Calling things by their proper name – apartheid – is not a
moment of despair: rather, it is a moment of moral clarity, a step on a long
walk inspired by hope. See the reality for what it is, name it without
flinching – and help bring about the realisation of a just future.
-----
Hagai El-Ad is an Israeli human rights activist, and
executive director of B’Tselem
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/12/israel-largest-human-rights-group-apartheid
-----
Why The Democrats Should Not Impeach Donald Trump
By Simon Jenkins
11 Jan 2021
There is a good reason for America’s Congress to humiliate
Donald Trump this week, just days from his end of term. His incitement of
violence against the Capitol merits his instant removal, as it does the
alternative of impeachment. It would be a signal to the world that America is
ashamed of this man and sees him as a mistake, a blip, a passing nightmare. The
world should sigh with relief.
Beyond that, all reasons for removing Trump are bad ones.
They would deflect attention from Joe Biden’s victory and transition into
office. And they would run a bigger risk.
The single most significant feature of last November’s
election was that Trump won 11 million more popular votes than he did in 2016,
a rise from roughly 63 million to 74 million. He might be rich, crude, immoral
and incompetent, but he became more popular in office with his base, not less.
According to exit polls, support for Trump also increased among black and
Latino voters.
Analysts can debate these figures all night, but they are
facts. Biden clearly owed his victory to a rise in support from
college-educated and wealthier Democrats. Last week, Trump may have tested
populism to destruction, but it remains to be seen if he destroyed the bedrock
of his support.
Trump’s 2016 desire to “drain the swamp” – of federal power,
overseas alliances and political insiders – was undimmed after four years in
office. At the end, as at the beginning, he loathed the old guard in Congress
and abhorred the normal channels of communication with voters. In last year’s
election, Trump portrayed his cause as incomplete and essential, and persuaded
almost half of America that its ruling class was still out to balk him. An
extra 11 million Americans voted to give him another try.
Trump’s enemies may have hoped that his actions last week
killed him politically. In which case, leave him dead. To pursue him now looks
like a vendetta; not just against him, but against his cause and supporters. It
is one thing to hate Trump but another to hate those who voted for him, and who
in their hearts may yet admire Trump’s extremism and eccentricity and see him
as their spokesman. Many are non-college-educated Americans who feel failed by
those in power, those who Hillary Clinton in 2016 called a “basket of
deplorables”.
The outgoing president’s reputation among these people will
only grow with each cry of glee from his enemies. Even if he vanishes into
exile, his supporters will seek another saviour, another maverick from the
rambling confederacy that is modern American democracy. That is why liberals
everywhere should be careful how they react to Trump’s going. Losers should
know how to lose well, but victors should know how to win wisely. So ignore
Trump, and just count the minutes until he goes.
-----
Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/11/democrats-impeach-donald-trump-exile-base
------
Never Forget What Ted Cruz Did
By Mimi Swartz
Jan. 11, 2021
When I was growing up, I was often reminded that people with
fancy educations and elite degrees “put their pants on one leg at a time just
like the rest of us.” This was back in the early 1960s, before so many rich
Texans started sending their kids to Ivy League schools, when mistrust of
Eastern educated folks — or any highly educated folks — was part of the state’s
deep rooted anti-intellectualism. Beware of those who lorded their smarts over
you, was the warning. Don’t fall for their high-toned airs.
Since I’ve been lucky enough to get a fancy enough
education, I’ve often found myself on the other side of that warning. But then
came Jan. 6, when I watched my Ivy League-educated senator, Ted Cruz, try to
pull yet another fast one on the American people as he fought — not long before
the certification process was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters storming
the Capitol and forcing their way into the Senate chamber — to challenge the
election results.
In the unctuous, patronizing style he is famous for, Mr.
Cruz cited the aftermath of the 1876 presidential election between Rutherford
Hayes and Samuel Tilden. It was contentious and involved actual disputes about
voter fraud and electoral mayhem, and a committee was formed to sort it out.
Mr. Cruz’s idea was to urge the creation of a committee to investigate invented
claims of widespread voter fraud — figments of the imaginations of Mr. Trump
and minions like Mr. Cruz — in the election of Joe Biden. It was, for Mr. Cruz,
a typical, too-clever-by-half bit of nonsense, a cynical ploy to paper over the
reality of his subversion on behalf of President Trump. (The horse trading
after the 1876 election helped bring about the end of Reconstruction; maybe Mr.
Cruz thought evoking that subject was a good idea, too.)
But this tidbit was just one of many hideous contributions
from Mr. Cruz in recent weeks. It happened, for instance, after he supported a
lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (under indictment since 2015 for
securities fraud) in an attempt to overturn election results in critical states
(it was supported by other Texan miscreants like Representative Louie Gohmert).
The esoteric exhortations of Jan. 6 from Mr. Cruz,
supposedly in support of preserving democracy, also just happened to occur
while a fund-raising message was dispatched in his name. (“Ted Cruz here. I’m
leading the fight to reject electors from key states unless there is an
emergency audit of the election results. Will you stand with me?”) The message
went out around the time that the Capitol was breached by those who probably
believed Mr. Cruz’s relentless, phony allegations.
Until last Wednesday, I wasn’t sure that anything or anyone
could ever put an end to this man’s self-serving sins and long trail of
deceptions and obfuscations. As we all know, they have left his wife, his
father and numerous colleagues flattened under one bus or another in the
service of his ambition. (History may note that Senator Lindsey Graham, himself
a breathtaking hypocrite, once joked, “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of
the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.”)
But maybe, just maybe, Mr. Cruz has finally overreached with
this latest power grab, which is correctly seen as an attempt to corral Mr.
Trump’s base for his own 2024 presidential ambitions. This time, however, Mr.
Cruz was spinning, obfuscating and demagoguing to assist in efforts to overturn
the will of the voters for his own ends.
Mr. Cruz has been able to use his pseudo-intellectualism and
his Ivy League pedigree as a cudgel. He may be a snake, his supporters (might)
admit, but he could go toe to toe with liberal elites because he, too, went to
Princeton (cum laude), went to Harvard Law School (magna cum laude), was an
editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice
William Rehnquist. Mr. Cruz was not some seditionist in a MAGA hat (or a Viking
costume); he styled himself as a deep thinker who could get the better of
lefties from those pointy headed schools. He could straddle both worlds — ivory
towers and Tea Party confabs — and exploit both to his advantage.
Today, though, his credentials aren’t just useless; they
condemn him. Any decent soul might ask: If you are so smart, how come you are
using that fancy education to subvert the Constitution you’ve long purported to
love? Shouldn’t you have known better? But, of course, Mr. Cruz did know
better; he just didn’t care. And he believed, wrongly I hope, that his
supporters wouldn’t either.
I was heartened to see that our senior senator, John Cornyn,
benched himself during this recent play by Team Crazy. So did seven of Texas’
over 20 Republican members of the House — including Chip Roy, a former chief of
staff for Mr. Cruz. (Seven counts as good news in my book.)
I’m curious to see what happens with Mr. Cruz’s
check-writing enablers in Texas’ wealthier Republican-leaning suburbs. Historically,
they’ve stood by him. But will they want to ally themselves with the mob that
vandalized our nation’s Capitol and embarrassed the United States before the
world? Will they realize that Mr. Cruz, like President Trump and the mini-Cruz,
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, would risk destroying the country in the hope
of someday leading it?
Or maybe, just maybe, they will finally see — as I did
growing up — that a thug in a sharp suit with an Ivy League degree is still a
thug.
-----
Mimi Swartz, an executive editor at Texas Monthly, is a
contributing opinion writer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/ted-cruz-capitol-attack.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-----
Why We Are Introducing an Article of Impeachment
By David N. Cicilline
Jan. 11, 2021
Since his resounding defeat in the presidential election in
November, Donald Trump has done everything but concede to the democratic will
of the American people. He unleashed an avalanche of lies and baseless claims
of fraud — conspiracy theories that filled his supporters with a delusional
belief that the election had been stolen from him. He filed a bevy of absurd
lawsuits. He attempted to cajole and intimidate officials at all levels of
government into subverting the election and keeping him in office. And then,
running out of recourse, legitimate and illegitimate, he incited an
insurrection against the government and the Constitution that he swore to
uphold.
The attempted coup at the United States Capitol last
Wednesday, which took place as lawmakers inside counted the electoral votes
that would formalize Joe Biden’s overwhelming election by the American people,
marks one of the lowest points in our country’s 245-year experiment in
democracy.
From Andrew Jackson to Richard Nixon, we have seen
presidents abuse their power, but we had never witnessed an American president
incite a violent mob on the citadel of our democracy in a desperate attempt to
cling to power.
We cannot let this go unanswered. With each day, Mr. Trump
grows more and more desperate. We should not allow him to menace the security
of our country for a second longer.
Once the House opens for legislative business, my co-authors
— Representatives Ted Lieu and Jamie Raskin — and I will introduce an article
of impeachment to remove Mr. Trump from office for incitement of insurrection.
As lawmakers who have impeached this president once before,
we do not take this responsibility lightly. In fact, it was not our first
choice of action. In the midst of last Wednesday’s siege, we were among those
that asked Vice President Mike Pence to convene the Cabinet to invoke the 25th
Amendment to quickly remove Mr. Trump from office. We have called on the
president to resign.
Days have passed, and it is clear that neither of those
possibilities will be realized. So it is Congress’s responsibility to act.
The American people witnessed Mr. Trump’s actions for
themselves. We all saw his speech on Jan. 6. We watched his fanatics storm the
Capitol at his request. Five people died, including a U.S. Capitol Police
officer and four of the president’s supporters. We fear what Mr. Trump may do
with his remaining time in office.
That is why we believe the article of impeachment should be
voted on as soon as possible. It is true that even after we act, Senator Mitch
McConnell may, as he did one year ago, try to prevent a conviction in the U.S.
Senate. It is also true that a trial might extend into the first days of the
Biden administration.
Neither of those possibilities should deter us in our work.
Some argue that another impeachment trial would further divide our country and
further inflame Trump supporters. But the truth is that we do not have a
choice. This impeachment charge is meant to defend the integrity of the
republic. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress must attend to the
duties of their oath. Failing to act would set an irresponsibly dangerous
precedent for future presidents who are about to leave office.
Further, there can be no healing of the divisions in our
country without justice for the man most responsible for this horrific
insurrection. The president must be held accountable. That can happen only by
impeaching him for a second time and convicting him in the Senate. A conviction
that would allow Congress to prohibit him from ever serving in federal office
again.
What happened last Wednesday was an abomination. There is no
question about that. There is also no question that Mr. Trump becomes more of a
threat to public safety by the moment.
The only question now is what Congress will do about it.
-----
David N. Cicilline (@davidcicilline) is a member of the
Democratic Party and House Judiciary Committee who has represented Rhode
Island’s First Congressional District since 2011.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/trump-article-of-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-----
Only Impeachment Can Save Republicans
By Bret Stephens
Jan. 11, 2021
If there’s one thing Republicans in Congress ought to
consider as they weigh the merits of impeaching Donald Trump, it’s the story of
the president’s relationship with Mike Pence.
In December 2015, then-Governor Pence tweeted, “Calls to ban
Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional.” In April
2016, Tim Alberta reported that Pence “loathes Trump, according to longtime
friends.” In July of the same year, Republican strategist Dan Senor tweeted,
“It’s disorienting to have had commiserated w/someone re: Trump — about how he
was unacceptable, & then to see that someone become Trump’s VP.”
You know what came next. Pence turned himself into the most
unfailingly servile sidekick in vice-presidential history. He delivered the
evangelical vote to Trump. He stood by the president at every low point, from
the “Access Hollywood” tape to Charlottesville, Va., to Helsinki to the Ukraine
call. He indulged Trump’s fantasies about a stolen election.
He betrayed his principles. He abased himself. Then Trump
insisted that he steal the election. When Pence refused — he had no legal
choice — Trump stirred the mob to go after him.
The Pence-Trump story is also the G.O.P.-Trump story. It’s a
play in four acts: brief resistance, abject submission, complete complicity and
now bitter regret.
Regarding regret: It isn’t just that Trump managed to lose
the House, the presidency and the Senate for the party. Or that most if not all
of Trump’s policy victories (as conservatives see them) will soon be erased by
the new administration. Or that Trump transformed the G.O.P. brand from one of
law and order, of federalism and originalism, into one of incitement and riot,
of cult of personality and usurpation of power.
It’s that Trump turned against the Republican Party, a
predictable move that somehow took the party by surprise. If the party doesn’t
now turn against him, it will be tainted and crippled for years to come.
The moral case is clear. Trump has the blood of Capitol
Police Officer Brian Sicknick on his hands. Legal analysts can debate whether
Trump’s speech met the Brandenburg test for incitement to violence, but it’s
irrelevant to an impeachment. Everyone except his most sophistical apologists
agrees that Trump whipped up the mob.
If conservatives want to have a moral leg to stand on as
they condemn a siege of a federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., or a police
station in Minneapolis, they have an obligation to impeach him now.
The institutional case is clear. The president attacked the
states, in their right to set their own election procedures. He attacked the
courts, state as well as federal, in their right to settle the election challenges
brought before them. He attacked Congress, in its right to conduct orderly
business free of fear. He attacked the vice president, in his obligation to
fulfill his duties under the 12th Amendment. He attacked the American people,
in their right to choose the electors who choose the president.
I’ve spent much of my life listening to conservatives extol
the Madisonian system of checks and balances, not to mention the rule of law.
If these conservatives want to have any claim to be the champions of republican
government — as opposed to the “mobocratic spirit” that Lincoln warned against
— they have an obligation to impeach Trump now.
The philosophical case is clear. Senator Mitch McConnell was
eloquent and right: “If this election were overturned by mere allegations from
the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral. We’d never see the
whole nation accept an election again. Every four years would be a scramble for
power at any cost.”
Conservatives who like to see themselves as guardians of Christian
ethics might remind themselves of a familiar admonition: “Whatever you wish
that others would do to you, do also to them.” If Republicans don’t want to see
a future Democratic president attempt what Trump just did, they have an
obligation to follow the Golden Rule and impeach him now.
And the political case is clear. Republicans in Congress
spent four years prostrate to the lower mind. What, other than the judges who
helped affirm the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election, do they have to show for
it? The president, whom they fear, despises them merely for failing to steal
the election for him. They are verbally assaulted at airports by the same angry
losers whose paranoid fantasies they did so much to stoke. And Republicans will
continue to live in political fear of Trump if Congress doesn’t bar him from
holding office ever again.
Now they have a chance to make a break — not clean, but at
least constructive — with the proven loser in the White House. Not many
Republicans deserve this shot at redemption, but they still ought to take it.
The G.O.P. came back after Watergate only after its party leaders — Howard
Baker, George H.W. Bush, Barry Goldwater — broke unequivocally with Richard
Nixon.
You’ll hear Republicans like the House minority leader,
Kevin McCarthy, talk about the need for healing. Fine. But this sort of healing
first requires cauterizing the wound. It’s called impeachment. Republicans
mustn’t shrink from it.
-----
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The
Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at The Wall
Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem
Post. Facebook
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/trump-republicans-impeachment.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
-----