A President has Constitutional Authority to Pardon people but

[Winterblues]

I don't know anyplace it says they have authority to pick and choose who gets prosecuted for crimes and who does not. That seems to be a complaint we all have with the Bush* Administration. We don't seem to care much for it when Bush*/Rove say who gets prosecuted and who does not. Why should we have a different standard when it is our guy that is doing the same thing? The Justice Dept should be completely separate from the Administration just as Congress should be completely separate. There are three branches of Government and the Justice Dept falls or should fall under the Judicial Branch. It is up to the Justice Dept to decide whether any crimes have been committed and by who. It is not up to the President. Obama is overstepping his bounds on this torture business and needs to get back to doing his Presidenting and leave prosecutions or investigations to the Departments they belong. If he doesn't like a verdict he can Pardon but until then he should focus on Health Care and Energy Concerns and when asked just say it isn't up to him....We need to be consistent or we give up credibility..

[elocs]

1. Pretty much any city's DA has the authority to pick and choose who gets prosecuted.

You can figure that out by watching a few episodes of Law and Order.

[Winterblues]

4. But not any city's Mayor....

:shrug: It is within the Legal system that crimes need to be addressed and not the Political one.

[RB TexLa]

6. A little different, the president is the head of the Justice department the secretary

or as they are called for Justice the AG runs the department for the president.

They can no more choose something the president doesn't want than the secretaries of State, Energy, Education and so on can.

[MADem]

2. I must have missed something. Are you saying that Obama has come out and said

"Prosecute this guy" or "Don't prosecute that guy?"

I'm not talking about generic "...bring the wrongdoers to justice" remarks. Everyone makes those.

Is Obama in fact picking and choosing? Is there a link you can provide in substantiation?

[Eric J in MN]

3. Atrios agrees.

http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/04/justice.html

I'm so old I can remember those ancient days when it was accepted that the Justice Department was independent from the president, that the Attorney General and others should make decisions absent political considerations, and that when it seemed as if independence might not be possible, the AG should recuse him/herself and appoint a special prosecutor.

I'm not the first person to bring this up recently, but the point is that it shouldn't be Obama's and Rahm Emmanuel's decision whether to prosecute anybody. If there's suspicion and clear evidence that people broke laws, an inquiry should begin. If the AG feels undue pressure from President Change and his gang then he should appoint a special prosecutor to try to wall off the investigation from political pressure.

[AngryAmish]

5. Wrong

Any prosecutor decides who to pursue.

Everything could be pursued as a crime. Sec. Gietner may have committed a crime by not paying his taxes correctly. Are you saying the administration must pursue him? Along with 75% of Americans who make some mistake on their taxes?

That said, he should pursue the torturers.

[Winterblues]

7. The exact opposite

The Administration should not pursue anyone, that is the job of the Justice Dept or any Prosecuting authority and that authority is not Obama's.

[RB TexLa]

8. Do you also think the State department decides all foreign policy and that President Obama has no

authority over foreign policy? :crazy:

[AngryAmish]

10. Last time I checked I think Justice is an executive branch office

Attorney General is appointed by...wait for it...the President.

All the time the President decides who is prosecuted. For example the pirate captured the other day could have been tried in Kenya. Yet the government decided to try him here. It is an executive decision.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. I get your point ... but........

Prosecutor discretion is SUPPOSED to pertain to whether a crime was committed - or not. In your example the prosecutor can look at the case and determine there isn't enough evidence to support a CONVICTION (i.e. it was a mistake correctable by an amended tax return).

The President/prosecutor is refusing to prosecute a crime where the evidence exists and he is on record doing so for purely political reasons.

[AngryAmish]

12. Checks and balances

If one thinks the president is not prosecuting someone for political reasons the Constitution is quite clear that there are options. Most immediately there can be impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office. Or if that is not going to happen then use it as a political weapon at the next election.

Think about the nightmare of a politically unaccountable prosecutor. Better yet, don't imagine one, think about Ken Starr.

Not every law broken means someone should go to jail. We need discretion in our prosecutors and the only way to get it is in the political process.

(And again I think the president is wrong here)

[Orsino]

9. A pardon is an admission of failure.

They prefer to intimidate, and make sure that prosecution never happens.

[MasonJar]

13. The Justice Department is under the Executive via appointment;

however, it should then be free of politics. That was exactly the problem with the Bush Justice Dept. It was used as a political tool. Once the president chooses his AG, the AG must be independent of the president in his job as a keeper of the law and the Constitution.

[elocs]

14. There is a great deal of difference how things "should" be and how they "are".

The clear reality is that things seldom occur with the purity that some expect. What really upsets me is how life does not work out exactly how I expect it to be and why everyone does not agree with my point of view, although I, too, may be out of touch with reality.