Obama "evaluating" whether or not to investigate Bush admin crimes

[katandmoon]

On Obama's website, a December statement from Vice President-elect Joe Biden on the topic was offered as a response (similar older statements were used to address several other national security-related questions, which the transition team has avoided discussing). But Stephanopoulos made the matter moot by posing the question directly to the president-elect.

"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," said Obama. "And obviously we're going to look 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 up."

Pressed a bit -- was he ruling out prosecution? -- the president-elect suggested that decision would be that of his attorney general.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/obama-leaves-door-open-to_n_156910.html

Leave it up to the attorney general? Who is the president here, Mr. Obama? Who is the buck supposed to stop with? Very discouraging to hear him try to weasel out of this one. Weaselspeak is not acceptable.

[BattyDem]

1. He's not going to have a choice.

If we don't do it, other countries are willing and able to. If that happens, it will be a huge embarrassment, as well as an international incident. We can't rebuild trust in the world if we refuse to acknowledge and clean up our own messes.

[man4allcats]

2. What's to evaluate? Bushco is guilty on so many counts

one almost needs a calculator to keep track. Lock them all up!

[opihimoimoi]

3. Perhaps coyness is in order til the 21st??

[Shakespeare]

4. Precisely.

I can't believe any rational, intelligent person honestly expects him to go on national TV and say he's going to prosecute the current administration before he's even taken office.

[Andy823]

22. I agree.

And right now he needs republicans to come on board to help out the economy, he won't get them if he comes out and says he is going to go after Bush and his gang of criminals.

Seems like people want Obama to do "EVERYTHING" in his first 100 days, and that isn't possible. I say let him have time to get things going the way he wants them, and see what happens.

[man4allcats]

6. I'm quite happy and more than willing to wait until the 21st

to have them all locked up.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Never Happen.

I'm taking bets, if anyone's interested.

[kevsand]

7. Of course it is up to the Attorney General.

It's a legal question. I don't want the White House to tell the DOJ who they should or should not prosecute. That's Bush's policy, and it's wrong.

The role of the Attorney General is to uphold the law, not make policy. The role of the President is to make policy, not practice law. Obama has clearly stated his policy: no one is above the law. He's telling the DOJ to investigate, and to go wherever that investigation leads. The final decision on what specific charges, if any, to file, and when, must be left to the Attorney General.

I don't want the Obama DOJ to act just like the Bush DOJ.

[rasputin1952]

8. Obama is playing his cards correctly...

Why would anyone tip their hand?

If and when there are investigations, they will come after he is sworn in as president. I cannot fathom any PE going out on such a limb as to say they are going to pursue criminal charges against a sitting president, that would border on the insane IMO.

[izquierdista]

10. You are dissing the experts

You know, the ones who sit at the keyboard crying for revenge. The obviously know more that about politics than some obscure Illinois state senator could have learned in the last 5 years.

[DevonRex]

11. And it would guarantee failure of said investigations. nt

[EraOfResponsibility]

13. How?

[DevonRex]

14. Here's a reply I posted in another thread that answers your question:

One thing I can tell you from personal experience investigating crimes is that you must keep quiet about it. Obviously the higher ups in the * administration have already been trying to cover their tracks to avoid going to jail. But there are undoubtedly many lower level people, career people in various departments, who just may have pertinent evidence. Those folks may themselves have been involved in committing crimes. They're the ones who need to be flipped. If they have not already destroyed hard evidence, they must not be frightened off. Because if they are frightened off, they will certainly cover their own tracks and thus destroy evidence that could be used against * and **.

This is a dance that has to be perfectly choreographed in order to achieve the best possible outcome. And it depends on not announcing intentions until you either have some pretty good hard evidence OR a public announcement would serve some purpose in obtaining more evidence.

Obama will need political cover before appointing a special prosecutor. Some committee or agency is going to have to tell Obama that one is needed, after they have done some of their own investigation so that they themselves don't look like they've been on a witch hunt. Not only that, but the Obama administration must FIRST be seen to be working on the issues that keep Americans employed, fed, housed and medically treated, for very obvious reasons.

I'm completely with you on what you would like to happen. I want the smarmy bastards to pay. It does us no good for the world to believe that an American president (*) and vice-president (**) can get away with treason and war crimes and not be prosecuted.

[EraOfResponsibility]

29. Excellent points, Jennifer, thank you! n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. Why don't we just have a few dozen investigations instead... that

should work, always has in the passssssssst.

[MarjorieG]

12. What's clear as law, or righteousness, isn't clear in the big picture.

Lawyering up for the second string of offenders when the executive branch will be exempt, ultimately. Rigorous investigations are in order on many fronts, so the excesses are known to the public. They need to better understand the urgency and accept how big, how costly the solutions. Media will finally have cover the issues and our investigations.

[grahamhgreen]

15. If you don't look in the past, you could NEVER PROSECUTE ANY CRIME. It's not a reason, it's an excu

se

[grahamhgreen]

23. There is a guy torturing people. We must stop it. Those being tortured cannot.

[cbc5g]

16. If you think he will investigate Bush war crimes you are deluding yourself

Obama is a change agent in that he will change government back to the Clinton era style of governance. And I would choose that over Republican rule any day, but still, don't get your hopes up.

He didn't care that marijuana legalization was the #1 issue on change.gov, he didn't care that gays would be offended by Warren giving the invocation and he won't care about this. Besides, many democrats were complacent with Bush's crimes and even helped enable them.

[bottomtheweaver]

17. If there's a tsunami of popular support for hearings, they might happen,

but nothing will happen if we wait for this or any administration to initiate investigations of a previous one. They really need to hear from us at every level that this is a top domestic priority and we can't count on the media for anything but interference.

[high density]

18. You should probably get your expectations in check right now

We know that prosecuting Bush is very low on Obama's list of priorities, in fact it's safe to say it's not even on the list. I don't know enough about Eric Holder to estimate whether or not he'd prosecute them or not. I'm expecting Bushco will ultimately get away with their crimes no matter what happens. Just look at that whole fiasco with Scooter Libby.

[Thrill]

19. Weasel out? Are you fucking kidding me? Thats the job of the AG

[Forkboy]

20. While disappointing, it's not surprising.

And I don't say that as a knock on Obama. I truly don't think any of the candidates would have tried prosecute Bush and Cheney. Maybe DK, but I'm not even sure he'd have been able to do it. There's always so much touch-feely, go along to get along type thinking when Admins switch over. Bleccch.

[cbc5g]

21. The presidency is like a brotherhood

You saw how they were all chum chum and friendly together. They don't investigate or prosecute eachother because it would set a bad precedent, one that I don't think Obama wants to have. His talk about how he would investigate and prosecute if need be was talk in the primaries to get the far left vote. I don't think many people really believed it. He gave you the answer today. He is looking forward and not backward, that's Obama clearly saying, "NO I am not going to do that".

[grahamhgreen]

24. A brotherhood of torturers? WE ARE looking forward - TO WAR CRIMES TRIALS!!!

[cbc5g]

25. LOL not happenin'

There's a better chance of Obama legalizing drugs then there is of him prosecuting Bush and his cronies.

[terisan]

26. A president who won't take responsibility but likes to claim credit. nt

[terisan]

27. He has already agreed to leave Bush/Cheney alone--note how confident they seem.

Words, just words........

[EraOfResponsibility]

30. oh bullshit, take that tin foil hat off and calm down

:eyes:

[terisan]

28. He is trying to make it sound like the issue is only about the CIA-not Bush/Cheney

BS Artist Extraordinaire

I am getting the impression that Obama is just a front man. Who is running the show?

[frogmarch]

31. And I'm evaluating

whether this severe rash on my face is something I should get rid of, or ignore. Hmmm.