Here's the underlying problem with prosecuting Bush and/or cohorts.

[TheWraith]

And you can bet this is exactly what the Obama people are weighing right now.

The fact is that prosecuting either Bush himself or his highest level people--Cheney and Rumsfeld, mostly--would create a precedent for new administrations being able to go back and have former presidents/cabinet officers arrested. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the Clinton impeachment. The fact it was unjustified didn't stop it.

What happens when some Republican incoming admin gins up "evidence" of wrongdoing and tries to put a Democratic former president behind bars? Or what happens if putting Bush cronies on trial puts energy back into the dispirited and broken wingnuts, pushing them even farther around the bend? This is the way third-world countries degenerate into anarchy. Striking back, no matter how justified, could reinvigorate the right-wing in this country. Between the choices of prosecuting Bush, and letting his entire philosophy die a slow and painful death, which do you think is better for America?

What the Obama people are doubtless thinking is, which is the more pressing danger? Not firmly prosecuting torture now, with the possibility of it happening again in the future; or creating the precedent for the future use of war crimes trials as a political football?

[The Magistrate]

1. That Is Definitely Part Of The Calculation, Sir

We have in this country operated throughout on an unspoken compact that losing an election is not a jailable offense, and it is not a thing to upset lightly.

[AndyTiedye]

5. But What if They REALLY ARE CROOKS?

[The Magistrate]

7. My View, Sir, Is That there Should Be Prosecutions

But it is not a decision reached lightly; there are factors and potential consequences to be weighed, the one mentioned above among them. Others may give these different weights, and so reach a conclusion different from mine. It is very easy to urge stern and ruthless measures when one bears no trace of responsibility for their consequences.

[grasswire]

2. so let congress do it, at the bidding of the American people.

Obama doesn't have to dirty himself at all. Congress has the sworn obligation to defend the Constitution and the power to conduct an investigation and make a criminal referral.

And if we want Congress to do that, WE THE PEOPLE must provide the impetus and the cover. If enough people demand it and mean it, a real investigation will happen. The people must create the demand for it.

[wmbrew0206]

16. Obama is the head of the Democratic Party and the party controls Congress.

If Congress goes after Bush Officials it will be seen as Obama either requesting it or gving the silent OK. There is no way for him to keep his hand clean of the issue.

[grasswire]

17. you speak as if it's something DIRTY

Too much blood has been spilled in defense of the Constitution for further defense to be deemed dirty simply because it might be considered "political" by some. Too many people have -- duty-bound -- given their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to stand for liberty for you to equate clean hands with capitulation to tyranny. Shame on you.

[wmbrew0206]

18. Your reading to much into the metaphor.

Your premise was that Congress could investigate and prosecute Bush officials and Obama would be able to appear uninvolved since it would be a Congressional investigation. Granted it is two separate parts of the government, but both are controlled by the Democratic Party, of which Obama is leader of. Any investigation by a Democratically controlled Congress would be seen to have the blessing of President Obama. There is no way for President Obama to stay above the fray of the political infighting that will break out.

Going after Bush officials is a high priority for those of us on the left. It is not seen as a pressing issue on for the rest of the country with the economy in the crapper, two wars going on, and unaffordable health care. Obama is focused on those things, because making progress on those things will get him re-elected in 4 years.

Investigations of Bush Officials will lead to a LOT of political infighting and will cause the Republicans to close ranks and fight tooth and nail against a lot moves Democrats try and make. It won't mean much in the House but it will grind things to a halt in the Senate.

Guess what? You can either have the health care reform, a second stimulus package, a draw down in Iraq, and greater regulation of Wall Street or you can have investigations in Bush Officials that may or may not lead to any convictions, but you CANNOT have both. They are mutually exclusive. Which one do you want?

I don't like it anymore than you do, but this how things are.

I'm also assuming Bush doesn't hand out a large amount of blank pardons and doesn't announce them, even though that is extremely likely. If this is the case, then Congress will have wasted a lot of time, energy, and money to go after people how have pardons in their back pocket and probably won't announce it until they are giving their closing arguments at their trial just to spite the prosecutors.

[wundermaus]

3. No Justice, No Peace

Failure to enforce the law makes law irrelevant.
No one is above the law. We are not a monarchy.
It is Obama's sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution and to protect us from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
George W. Bush et al are war criminals who have committed crimes against humanity.
If nothing else, We the people have the responsibility to act in our own defense.

[EFerrari]

4. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to political expediency.

[Wetzelbill]

6. I don't think they really believe they'll take Bush to court or anything

Actually prosecuting this group is far-fetched at best. The debate really is just investigating any crimes in the first place. Maybe you can pick off a few lower level people, but people want some kind of justice and they want to know this won't happen again. An investigation that says: "Yes, Bush/Cheney broke the law, their administration will be blackmarked forever" is a powerful statement. What to do with that info is different. Probably putting up some kind of safe guards so that these abuses don't happen again etc. I think it would be nice to see at that point that countries around the world join together and say: "Hey if Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi or any other Bush admin member tries to land on our soil, they will be sent to The Hague." You'll never fully see these guys get what they deserve, but you can do plenty still.

[chill_wind]

8. I wouldn't discount any of that, but I think their fear is larger and more immediate, even:

I think Greenwald might have it best summed up here:

(...)



The political/media establishment isn't desperately and unanimously fighting against the idea of investigations and prosecutions because they believe there was nothing done that was so bad. They're fighting so desperately precisely because they know there was, and they know they bear much of the culpability for it.

(..)

from: Establishment Washington unifies against prosecutions

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/15/ignatius/

DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4847612

I think the likely outcome of that kind of widespread resistance, sense of self-preservation and inertia is probably going to be fairly obvious. And after 8 years with culpability within both parties, and a MSM that has just been absolved/whitwashed by an IG of any certain wrongdoing, we are talking widespread.

[pnorman]

9. This is something that should really originate in Congress,

rather than as part of a presidential agenda. As much as I want to see that scummy cabal get at least a portion of their just deserts, I expect Obama to focus all his attention on RIGHTING the Ship of State. (Funny choice of words from someone who's essentially an anarchist, but having gone to sea for over a half century, it seems apt to me).

pnorman

[santamargarita]

10. This bunch declared war on the rule of law and must be prosecuted!

Having consensual sex in the White doesn't make you a war criminal.

[JNelson6563]

11. I posted this in another thread.

People at the top are loathe to set such precedent. Bottom line. I urge DUers to take a look at history.

Julie

[blm]

12. and what happens if ALL the American people see the SAME EVIDENCE of the crimes? What would have

happened if BCCI books were opened and its matters were allowed to be fully revealed to the public? We;d have inaugurated President Gore after his 1996 victory. There would never have been a Bush2 possible. No 9-11. No Iraq invasion.

[mmonk]

13. It's much more simpler than that. Some Democrats might be implicated.

Anyone scared of the truth has something to hide. Lawlessness by politicians and politicization of the law is a precedent whose ship has already sailed. The upcoming days and months will be a make or break scenario for me and the Democratic party. I can exist just fine as an independent. In the meantime, I will fight to reestablish any integrity it has.

[90-percent]

14. suggestion

prosecute all complicit democrats.

The enabling democrats aren't serving the people anyway. They are all expendable. I want honorable people in my government, not sociopathic criminals.

-90%

[wmbrew0206]

19. Most of the complicit democrats are the one in leadership posistions

They would have to have been in order to have been complicit.

Pelosi, Hoyer, Daschle, and Feinstein are all Democrats who would have been read in on the illegal policies due to their leadership positions and either did not speak out to stop them or agreed with them at the time.


I don't see them signing off on anything that could come back to bit them.

[chill_wind]

20. I think it truly does come to that, exactly.

It's a metastatic problem. All we have to do is look at all the self-preserving whitewashing "commissions."

[KharmaTrain]

15. These Crimes Are Beyond Political

I fully agree with your assesment. We've seen how brazen the GOOP can and is willing to be to trump up political charges that, if they don't totally incapacitate a Democratic President, it would make governing difficult. Right now, the Obama Administration is hoping to get off to a strong start with as little resistance as possible and hope to disarm the GOOPers in the process.

I've long believed the crimes of the past 8 years are well beyond the political realm and the true future accountability belongs in the Justice system. A good sign was hearing designee Holder say that he would allow evidence to lead where it leads...thus if there are prosecutable crimes discovered, they will be investigated. If anything, I see a rejuvenated Justice Department that will want to restore its credibility by following through on the many current investigations. It should be up to courts and juries to determine the real crimes here and then to bring some accountability. My hopes are many in the booosh regime will not sleep well for many years to come as their crimes are investigated, presented to the world and then judged.

That said, once these investigations prove the criminality, there should be a political remedy as well. It needs to be done to restore the balance of powers and to serve notice that power has its limits and the Constitution still trumps all...thus a defacto impeachment should be in order...and with the Democratic majorities backed with hard evidence, a conviction could be possible.

Cheers...