Obama's Dept of Justice should NOT prosecute Bush administration crimes

[HamdenRice]

Or more precisely, that should not be the first step.

OK, now that I've got your attention.

I hope that they are all prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison. But I don't think that Justice Department prosecution of many of the crimes should be the first step.

That's because DoJ investigations are supposed to be confidential. They are confusing to the public, which generally just hears that a person was indicted, then the public only hears leaks, dribs and drabs of revelations (and reporters' speculations), the investigative phase takes a very long time to get to the public trial phase, and then during the trial, the public only sees "sketch artist" renderings of the perps and court proceedings, and finally hears that the person was convicted.

Also, the rules of evidence in court proceedings -- the only part that the public will hear about -- are extremely restrictive. For example, no hearsay evidence is allowed. The prosecutor basically can only ask questions and not make statements (except for the summation at the end of the trial). Court cases rarely paint the "big picture" of the machine of corruption that the individual defendant is part of.

In other words, DoJ prosecutions would do a poor job at educating the public about the extent of the criminality of the late Bush administration.

Most importantly, the right wing has polluted the public consciousness about prosecution with bromides about the Obama administration being closet Marxists who want to launch "show trials."

I think the first step is Congressional hearings. It was Congressional hearings that brought down Nixon for Watergate. It was Congressional hearings that exposed the Iran-Contra scandal. It was the Church Committee Congressional hearings that exposed the CIA abuses of the 60s and 1970s. Unfortunately, it is difficult to carry out congressional hearings simultaneously with DoJ investigations.

Congressional hearings are televised, and when the scandal is really big (like Watergate and Iran Contra were), much of the nation becomes glued to the television. Individual congressmen and congresswomen are allowed "connect the dots" for the public while grilling the perps and painting the big picture while explaining to the American public what the signifigance of each bit of revealed evidence is. Congresspersons can ask leading questions; they can make statements; they can ask for hearsay evidence.

Congressional hearings will help Democrats (and any Republicans who oppose corruption) sketch for the public the big picture of the out of control, lawless Bush administration -- one that used the NSA to spy on the public, the press and its own officials; that turned a blind eye to the evolving 9/11 plot; that planned the Iraq war from day one; that used the attacks to launch a war of global domination based on lies; that pulled back US forces at Tora Bora in order to let bin Laden "slip away"; that exploded defense spending through do-nothing contractors and sub-contractors whose only purpose was to kickback funds to the Republicans; that "lost" billions in Iraq, including "bricks" of cash; that awarded billions in no-bid contracts to Cheney's company and billions in defense spending to Poppy's company; that kidnapped, tortured and killed people; that stole elections through electronic vote rigging; and that rigged the media to look the other way.

As during Watergate and Iran-Contra, hearings will get the public so angry that they will demand prosecutions -- or flood the street with pikes and pitchforks. Hearings would make it seem like we, the public, "made" the Obama administration go after the bad guys, not that the Obama administration came in with the goal of punishing the foregoing administration.

An important caveat, however. Congressional hearings ARE NOT like Truth Commissions. Truth Commissions give immunity to wrongdoers in exchange for testimony. While Congressional hearings occasionally offer immunity to some witnesses in exchange for testimony, that has in the past been done sparingly and in consultation with the DoJ to make sure that no bad guys get away. At any rate, if there are Congressional hearings, it would be better not to offer immunity to anyone; let them take the Fifth Amendment in front of Congress and the television cameras.

Lastly, the hearings will accumulate massive amounts of documents, testimony and narrative that they can wrap up with a ribbon and leave on the doorstep of the Justice Department.

[bdamomma]

1. we need to sign on to the world court again, then maybe they

would be prosecuted.

[waiting for hope]

2. Good title!

K&R!

[yourout]

3. As much as I want a bunch of Pukes in jail I know that is unlikely so the next best thing would....

be immunity driven testimony before Congress with forewarning of severe jail time for perjury.

Getting these assholes on camera admitting what they did would be the final dagger in the heart of Republicanism.

While not as fulfilling as watching them frog marched away it might do more damage to the party in the end.

[Paulaguyon]

4. That's a strawman. No one is asking for it to be the first step

Prosecute them plain and simple. When? During the next four years.

Investigate first? Obviously. But do it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. I don't know about "no one"

I'm sure plenty of people are clamoring for that.

[Paulaguyon]

7. oh yeah? who?. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Stick around DU a little longer. (nt)

[HamdenRice]

8. It's not a strawman because I'm not mischaracterizing anyone else's argument

In fact, I'm not characterizing anyone else's argument at all. I'm just making a suggestion.

It would be a strawman if I said something like, "Paulaguyon thinks we should prosecute first and ask questions later! Why does Paulaguyon hate puppies???"

[Paulaguyon]

10. You don't have to name names to set up a strawman

If I posted an article here arguing that we should not nuke the planet Saturn next month, I would be implying that someone is advocating the nuking of Saturn next month.

It is obvious that you disagree with someone who said that the "first step" should be for the DOJ to prosecute. You wouldn't be trying to convince us if that weren't the case

There is also another member who claims to have heard others asking for it to be the first step, although he did not provide names.

[HamdenRice]

11. "It is obvious that you disagree with someone who said that the "first step" " -huh?

Sorry, but I simply have not read any post about prosecution as the "first step."

Maybe I've come across posts that suggest that prosecutions should occur soon or should be a priority, but I wasn't really responding to, or attempting to characterize, them.

Thanks for the attempt at mind reading, though.

:hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. I agree Congress should come first.

1) It keeps Obama clean.
2) If they produce anything substantial, that gives Obama cover to move foward.