Obama: Time to look forward, but Bush aides aren't above the law

[BlueJessamine]

Source: USA TODAY

On ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning, George asks President-elect Barack Obama whether he might appoint a special prosecutor to look into actions taken by the Bush administration, including water-boarding and electronic eaves-dropping.

Obama doesn't rule that out, but also says "my orientation's going to be to move forward." Here's their exchange:

Stephanopoulos: "The most popular question on your own website is related to this. On change.gov it comes from Bob Fertik of New York City and he asks, 'Will you appoint a special prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping.' "

Obama: "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."

Stephanopoulos: "So, no 9/11 commission with Independence subpoena power?"

Obama: "We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."



Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/20...

---

The full 'This Week' Transcript: Barack Obama is here:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/Story?id=6618199...


When pressed by Stephanopoulos as to whether he will instruct his Justice Department to investigate such accusations, Obama deferred to his nominated Attorney General Eric Holder.

"When it comes to my attorney general he is the people's lawyer... His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not to be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So, ultimately, he's going to be making some calls, but my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past."

[grannie4peace]

1. i love obama!!!

[Political Heretic]

3. Why? That was the most watered down, weak assed answer I've ever heard.

This week has just been a pummeling week for me as far as Obama is concerned. So much news that I am so disappointed with. Here's hoping next week is better.

[Lorien]

13. I wish I didn't feel he same way, but I do. "Looking forward" seems to indicate

"we'll give the criminals a pass". Imagine a judge in a murder case dismissing the case because he thought it would be more positive and less expensive to "look forward" instead of dwelling on the past? The victim's family wouldn't feel very good about that, and in this case AMERICA is the victim!

[bobbolink]

88. That's exactly right. We're a nation of laws, and Dems must show that we

VALUE our laws enough to enforce them!

And not just enforcement that gathers up poor folk, either!

[alfredo]

25. It is not up to Obama to tell the DoJ who to prosecute or not.

Anywy, if he said more he might spook bush into granting pardons to his whole administration, or at least those who could turn state's evidence. Never show your hand before all bets are in.

[jaysunb]

40. You are soooo right

[alfredo]

46. thank you.

[atreides1]

78. Or You Could Be Completely Wrong.

[alfredo]

90. 50 50 chance.

[No Elephants]

71. You think this would come as a surprise to Bushco? I bet the pardons have been in a safe in an

undisclosed location for months, maybe years.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. What he says isn't inspiring, and if what he says is what he does then he's obstructing justice.

If what he does is to direct his AG to thoroughly investigate the alleged crimes and to follow them where they go, and upon finding proof of violations to bring prosecutions, then that's what we pay him to do, that's his job.

[alfredo]

81. They don't need him to direct them, and it is best he doesn't get

involved, at least until the majority of his agenda has been acted upon.

bush and cheney will face their day in court, if not here, in the courts overseas.

[mike_c]

2. lame....

Lack of political will to do the right thing is why we need to be signatories to the ICC. People who trampled the Constitution should indeed be looking over their shoulders.

[Le Taz Hot]

4. In answer to the question,

"Will you appoint a special prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping."

Short answer: "Nope."

If anything at all happens, he'll throw some underlings under the bus and let the big boys go. Watch and see if this isn't exactly what happens.

[acmavm]

5. Bwahahahahahahaha!

<snip>

..."my orientation's going to be to move forward."

<snip>

Where oh where have we heard this shit before?

[azygous]

10. Charlie Brown, football, Lucy

Oh yes. Let's move on.

[tom_paine]

82. Not looking good, is it?

[G_j]

6. how do we move forward

with all that criminal baggage not addressed?
We are talking high crimes, war crimes!

++++++++++++++++++

AND, why did they bother asking??


http://www.alternet.org/rights/118708/campaign_for_spec...

Campaign For Special Torture Prosecutor Takes Change.gov Site By Storm
By Ari Melber, TheNation.com. Posted January 9, 2009.

The votes are in, and the top-ranked question -- out of 70,000 submitted to Obama's site -- asks for an investigation of torture and spying.

A whopping 70,000 questions poured into Change.gov over the past week, in response to the Obama transition team's call for citizen queries to the President-Elect. After votes from about 100,000 people, the top ranked question asks Obama whether he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of torture and illegal surveillance by the U.S. government. I've been working with activist Bob Fertik to organize support for the question, and several progressive bloggers urged readers and Obama supporters to vote for it last week. Digby, who has written extensively about the Bush administration's abuse of the rule of law, recently reported on the progress:

I wrote a post about initiative spearheaded by Ari Melber of The Nation and Democrats.com to ask President-elect Obama if he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes in the Bush administration over at Change.gov. (In a previous round, it was the sixth most asked question...) This time, through their efforts, it's number one. This is particularly important, since the press has only asked Obama about this one time, last April. And a lot has happened since then, most obviously the fact that Vice President is all over television admitting to war crimes as if he's proud of it.
Then The New York Times picked up the news:

The number one submission on the popular "Open for Questions" portion of the site might seem more than a little impolitic to : "Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor -- ideally Patrick Fitzgerald -- to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping," wrote Bob Fertik of New York, who runs the Web site, Democrats.com.
Though the Obama team has promised to answer some of the top questions as early as this week, they have not said whether they will respond to Mr. Fertik's, which has received more than 22,000 votes since the second round of the question-and-answer feature began on Dec. 30. The site logged more than 1.5 million votes for 20,000-plus questions ... The second highest-ranked submission, which is about oversight of the nation's banking industry, is several thousand of votes behind the query about a special prosecutor. Mr. Fertik's question has been pushed to the top, in part, by a coalition of liberal bloggers ...


..more..

[Kolesar]

9. This story does not bother me

I feel that the victims are owed justice and that investigations and prosecutions must proceed.

Obama's risk is that this is managed in such a way the the Republicans and their media does not just accuse the Democrats of plotting for political revenge. That could suck the air out of the political space for half a year. We really do have to work on an energy policy and getting out of Iraq. That is prime.

[Lorien]

16. Revenge? BushCo has a 22% approval rating. At this point I think America

would love to see them tarred and feathered and paraded through the streets! And that includes most republicans; the ones I know blame them for bringing down their entire party and ruining the economy. NOT prosecuting them will make Obama look weak.

[Kolesar]

69. Well, bush still has a 100% approval rating at Time-Warner-CNN &the Washington Post

Don't overestimate the critical thinking of the sheep once the press figures out how to present the republican message.

[onehandle]

7. Teasing Liberals with an empty statement.

Bush and his cronies got away with it.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. I guess I'm reduced to the hope that he's talking softly

so they don't all get wind of what's coming and head for Paraguay this week.

I know that's pathetic, but what's left? I'm too old to believe in the Jail Fairy.

[ben_thayer]

19. Me too, but I don't think it's pathetic

after seeing the way this administrations documents and E-mail records tend to disappear when they get a whiff of accountability.

[EraOfResponsibility]

11. Oh STFU all of you and quit your damn bellyaching

You don't know the whole story, so quit assuming you know what Obama is or isn't going to do.

[Fumesucker]

12. I agree completely..

It's just stupid that people discuss politics on a political website..

Oh, wait..

[EraOfResponsibility]

30. Yeah it IS stupid....unless you take that discussion to Obama himself

bug his skinny ass about it if you don't like what he's saying. That's what I intend to do. All of ya'll are all whine moan bitch and no action. The only empty rhetoric I see around here is YOURS.

[Fumesucker]

34. Again, I agree completely

Cheerleading is so much more effective.

[EraOfResponsibility]

61. I'm not cheerleading, I intend to hold Obama's feet to the fire for this

Obama WANTS us to, he said so himself. He is not perfect and he is not a miracle worker so it's up to us to REMIND him in constructive ways to do what he's supposed to do.

[riverdale]

92. If the President does it, then it is not illegal

Okay, we pretty much know Obama's position.

[Bandit]

15. How can we go forward if we don't know our past?

Forward from what? If there is to be no accountability then we certainly are not going forward..

[Wizard777]

20. Better yet, how do we own our future if we don't own our past?

Then we wonder how we got into the deformed, shapeless, and cancerous void spiraling out of control.

"Fighting fire with empty words."
"No one wants to see how society keeps spreading the disease."
Queensryche
Spreading The Disease
Operation Mindcrime

[Dystopian]

22. Aptly put.

peace~

[Elidor]

47. Josh Marshall had an interesting take on your deeply stupid sentiment today

"Second, when I write stuff critical of Obama, either on the policy or political fronts, there's always a rush of emails saying, 'Give him a chance!' 'Leave Obama alone!' 'He's probably got a plan you don't know about!' and so on. He may. I hope he does. But all of these debates are dynamic. You never assume anything. If Nate's right about what Obama's plan is, having people pushing for something better from the outside is part of it. So under either scenario, holding your tongue makes no sense, in addition to being unethical."

[Hissyspit]

50. Now stop with that logic stuff!

[No Elephants]

75. Thank you. Doing something--speaking, writing, whatever--is our duty and our

responsiblity as Democrats and as citizens. Speaking out about Rick Warren certainly seems to have had some postive ramifications.

[EconomicLiberal]

14. Translation: The Bush crime cabal will get away scot free. n/t

[totodeinhere]

17. As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed in his response.

It comes off as double talk and politics as usual, not the new type of politics that he has promised. We have got to keep the pressure on him to do the right thing.

[bushmeister0]

53. It's worse than double talk. It's Bush Speak 101.

Mistakes were made. We're not going to play the blame game. "I don't want to try to get into going back through every single detail of this. I mean, we're going to look at all this. Right now we're trying to stay focused on what's ahead, not what's passed," as Scot McClellan used to say on many an occasion.

Bacially what Obama is saying is, these people with their extraordinary talents are protecting America, let's not stop them from protecting us by putting them in jail for doing things that have made us less safe.

Makes prefect sense.

[Wizard777]

18. If we move forward without prosecutions of those who did break the law. Then they are above the law.

Regardless of how many times Obama says they aren't above the law. It's the prosecutions that makes them accountable to the law. Not statements espousing a philosophy. Without those prosecution they are functionally above the law. Bush would have been assassinated long ago if people thought the only punishment would be a robust verbal condemnation of their actions. A lack of prosecution is tacit approval of the atrocities Bush has committed.

[booksenkatz]

21. Clinton "looked forward" too

And because of that, the crooks from Bush the Smarter's administration got away with their crimes of the 1980s, then crept back into power later on to continue their crimes under Bush the Dumber.

They (and their offspring) will be back in a decade for an encore if we don't put a stop to it once and for all.

[bertman]

23. So, President Obama is going to leave those kinds of decisions up to the AG. Velly interestink.

I wonder if he would leave that decision up to the AG if one of his daughters was murdered. You know, for the sake of moving forward and all.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. Depends. In this case, though, he appointed the AG.

[alfredo]

29. The DoJ is supposed to be loyal to the law. It is not the president who

dictates what cases they take up. Obama doesn't need to say a thing publicly about sending the junta to prison, and it is better he didn't. Remember, bush could pardon everyone in his administration if he felt threatened by Obama or his DoJ. Best keep any info on future prosecutions secret.

[bertman]

35. I agree that it's best to keep any info on future prosecutions secret. However, it is

disenginuous in the extreme to act as if the President has no say or influence in who or what the AG investigates and prosecutes.

[alfredo]

48. The DoJ is not the president's personal lawyer. Sure, the president

can use his bully pulpit, but not until he is sworn in.

[bertman]

59. You're right, alfredo, the DOJ is not the president's personal lawyer. And I'm not

referring to the bully pulpit. I'm talking about the real world where the Attorney General and the President are on the same team, work very closely, and as history has proved again and again, collaborate on what the DOJ's priorities are.

No Attorney General is going to be operating on his own for long. The lawbreaking that he investigates will be the lawbreaking that it is the President's decision to pursue. There are so many fish to fry and the stakes are so high that the President ultimately decides what gets attention and what is allowed to slide. That's just the way our government works. It's not going to change with Obama and his AG.

[alfredo]

62. If I was in Obama's place I would be vague on the question of prosecution.

You don't want to give the perps enough time to destroy evidence like Meese did with Ollie North.

[bertman]

63. I agree. But I'm afraid they're not so "slow" that they haven't already thought of that.

It's probably going to take a lot of digging to get to the bottom of this mountain of shit.

[alfredo]

65. True, but they want to make sure some don't bolt before anything can

be done.

We might not know of any investigation until the DoJ goes public, so let's not get too anxious just yet.

What we need to impress on everyone, that if we don't prosecute, the EU and other interested parties will. It is better if we do it to ensure bush gets something his victims never got: a fair trial.

[stlsaxman]

66. Bingo! To answer the question directly feeds into a neo-con trap.

And Snuffy is a neo-con hack.

[bertman]

68. "Snuffy"

[No Elephants]

73. Isn't he though? You'd never know he once worked for a Dem Prez. Smug little twerp..

[No Elephants]

72. They have had plenty of time to destroy evidence and they have done so. Hard drives AWOL,

shredders, you name it.

[atreides1]

79. Supposed to be loyal to the law

Well that may be true in theory, but we've seen how well that's worked in the last 8 years! I think Bush already has plans to pardon his close friends and confidants, and let the lower echelon pukes hang.

Bush may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but Cheney is far from stupid and self preservation is his top priority

It wouldn't surprise me that the list of pardons is already in Dick's hands waiting for George's signature, and on January 21st the high ranking war criminals will have that "get out of jail free card" in their hands as they walk out the door, laughing all the way.

[tom_paine]

83. Sssshhhhhh! We're not allowed to ask those kinds of questions.

n/t

[MasonJar]

24. It is quite obvious that Obama has no intention of calling those bushista

criminals to account. Johnathan Turley needs to give him a lesson in Constitutional law; I thought that was an area Obama was already well-schooled in, but obviously not. America and the world want those who have committed WAR CRIMES brought to justice. This not ordinary nefarious politics as usual we are talking about; that would be worth going on without a backward look, probably. This is war crimes...people's lives have been lost and destroyed. Low level soldiers are in jail right now for perpetrating the crimes these traitors wanted. And this question is number one on the change website, and yet Obama is brushing it aside!!!!!!!!!

[nodramamama]

28. He seems to imply that prosecuting Bush aids is a step backward

Since "moving forward" is said to be the desirable outcome.

[alfredo]

33. Obama is right by being vague at this point. His AG still faces confirmation.

If the Reps see a serious threat they can tie up Holder's confirmation for years.

[marasinghe]

86. yeah; way to play smart - instead of doing the right thing (n/t)

[alfredo]

91. He hasn't even taken his oath yet. How can he?

[awoke_in_2003]

27. Nothing will happen...

but if it does, get anybody EXCEPT Fitzgerald to handle it.

[tbyg52]

31. Whatever the answer, I am happy that the question got asked on national TV. nt

[ooglymoogly]

38. Especially the question most voted up on his site and by a very large margin. nt

[ejbr]

32. Wait and see, I guess

I can only hope that he is tip toeing around the issue because he has yet to be sworn in and has to rely on the criminals to not fuck things up even more. On January 21st, I want to see what he has to say.

[Meeker Morgan]

36. Hear that George?

Time to get moving with those pardons!

[ooglymoogly]

37. Any one who cannot read O's answers as just so many dodges

because this is a hot button issue and he does not want to lose all that support does not have a clue about O politics. He clearly would like this to just go away, under the rug. O is not going to prosecute and he has signaled his AG to do the same. This country has become nothing but a lawless (for officials only) banana republic and O is going to continue to "make it so". The only way he is going to prosecute is if enough of us continue to loudly hold his feet to the fire.

[Phred42]

39. What a BS Dodge. Anyone can interprit this anyway they choose

So where the hell does he stand?

[dixiegrrrrl]

41. Obama plays poker, so I am told.

[Jefferson23]

42. Naive as I am, I will say that Obama would never come out and say he will go after the bastards.

But that doesn't mean it won't happen, the circumstances politically will shape that crossing. I haven't given up believing what may occur once investigations are completed and revealed.

[Skip Intro]

43. So blatant criminals with blood-soaked hands will walk away smiling, with a wink from Obama...

There's no reason we can't both "look forward" AND bring justice to those war-mongering, mass-murdering, fear-mongering enemies of the constitution and the people. We can do both. All that is right and just demands we do both.

All I see here is politics as usual.

[ProgressIn2008]

44. Ah. So prosecuting war crimes is now "a step backwards." Isn't upbeat enough.

Jesus. This is complicity, plain and simple, if an incoming administration doesn't condemn Bushco as war criminals who must be held accountable. If not, the whole farce of our political system is on display -- the rich and powerful can get away with murder, get away with torture, get away with lies and illegal wars, and their cronies turn a blind eye.

Either the crimes committed by Bushco weren't that bad after all, or the incoming Obama administration has decided to partake of the guilt by dismissing them.

[jmowreader]

45. There's one thing we can all agree on about Obama

He never shows his hand until exactly the right moment.

In this case, he knows Bush has pardon power for nine more days. If he got on national television and said, "I'm going to investigate the crimes of the previous administration and hold them all to account," Bush would be pardoning people so fast he'd melt his laser printer. The second Obama speaks the words "So help me God" Bush is fair game. Until then, Obama's better off pretending that he's not going to do anything to Bush or any of his cronies.

[GinaMaria]

49. Umm... So was that a 'yes' or a 'no'? eom

[xiamiam]

51. obama doesnt have a choice really..the sins of our nation can only be healed by holding the creators

of these atrocities accountable...we have been collectively humiliated and ashamed..and if it is time to move on, we have to deal with it..not pretend the why and who of it didnt happen..or this scar on our psyches will never go away...he does not have a choice in this matter...it is bigger and more deep rooted than one man ..even obama...can address...we're not begging..we are demanding that our moral compass as a nation be reset..

[2Design]

52. I am interested in his answers once he IS the POTUS and not

these leading up to it so bush has a chance to undermine whatever he says moments - this is still during the job interview stage where things can go wrong - I don't expect him to answer these stupid ass questions from media who would give away tactical and strategic information to the enemy

[TrogL]

54. I hate to say it, but I think that's code for "forgive Bush"

...and all his cronies.

[WyldRogue]

55. And if that happens...

...then we are lost as a nation as we elected the individual that is supposed to be the representative of the Will of the People and the Will of the People wants justice done for what the * administration has done so that we CAN move forward. How can Obama expect us to move forward without closure??

I have my fingers crossed and my prayers reaching out that Obama does indeed bring those war criminals to justice. If not, he'll be a 1-hit wonder in my book and will not garner my vote in 2012.

[conspirator]

57. Obama is as good man as Colin Powel, and as powerless nt

[No Elephants]

74. Powell? Powell, who did his best to sell the Iraqi invasion to the

American people, the UN and the world, believing all the while that there was not enough evidence for it?

His only solution to the evidence deficit was to have George Tenet seated behind him in the UN and make sure Tenet was in camera range? In other words, all Powell cared about was being able to point to Tenet if the invasion hit the fan.

[marasinghe]

89. irony - perhaps witting - on the part of poster # 57.. (n/t)

[tclambert]

58. I hope he is trying to keep it low key for 9 more days,

and then throw the book at them when Bush no longer has pardon powers.

[BlueJessamine]

60. Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, rejects Obama’s “look forward”

Via Think Progress:


Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, rejects Obama’s “look forward” approach. In March 2008, she told “the next president” to avoid “any temptation to simply move on”:

We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation’s past transgressions and reject Bush’s corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation’s honor be restored without full disclosure.

from Slate article by Ms. Johnsen at this link:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/20...


Bob Fertik responds, "Let's all tell Attorney General Eric Holder what we want through a petition to Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor for Bush's crimes."

link:

http://www.democrats.com/special-prosecutor-for-bush-wa...

[Kolesar]

70. Nice find!

thank you

[BlueJessamine]

80. you're welcome! n/t.

[marasinghe]

87. question

does ms. johnsen, & the office of legal counsel, have any official say on this issue? or, is this just the same manner of rhetoric we engage in, here?

when will legal inquiry, if not reckoning, into - perhaps - a million dead iraqis, be visited upon the criminal bush admin.? all pronouncements from the leaders of the new forward-looking govt., so far, appear to point to never.

[JDPriestly]

64. Obama's statements are very disappointing.

I have attended political rallies, but I do not generally express my displeasure or support by demonstrating in the street. But if Obama takes no action on this, I just may find myself out there making a little noise. We cannot forget this.

The Nixon pardons -- Cheney and Rumsfeld are just two remnants of that era.

Letting the top instigators of the Iran-Contra deals off the hook -- Both Bushes are our punishment for that.

BCCI -- not really bringing wrongdoers to light -- set a very bad example for the criminal element in finance

And now W -- We cannot allow yet another criminal sore to fester in our political world. If we allow the Bushies to go unpunished for their many crimes including illegal wiretapping, torture, starting and illegal war, stealing, abuses in the Justice Department, etc., etc., we will be setting ourselves up for more such dealings in the future. I for one am really, really sick of that kind of behavior.

I want to leave a better legacy for my children and grandchildren.

[No Elephants]

76. Beautiful. Please email at change.gov or write a LTTE or something.

[biopowertoday]

67. He is with Pelosi on this one.

[No Elephants]

77. Thing is, Clinton's approval ratings went up after he got impeached. So, they are scared. If you

had a choice, would you have impeached Bush and thereby increased the risk of McCain-Palin winning and losing Congress back to the Pubs? Or, is it indeed the better part of valor to press on and try to repair the damage?

It's a Hobson's choice, but, based on our history, perhaps our only choice.

[Zhade]

84. The world is watching, Obama. As am I.

You let these criminals walk, I'm fucking DONE with you.

[superconnected]

85. I LOVE YOU OBAMA!!!!