"Obama would ask his AG to 'immediately review' ...crimes in Bush White House" (reposted from 4/08)

[mythyc]

After seeing today's Rove stories I distinctly remembered a thread from the primaries on Bushco prosecutions. I don't suppose you got this on tape smoogatz?

original thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5507882

OP: smoogatz Mon Apr-14-08 08:22 PM

Original message
Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" ...crimes in Bush White House

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.

I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_t...

Hillary? Hello?

edit: I recommend reading through the thread's replies for perspective on current discussions on this issue

:evilfrown:

[Vincardog]

1. OK O is "nobody above the law." or not?

[PM Martin]

2. Obama should be held to his promise.

I did read the thread.

[MarjorieG]

3. This was before O had to jump start a global economic crisis, with the help of GOP

Maybe commissions, etc, a good thing until we get some legislation passed.

Easy for us to be righteous.

[debbierlus]

6. Yeah. So they tortured people, cut their genitals open, and started a war on lies that killed over

1 million people.

Easy for us to be righteous.

It still amazes me. The best way for Obama to get his agenda passed - fight & expose them. The American people are with HIM and change, not the Republicans. All he has to do is expose them - he has the bully pulpit and the Congressional majority.

There is NO excuse. None.

[bdamomma]

13. we have to keep on pushing this or history will repeat itself.

they will re group and finish off what they started, they (neo cons)destroyed the country now. Cheney and his cohorts must go down, no one is above the law.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Two-thirds of the American people want a reckoning.

Plus we are bound by four international treaties to prosecute war crimes.

Circumstance has Obama's back in this endeavor.

[MNDemNY]

7. Yet he does not seem to be going forward with the "endeavor", now does he?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bdamomma]

15. does anyone know if we signed on again to the International Criminal Court.

didn't George take the US off the list or something like that?

[AtomicKitten]

22. I do recall Bush opting out in a cursory statement from the get-go,

but I have heard no word of Obama reinstating our participation. I do know the war crimes division of the U.N. has fired a salvo over Obama's head regarding Junior's crime spree. Somebody in the world body will prosecute if Obama does not, and I'm hard-pressed to believe he would allow the U.S. to be embarrassed like that. We are signatures to four international treaties in which we have pledged to prosecute war crimes, and I am looking to Obama to do just that.

[mmonk]

5. A lot of things were said. Some have been done, others seem to

be falling short. I wrote about it here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mmonk/54 . I guess time will answer all questions.

[Vincardog]

8. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Wait wait! I know the punchline!

"That's not change we can believe in!"

Oooooo! Burn!

[cottonseed]

10. How about meet the new boss.

That's a popular zinger.

Honestly, if Obama can do anything about this with Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Rockefeller still hanging around that would truly be the feat of a super hero. Worth worshiping.

[berni_mccoy]

14. "Review" does not equal "prosecute"; "AG" does not equal "Congressional Hearing"

You seem confused.

[mythyc]

32. in case you've missed it Berni

i've always been one of Obama's most ardent supporters around here, and still am. you and I have talked on the subjects of his political savvy and strong moral compass in many a thread. That doesn't mean that I can't be disappointed with his hands off approach to the gamut of Bush war, domestic, and legal crimes. I saw your thread on the Rove question and honestly took it with a grain of salt given what's been coming out of the new administration. The main message I'm going on is Obama's unequivocal statement in his first press conference that he wants to look forward and not backwards, which he repeated, emphatically, three times. As a citizen I disagree with this decision both politically and morally, and am simply expressing not only this disagreement, but also my disappointment that in the thread I cited, he seemed to be making a strong statement that his administration would hold Bush's administration accountable. Mince, parse, or use euphemisms all you want, "review" ain't been what's happening and it is very very clear that none of the big names, and probably none of even the medium and even small guilty parties, are going to be held accountable now, a message that has been sent loud and clear by Obama's administration primarily because of political expediency. I am disappointed by this, extremely so, and have a right to be. That said, I'm not ready to tar and feather the President like many other disappointed members here. I still think he's a great man and will be a great president, one of the past. I just disagree with one single policy issue that's been clearly laid out by him--and I have every right to.

Remember: respectful disagreement and debate are fundamental to a thriving democracy. You don't have to call your opponents on an issue names, nor imply weak mental fortitude to express your own disagreement. I've always liked and respected you here at DU, shown that respect, and would hope that any one expressing their opinion here would receive the same civil treatment in return. peace

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. "Willful criminality" is the key phrase

That would mean that they believed that they were breaking the law.

[PolNewf]

17. I understand people want this done BUT ...

..does it have to be done immediately with so much on Obama's plate already. He had no idea he would be facing the shitstorm he is currently trying to fix. If you were trying to fix a deep multifaceted economic crash, 2 wars and several other foreign policy concerns would you be in a rush to add to your immediate issues, especially one that could cause a large political firestorm.

Obama knew he was going to have to be able to multitask but I think people are starting to ask too much, too soon. Cut the man some slack to get his head above water before asking him to take on more weight.

[smoogatz]

18. Obama should move aggressively to prosecute war crimes, corruption,

election fraud and gross breaches of the Constitution under the Bush administration. My guess is that Rove would be a principle target of any such investigation/prosecution. What you don't want--repeat, do not want--is Congress giving him full or partial immunity in exchange for his testimony. Give the new AG and the DoJ a chance to do their jobs--Congress should keep out of it, at least for now.

I also have to say that I don't blame Obama if he's not all that anxious to exhume the putrified corpse of the Bush administration right now. He still needs two or three Republican votes in the Senate to get anything done, and there are multiple time-sensitive crises that must be addressed, or else. On the one hand, I believe the American people are owed the truth about what happened under Bush/Cheney, and I'd like nothing more than to see Obama drive a stake through the fat, greasy heart of the Republican party and the American right. On the other hand, Bushco fucked things up so thoroughly that urgent action is required on numerous fronts. First things first: six months from now if nothing's being done, I'll join you in lighting the torches and breaking out the pitchforks. Also worth noting: the metrics change a good bit when Franken is finally seated in the Senate. They'll change again, most likely for the better, in 2010.

[Clio the Leo]

19. I'm afraid I dont understand your logic.

"Asking the AG to review" does not automatically equate to releasing the documents in question to the public.

Help me out here.

[slipslidingaway]

20. Here is what Obama said...

David Swanson of afterdowningstreet wrote a great article about it, but I cannot find the link at the moment.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html


"I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."

Here's his answer, in its entirety:


What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

[treestar]

25. Very realistic

And it can still be very hard to prove. It's not like they were going to leave a paper trail for their successors. I remember all the jokes about Cheney's back going out because he was lifting heavy boxes to shred papers. Of course these criminals would not lay out an easy Evidence List.

[slipslidingaway]

31. There is more than enough evidence already, FISA and torture

for starters.

:shrug:

"So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it."

[chill_wind]

21. And he appears to be keeping that promise-- of "review". Here's the NYT.

How much of this will be made public and acted upon? Will there be criminal investigations or not? There's your question.

Officials said the report assesses the reasoning used in justifying the harsh methods and pressure from the White House to reach particular conclusions. The Office of Professional Responsibility can refer cases for criminal investigation, but legal experts say a more likely possibility is a referral to bar associations for potential disciplinary action.

(link below)

"Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. will have to decide whether to approve the findings and whether to make them public."


"Whether"?!

Well we know for sure they are trying to buy time for as long as they can.

A judge will be hearing today whether the Obama admin can have another 3 months to study and review the last three of the OLC Torture Memos ( as cited in the NYT article)- before deciding if they will release them to ACLU's long requesting FOIA suit.

Judge Sets Hearing On Obama Administration's Request To Delay Lawsuit Over Release Of Torture Memos (2/13/2009)
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/38741prs20090213.html


But it now appears they have already studied them quite well!:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17justice.html

[guruoo]

23. IMO, Obama would be wise to keep any ongoing investigations under wraps for now eom

[treestar]

24. There must be hundreds of thousands of pages of paperwork!

It is ridiculous to expect this review can have been completed already. The Obama administration can't risk national security either. They inherited a big morass, they have to weed out the real matters of national security. And the political picks as civil servants are still in their offices, no doubt obstructing all they can.

These "crimes" would inolve many people, no doubt be hidden as well as possible, geez, really anyone who thinks they can go into the offices and just pick up the proof immediately needs to volunteer to do it, so they can find out what it's really like trying to prove such a thing.

And the economy has to come first. People who aren't working care about their survival, not what happens to *.

[chill_wind]

28. They've already reviewed the big Pandora's Box of the OLC torture memos.

That's what the NYT article is about. See post # 21.

more background:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x426381

[hootinholler]

26. I seriously doubt that the investigation will be public until some facts are known.

I'm not ready to climb on the he's not doing anything about this bandwagon until mid summer.

-Hoot

[chill_wind]

29. They have the facts. They just can't decide if they want to release them.

See post # 21.

[biopowertoday]

27. The Philly link says page not found.

[slipslidingaway]

30. Here you go...

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html