of course, because he's the (4.00 / 2)

President of all people: torturers and those weirdos who believe in the rule of law and decency.  

Based on what you have seen so far, you know the answer.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM CST

I don't expect any prosecutions (0.00 / 0)

because such would be a real world "Change", and it appears that Mr. O is not really interested in such.

Perhaps we can expect someone to refute this statement:

"The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it," Ratner said. "I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable."

if we don't get any prosecutions, or truth commissions?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:41:46 AM CST

What have we learned? (4.00 / 8)

By the pardoning of Nixon and the failure to investigate Iran/Contra we learned that we are setting ourselves up for more lawlessness in the future.
 I know in the wake of economic crisis this seems small potatoes but it not only sends a message to the world it sets up the future generations for even worse law breaking than what we have seen in the past 8 years.
I shudder to think what that may entail
.

---

by: Gibson @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:54:43 AM CST

Most certainly (0.00 / 0)

Obama shouldn't pardon anyone from the previous administration. Any indication that he might be thinking of pardons should be vehemently protested.

The more likely scenario is that Bush may issue a blanket pardon before leaving office. If Obama were to say anything indicating an intention to prosecute, it would give Bush the political opening to issue such a pardon while arguing that it was a response to Obama's politicization of the issure rather than an implicit admission of guilt.

---

by: Cramer @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The question was not whether Obama should say it NOW (0.00 / 0)

the question was will his administration prosecute, EVER.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:16:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Obama pardons Bush lawbreakers (0.00 / 0)

I won't vote for or support him again.  That's my bottom line. But I can't really see that as a realistic scenario.  What would he have to gain from it?

---

by: Querent @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:04:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Will Obama Ignore Evidence of War Crimes by the Bush Administration? (0.00 / 0)

Yes. This has been another edition of SA2SQ.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:56:50 AM CST

I don't believe Obama should prosecute. (4.00 / 1)

Indeed, I believe that would be too political.

But neither should he direct his AG not to prosecute. The decision whether to prosecute or not should, ideally, be made by lawyers in the justice department based on the likelihood of conviction in light of the evidence at hand. And any prosecution should be carried out by justice department lawyers - not by the president, whatever his legal credentials.

Any commitment in advance by Obama or other members of the transition team to prosecute is inherently political. The political appointees in the executive branch shouldn't be seen as obstructing investigations into the executive branch. They also shouldn't be seen as advocating investigations of anyone outside the executive branch. The Bush administration committed both errors and Obama is right to not make any definite statement one way or the other - I hope that the unnamed source in the AP article was trying to pressure the Obama team rather than speaking for the Obama team.

A Truth commission is a political activity, and one that Obama and other political appointees could advocate for without interfering in the operation of the justice department. Obviously, the degree to which witnesses testifying to a truth commission were granted immunity would have to be negotiated between the justice department and Obama.

---

by: Cramer @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 11:58:54 AM CST

I voted "Yes, uphold the laws" (4.00 / 1)

but I object to the third choice ("Whatever Obama decides"), which implies that Obama should have something to do with the decision. He shouldn't. It should be handled by investigators fully independent of any politicians or political appointees.

---

by: Cramer @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think that Cramer is making sense here. (0.00 / 0)

One option I have thought worthy of discussion in the past is for President-Elect Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the possibility of war crimes.  Since Cheney has already admitted to having committed them, cries of politics would seem to be easily refuted.  In addition, a special prosecutor would be wholly independent of the administration once appointed, and that independence would also tend to nullify assertions of politicization of the process.  The drawback, of course, would be the necessity of providing a special prosecutor with a budget, which I believe would have to be approved by Congress. On the other hand, I think it would be legal for the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor, who could then be funded from the Justice Department budget.  Am I wrong?

---

by: Querent @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:12:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, let's just sweep it further under the rug (0.00 / 0)

and hope it goes away.

Since when has it become "too political" to hold those responsible accountable for their actions?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It ain't like no one has investigated the issue (0.00 / 0)

The Senate Armed Services Committee just issued its report:

http://www.pubrecord.org/natio...


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Colin Powell, Robert Gates (4.00 / 1)

Based on Obama's willingness to court and accept the endorsement of a known torturer like Colin Powell, and keep in place a known torturer like Robert Gates, Obama has no interest in punishing torturers.

It is a little like the Catholic Church and clerical child molest, people know that it is a problem, but they are not ready to confront it. Otherwise Gates would be politically radioactive.

---

by: AliceDem @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:02:04 PM CST

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

Where have you heard that Powell and Gates have advocated or ordered torture? There are valid arguments to be made about Obama's engagement with these two but this seems pretty unfounded.

---

by: morgan @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 12:28:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Powell and Gates (0.00 / 0)

Both have been in the position to forcefully condemn the policies of Bush-Cheney.  If they didn't do EVERYTHING within their power to stop it, then they are guilty too.

---

by: Susan S @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 13:07:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What kind of power (0.00 / 0)

do you think Gates and Powell had over the Bush administration?  Everyone else inside the administration who dared to question the autocratic decisions of Bush and Cheney was summarily fired.  And in the case of Gates, I think the non-covert use of torture was over by the time he took office.

---

by: Querent @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:16:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The power of celebrity, (0.00 / 0)

and in Powell's case, popularity.  It's one thing to "summarily fire" a low-level staffer, but quite different when it's someone of Powell's stature.  BTW, I think Powell needs to be tried for war crimes for his role in taking us to war.  He was the one person who could have stopped the Bush administration and he didn't.  He even admitted he knew the intelligence wasn't legit.  His testimony at the UN, which he knew was suspect, sealed the deal for a lot of Americans who didn't trust Bush-Cheney.

---

by: Susan S @ Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 07:09:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the burden lies on Congress (0.00 / 0)

I don't think that the Justice Department should initiate prosecution. I think that any action should originate with Congress using its powers of oversight.  Whether or not Congress will do so is an open question, but I think that matters such as this should originate from another branch of government as a matter of checks and balances and not from a new administration looking into the actions of its predecessor.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 14:45:39 PM CST

Yeah, that's fine, except (0.00 / 0)

CONGRESS CAN'T PROSECUTE.

---

by: Querent @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 23:19:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am offended by this diary.... (0.00 / 0)

The President-elect is a fierce advocate against war crimes. He has always spoken out against war crimes and in favor of victims of war crimes.  How dare you question his commitment to speaking out against war crimes?

[ha ha]

---

by: damitajo1 @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 14:54:43 PM CST