On the Count of Just Generally Being the Worst Fucking People on the Planet, What Say You?

“We have what we think is a sufficient basis for us to have begun a criminal investigation”

That's our chief law enforcement officer in the nation talking about going after British Petroleum. He sounds awfully confident and fierce doesn't he? I mean, it seems like at this particular time he seems fairly confident that the factors rise to the level of appropriately considering the possible contemplation of a pursuit of some form of legal action... potentially.

This statement, in the overall context can be read 1 of 2 ways. A) The Attorney General wanted to make the most non-committal statement imaginable, while also saying enough to produce national headlines with phrases in them like "Obama Administration!"" "Criminal Investigation!" "Against BP!" Or B) The Attorney General is saying "Fuck those assholes, I want to attach legal electrical nodes to their corporate nuts and go to fucking town! And, woo-hoo I think I can actually do this with some element of legitimacy cuz some shit or the other is 'sufficient'."

I could make my case for why I think it's A) more so than B) or vice versa but really, does it even matter? Which is better? Or rather, which is dumber? Either way, our Attorney General is once again revealing himself as a tool of the political calculus of the Obama administration, not a law enforcer. If prosecuting crimes was American Idol, he'd be fucking Ryan Seacrest, the guy who just announces the results and does what he's told; he's not even Simon Cowell with an ounce of consistency and integrity and a brain of his own.

To be clear: Fuck BP. Randomly drawing names of BP employees and forcing them to fight eachother to the death on pay per view seems almost reasonably just at this point, so it's not that I oppose - at least morally - some sort of very serious punishments for those scumbags. But the Attorney General position is meant to be an honest and neutral enforcer of the law, not a political pawn wielding his enormous power based on opinion polls. Whatever anyone may think of BP, however furious some might be, does anyone in their actual, rational mind not want them to be prosecuted under clear and standing laws in a legitimate, transparent and fair way? Does anyone want to deny BP their right to defend themselves at a potential trial? Is anyone in favor of a prosecutor standing before a court and saying "Well uh, we're not sure what laws exactly were broken here, but I just fucking HATE these people, so I'm charging them with "world-rape" and "douche-noodling" and my evidence is all that shit that went down in the water, I mean come on!" Would anyone find such a process and spectacle satisfying?

Obviously, Holder is not quite heading down a path to legal anarchy, and from what I've read it appears there is ample evidence that BP has in fact violated serious and important laws, but clearly these "investigations" are, at least in no small part, about a national catharsis, a giant "Fuck You" on behalf of all Americans. And that, manifested in criminal prosecutions, is only different in degree to the fictitious scenario I drew up above.

Let's go back to Holder's quote and compare this to his failure to prosecute law-breaking in the Bush administration: Holder himself called water-boarding torture, and torture is plainly described as a crime under domestic law, and many leading Bush officials - including Dick Cheney - have admitted to supporting, endorsing or ordering waterboarding. If that's not a "sufficient basis" to "begin" and investigation then what exactly would be?

Failing to investigate, let alone prosecute, obvious and admitted-to crimes delegitimizes all other prosecutions. But contrasted against and combined with prosecuting people for generally shitty conduct and maybe, possibly some actual law-breaking is the mark of a tyrant, a Roman Emperor desperate for the love of his people punishing the disfavored while the loyal, popular or powerful can openly admit to serious crimes with impunity.

I suppose a small degree of this is expected and understandable, but when this becomes the prevailing notion, what we have is an AG (and a country) that is only nominally guided (or governed) by the law.