Look who just spoke for prosecuting law-breaking Bush officials

[nodramamama]

"Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.
-Paul Krugman (column to appear in tomorrow's print edition of the New York Times, and already online).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html

I see that Krugman goes even further than others, adding violations of voting rights, environmental policy and Iraq war lies to the list of actions to be punished.

[ColbertWatcher]

1. Ever since he got that Nobel ...

... good on Krugman.

[RobertoRoberti]

2. Krugman is right: Where did Obama get the idea he has a choice?

I guess Obama likes at least one of Bush's ideas: that the president can decide which laws to obey. The president is supposed to execute the law. It is not up to him whether serious crimes get investigated or not. That is his job.

[file83]

17. Obama is the Decider...

There is only one chance, only one President who can set this ship back on course, and that's the NEXT President after Bush. If Obama doesn't do it, then he will just be continuing the same course Bush has set.

If Obama doesn't investigate, his Presidency will only be remembered for its parallel of failure to Bush's.

It would be a failure because of the missed opportunity to make right from such a terrible situation.

Bush failed in this way with his response to 9/11. He took one of the greatest opportunities to rise above the situation and DO THE RIGHT THING, and instead did the wrong thing (actually, many wrong things).

Obama now has the same chance, to take one of the greatest opportunities to show his country and the world that he can DO THE RIGHT THING when faced with the countless illegal,immoral and unethical actions of the previous administration and the consequences that has had on the U.S.'s reputation and LIVES of people around the world (in particular, Iraq).

If he instead turns a blind eye to it, then, well, like I said, his presidency will be an utter failure no matter what other "accomplishments" he might achieve. Being that those "accomplishments" will have been made at the expense of honor, integrity, and the pursuit of justice.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

18. I hope Tuesday's inauguration becomes one big accountability rally.

We have to tell PE Obama and show the world that we want to hold Bushco accountable.

[geek tragedy]

36. You live in a different planet than 90% of Americans.

If he fixes the economy, gets us on the track to relying on green energy sources, and fixes our health care system, nobody but a few foot-stompers will give a shit about Bush prosecutions.

[file83]

37. Wow, 90%, eh?

Care to site a source for that number you pulled out there?

And honestly, "foot-stompers" is what you call people who want to see Bush prosecuted? The fucking irony.

[geek tragedy]

39. People who care more about punishment than improving

people's lives earn that moniker.

[Hansel]

42. Courtrooms across America are full of foot-stompers. Who knew? n/t

[geek tragedy]

44. Obama is not prosecutor-in-chief.

He is President, and has much broader and much more significant and important duties than putting people in jail.

[Hansel]

41. They will when these pieces of crap get back in power.

Just like they say about Osama Bin Laden. You can take him out, but there are 20 people ready to take his place. It won't be Bush, but it will be someone like him and maybe worse.

Some of Bush's people come up from working with the Nixon administration. We "forgave" and "forgot" about what he did. So they came back and doubled down knowing that there will be no consequences. Why else do you think Cheney brags openly about violating the law with a smirk on his face. He knows he will never be held accountable. It's time to prove him wrong.

[geek tragedy]

43. They get in if they get elected.

And they get elected if we take our eyes off of the ball. Obama's #1 job is to help improve people's lives.

[geek tragedy]

35. Article II of the Constitution.

He gets to decide how much political capital he's going to divert from the economy, global warming, and health care reform to punish Bushco.

[Voice for Peace]

3. I like this, the message is getting louder and louder.

k&r

[roguevalley]

14. its like pelosi deciding that the constitution needs protecting when

she feels like it. so much for an oath given on sacred documents to protect the C.

[chill_wind]

4. Big fat K & R. n/t

[loudsue]

5. The American people should be taking to the streets over the two Americas...

the one the rich and powerful live in, and the one the rest of us have to live in. WE are having to live with the consequences of all the laws that have been broken, plus any we might break on our own. THEY (the rich & powerful) break the law and thumb their noses at the rest of us.

This has got to stop. It makes ALL of the lawmakers in Washington guilty of committing crimes. Accessory is a crime, as well.

[Two Americas]

7. yikes!

Are they that mad at me?

:hide:

Just being silly. Good post loudsue. I agree completely.

[dionysus]

9. rofl...thats great...

[glitch]

13. Happens to me ALL the time. Especially around elections. :) nt

[Norrin Radd]

6. kr

[chill_wind]

8. Surprisingly few comments........so here's a kick.

eom

[phleshdef]

10. Honestly, I put the responsibility to prosecute on Eric Holder, not on Obama.

The Justice Department is SUPPOSE to act independently of the White House and its up to the Justice Department to prosecute any criminal acts committed by any given administration. Obama shouldn't press the Justice Department to act, but if they do act, he sure as hell should not try to stand in their way.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe thats how its all suppose to work, in theory.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. On other issues

the argument has been that the opinions of Holder and other appointees don't really matter because they will not set policy, but expedite Obama's policy. So why is this so different? Hopefully it is not just a situational position.

[avaistheone1]

21. Obama is accountable too.

He takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

[geek tragedy]

34. Which is not the same thing as prosecuting former

administrations.

Indeed, the only such mention of former crimes is the president's power to pardon.

[olegramps]

12. Don't hold your breath Krugman.

[tbyg52]

15. Hey, nodramamama!

Welcome to DU!

[nodramamama]

16. thanks!

:-)

[pleah]

19. K&R!!!!!!!!

[Thrill]

20. Why do people think its up to Obama? There is a reason for Judiciary Committees in the

Legislative Branch and there is a reason for the Department of Justice in the Judicial Branch. Its their job to go after Bush and Crew. Not the President of the US

[Political Tiger]

22. I agree

Obama was elected president, not prosecutor.

[KakistocracyHater]

23. the problems of today are rooted in yesterday

!!!!!that's why you must look back!!!!!

[geek tragedy]

24. "that’s not a decision he has the right to make."

See United States Constitution, Article II. Obama is the President, not Krugman. And the Constitution expressly grants Obama the right to make this kind of call.

[Raster]

25. No it doesn't. Prove it.

Cite it.

[geek tragedy]

26. "Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Seems fairly self-explanatory.

[Raster]

27. Maybe to you. It says NOTHING about the President being able to

ignore the oath of "protecting and defending the constitution." Nothing.

FYI: Paul Robin Krugman is an American economist, columnist, author and intellectual. He is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University, and a columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences "for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity". Krugman is well-known in academia for his work in international economics, including trade theory, economic geography, and international finance.

And you are...?

I'll take Krugman's reading and interpretation of the Constitution over yours any day.

[Occam Bandage]

28. Nowhere on that resume is "Constitutional lawyer."

I'm going to need either you or him to show me where in the Constitution it mandates that the President order prosecutions of the previous President if people believe that the previous President may have broken laws. You can't just make shit up, then say it's a Constitutional mandate because the Constitution doesn't specifically say it isn't.

I mean, I might as easily say "There is a Constitutional mandate to never prosecute previous Presidents." It would be just as supported as your declaration of a mandate would be. What's more, since no President has ever investigated a previous administration despite ample evidence of lawbreaking in many of them, my declaration of a mandate would actually be supported by precedent.

[Raster]

29. You're going to need...?

Yeah, whatever.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Right. Your "mandate" is USDA certified grade-A 100% bullshit, and nothing but.

There is absolutely no language in the Constitution that anyone with a modicum of literacy could interpret as being a mandate to order prosecution of a previous administration, nor has anyone, before now, ever suggested that such a mandate exists.

[geek tragedy]

32. There is language about that--it's in the same clause as the discussion

regarding the President's inherent authority to detain US citizens and get blowjobs.

[Occam Bandage]

33. As Richard Nixon famously said,

"When someone thinks the President should do it, that means it's illegal not to do it!"

[geek tragedy]

31. You can't make shit up and call it a Constitutional obligation.

Obama is the President, and he gets to make that call. 70 Million people voted for him. Nobody voted for Krugman.

[disndat]

40. I lean on the side that Obama

will let justice takes its course. I think Bush added another nail in his coffin when he refused to allow Obama (on a false excuse) to use Blair House so his kids could start school at Sidwell. How insulting, and perhaps racial, is that?If I were in the same position, I would step aside, let Holder do his thing and let Bush twist in the wind.

[mmonk]

38. He is fundamentally correct. That's why he can write it with ease.