Why would Obama want to hinder prosecuting Bush crimes?

[ProSense]

Obama needs to reconcile these two points of view:

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Craig said in a statement yesterday. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

link

My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen.

link

No institution should be above the law. How does abiding by the law going to weaken an institution?

[soothsayer]

1. he doesn't want anyone coming after him later, either

[Vincardog]

3. Well he is not a traitor, If he lies us into war and commits war crimes he should be investigated

[biopowertoday]

33. He wants to keep states secrets about torture secret -same as Bush

So, where does that leave Obama?? In with Bush!!

[biopowertoday]

34. NYT: Obama's bush on terror resembles Bush's .........

This might be helpful to read.



"These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies."


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials............................

[blm]

43. Rendition that started under Clinton - Obama's protecting Clinton's legacy as well, since BushInc

would definitely make it an issue that Clinton did it, too, if Obama administration went after them on this.

[Cha]

12. Oh, that's just

genius.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

42. BINGO! Perpetuation of Good Ol' Boy Quid Pro Quo!

Only the hopelessly naive would think otherwise.

[Danger Mouse]

2. I'm trying hard not to have a knee jerk reaction to this...

so I'm curious as to what President Obama will do.

[babylonsister]

4. Will Pitt's explanation makes lots of sense to me...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5073684

snip

The White House has wisely decided to stay away from the question of Karl Rove's subpoena and the limits of Bush-era executive privilege claims; the issue is one of separation of powers, and therefore must be handled by the legislative and judicial branches, so the executive branch doesn't wind up getting to determine the limits of its own power.

[elleng]

28. GOOD one!

.

[AtomicKitten]

35. That's a plausible explanation. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

38. the problem being that the legis branch is kind of lukewarm

wonder why

[Clio the Leo]

5. You might also want to note this part....

"if there are clear instances of wrongdoing" from your second quote. ;)

He's given himself an out.

[Fleshdancer]

6. If I had to guess...

It's so he keep Congress (on both sides of the aisle) focused on passing the large stimulus bills first. Get the projects started first before starting a political war.

[davidwparker]

8. Just how many (R) votes did his efforts get?

[Fleshdancer]

10. 3

I'm not saying it's a good strategy if true, I'm just voicing my guess.

[man4allcats]

9. The RethugliNazis started the war eight years ago.

Personally I'd be quite happy to stay as broke as I am and a good deal more for a good long time just for the shear satisfaction of taking at least one good solid swing at these bastards. They've more than got it coming, and I for one don't mind admitting that, at this point, I'm as interested in some vengeance driven payback as I am justice. Please Mr. President, can't we just legally, if not physically, beat the crap out of them?

[davidwparker]

7. because the people who Obama reports to don't want * crimes prosecuted

[Jane Austin]

11. Who do you say he reports to?

Thanks.

[dbmk]

13. Duh! Them, ofc.

[Solomon]

25. LOL.

Well done. :thumbsup:

[davidwparker]

17. Bookmark my post and when you see prosecutions, forward the link back to

me.

Obama ultimately reports to the corporations that control this country. This is the reason for the answer.

[Jane Austin]

24. Please share with us

either the names or how you know this to be true.

Thanks.

[liberalsince1968]

15. Who knew that doing the right, ethical, thing relied on the popular vote! Good thing some of

Obama's forebears didn't take that view.

[liberalsince1968]

14. Who knew war criminals get a "side"?

[lunatica]

16. This is the only time he uses the exact same wording when answering the questions

about investigation or prosecution. My idea is that there might be two possibilities as two why he's so careful in his wording.

1. President Obama wants to make sure he isn't connected directly to the investigations and/or prosecutions because he would be truly rejected by the GOP in any and all endeavors. We don't have a sure thing in the Democratic control of Congress or a wide enough margin to assure victory for all his policies and initiatives. He needs the comfort of bi-partisanship because otherwise he won't be able to pass all the things he knows this country needs.

2. He is sending a message to both sides. The one where he says no one is above the law is to all those who would continue to push for investigations. He can't stop them. He isn't a king or a dictator and Congress has exclusive rights to investigate anything it wants to. To the GOP he's sending the message that he's personally not in favor of pursuing investigations and prosecutions.

In other words he is staying as neutral as he can without handing any side a victory through him. I think he's being wise. But the truth is still to be seen.

[IsItJustMe]

29. I guess wise depends upon your perspective. In my mind, Obama is covering up Bush's crimes. Obama

is also obtructing any honest investigation into criminal conduct.

You can't say on one hand that no one is above the law, while on the other hand using your justice departmentment to keep that facts from the light of day.

Make no mistake about it, tortured people will not get their cases heard bacause Obama's justice department is keeping that from happening.

You call it wise, I call it hypocracy. It is what it is.

[EndElectoral]

18. I'm sorry. People must be held accountable. THis is unexcusable.

[santamargarita]

19. I've already jumped through my asshole once tonight reading this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8204025

[steelmania75]

20. Obama wants to move on from the Bush Administration years

[mmonk]

41. By protecting actions of the executive branch that are unlawful

and by abusing the state secrets privilege.

[Life Long Dem]

21. President Obama is staying out of this.

Why are people trying to drag the President into this?

[President Decider]

22. I CAN'T BELIEVE NONE OF YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE ....

Honestly, I'm disappointed in some of you.

Listen, Obama is a lawyer .... he's surrounded by other lawyers who equally share his distain for members of the previous administration.

If you can't see this stall tactic is about working a back room deal with the lower hanging fruit in effort to get the goods on those higher up the food chain, you're not seeing the forrest through the trees.

[Gregorian]

37. Tada! This is exactly what I think is going on.

Fitzgerald didn't accomplish a Libby conviction in a day.

[leftofthedial]

23. he's being a hypocrite.

and a good servant of the oligarchy, who have decided to give the people bread AND circuses for a time.

[uponit7771]

26. ANOTHER KNEE JERK THREAD!!!

[elleng]

27. He'd rather have Congress deal with all the sticky wickets.

I think that's a good idea.

See Post # 4.

[debbierlus]

30. There were dems who knew about criminal behavior, so they could be taken down

I think that is it.

Pelosi, Feingold...

A very few dems in the committees knew about their secret programs and so, if Obama directs the DOJ to go after the Repukes, some dems will fall. And, they should.

Obama can't protect his friends (and some of these people literally ARE his friends) at the expense of the destruction of international treaties and constitutional law. The worst part of Obama, personally, if he allows these crimes to go unpunished, they will be saddled around his neck. The Bush crimes would become his legacy, and the entire countrys as well.

This stuff must be investigated and prosecuted. Whoever falls, whereever it may lead.

[mopinko]

31. he doesn't want the prosecutions to be his "gays in the military".

he doesn't want to give them a bloody shirt to wave until he has reeled them in a little.

[The Backlash Cometh]

32. I can already tell you why.

There are either Democrats or Israeli or Saudi Arabian allies involved.

[grytpype]

36. It's because he is trying to get us out of one of the worst situations in US history!

Obama thinks going after the Bush administration might threaten the ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL missions of saving the world economy and restoring world peace.

He is not in office to give liberals everything they want, he HAS to succeed for the good of the nation and he has to consider many, many factors.

He "gets it" as much as any of us do, but in addition he's super smart, he's surrounded by super smart people, and he has way more information AND responsibility than any of us.

If you disagree with him, fine, but look around and see if you're in the Oval Office or your rec room. Obama is smarter than you and has better information. Face it.

I say he definitely deserves trust right now.

[treestar]

46. This is true and in addition it will take some time

In one's rec room it appears one can believe this could have been done within the month. It's absurd. It even took a while for Holder to get in.

With the economy and the two wars, going through all this stuff and trying to find the evidence is going to take a back seat and take time.

[chill_wind]

39. Because his own DOJ doesn't have their shit together yet. And because

he hasn't decided which of the previous admin's war on terror tools he is certain he wants to discard. Now that it's HIS war. That was evident in the recent "states secrets" case they argued using the same exact same arguments as Bush's lawyers. And evident, as well in Panetta's little noted remarks about wanting to hang onto the CIA tool of extraordinary rendition, with promises that past rank and file torturers wouldn't be sought for prosecution. So that the practices can continue for now and so that Panetta doesn't have a revolt in the CIA. Especially now that we're ratcheting up in Afghanistan.

Edit to add: I'm not saying it makes me happy, but that's my suspicion.

[GeorgeGist]

40. Because Obama's no longer the constitutional lawyer ...

he once claimed to be; he's gone over to the dark-side.

[EndElectoral]

44. I hope to hell this isn't shades of Ford pardoning Nixon. Accountability's become a joke.

[DeeDeeNY]

45. I don't understand that quote

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened." I hope this is not an accurate representation of Obama's stance on this issue. The President should want to find out what happened because it's important, not because he's "sympathetic" to those who want to know this.