Obama Evaluating Possible Prosecution Of George Bush

[Turborama]

Run time: 02:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8WzKuGCwU   Posted on YouTube: January 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 12, 2009 By DU Member: Turborama Views on DU: 2182

 

The top question on Change.govs Open for Questions feature last week asked whether President-elect Obama will appoint a special prosecutor to independently investigate the greatest crimes committed under Bush. The inquiry, submitted by Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, has received over 22,000 votes. Today, ABCs George Stephanopoulos asked Fertiks question to Obama: Q: The most popular question on your own website is related to this. On change.gov it comes from Bob Ferdick of New York City and he asks, Will you appoint a special prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping. OBAMA:Were still evaluating how were going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously were going to be looking at past practices and I dont believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. My orientation is going to be moving foward.

Obama explained that he doesnt want CIA employees to suddenly feel like theyve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering. He did not specifically rule out a special prosecutor, saying, That doesnt mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/11/obama-special-prosecutor-torture/

Responding to the most popular inquiry on the "Open for Questions" feature of his website, Barack Obama said on Sunday that he is "evaluating" whether or not to investigate potential crimes of the Bush administration, but that he was inclined to "look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

The answer was delivered during an interview to This Week With George Stephanopoulos. But the question itself has been weeks in the work.

The Obama transition team, as part of its efforts to open up the political process, had allowed web users to vote on questions for the incoming administration to field. To the top rose a query from Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com and a former Clinton White House technology official, asking whether the incoming administration would appoint a special prosecutor to "independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping."

On Obama's website, a December statement from Vice President-elect Joe Biden on the topic was offered as a response (similar older statements were used to address several other national security-related questions, which the transition team has avoided discussing). But Stephanopoulos made the matter moot by posing the question directly to the president-elect.

"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," said Obama. "And obviously we're going to look at past practices. And I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up."

Pressed a bit -- was he ruling out prosecution? -- the president-elect suggested that decision would be that of his attorney general.

"I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is that he's the people's lawyer. Eric Holder's been nominated," said Obama. "His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So ultimately, he's going to be making some calls. But my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

I asked Fertik to share his thoughts on the president-elect's answer. This is what he had to say: It's absurd to talk about "upholding the Constitution" and say "no one is above the law" if you refuse to look "back" at those who have subverted the Constitution and broken the law. And you can't have one set of rules for "national security" and a different set of rules for everything else. So if there's any hope for prosecution in Obama's answer, it is that Attorney General Eric Holder will truly be "the people's lawyer" and fully represent us by prosecuting torturers, wiretappers, and other criminals who committed their crimes from secret undisclosed locations hidden within the Bush-Cheney administration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/11/obama-leaves-door-open-to_n_156910.html

[canaar]

1. IOW

They're not going to do Dick (or Bush)...

[quidam56]

2. If we don't, it looks like other countries will...

and that will put America in a bad light. Bush/Cheney and their whole administration should be put on trial for war crimes and torture. It's simple, either it's black or it's white, there's no grey area.

http://www.wisecountyissues.com

[nosmokes]

3. 5:1 Nothing happens to Cheney or Bush. 3:1 They win Praise from Obama

Even money Bush gets a medal.

[kag]

4. I just don't understand...

They impeach Clinton, and try him in the Senate for getting a frickin' blow job!

But W and Darth come along, subvert the Constitution, break REAL laws, get people killed, lie, cheat, steal, murder--you name it! And we can't get a single Democrat to even discuss the possibility of prosecution. It stinks! It absolutely stinks!

[captainjack08]

10. Why Democrats don't do Jack

Why do you not understand? It's very simple. Democrats do nothing because they are blackmailed or threatened into doing nothing. Half of them are probably closeted gay(nothing wrong with that except to Republicans)... another smaller percentage is likely caught on tape with underage girls in the Caribbean Island or Thailand... some are cheating on their wives and being tailed by Repub operatives and the others are afraid of having their small plane crash, their family in harm's way, or getting "suicided", anthraxed, or realizing that their dirty laundry is being taped by thugs at the FBI who will threaten to release those tapes in a Blago style inquiry should they stray off the course. Or that fat cat lobbyist? He might decide to pull out his funding to the Do-Nothing-Democrat. >That< is why your politicians do nothing. That and the fact that many of them are corrupt just like the Republicans. Who doesn't understand that by now??? I will be amazed if Obama can break through all of that corrupt baggage and get anything done. I'm hoping he can.

[DutchLiberal]

22. They don't do anything because they're part of the same power structure.

They're complicit. Read the thread 'The Game' by TimeForChange (GD). (You can use the search function.)

[captainjack08]

25. thanks

Thanks for that... that pretty much sums it up. I would just add that blackmail and physical threats play a large part in how "The Game" is managed within this power structure that keeps the players in line. Again, great link. Thanks!

[DutchLiberal]

27. No big... Thank TimeForChange!

:)

[MindMatter]

5. Where did this thread get its title? He said exactly the opposite.

He never said he was going to investigate the past crimes, and at least 3 times, he said his orientation was on the future.

It ain't gonna happen.

[TheEuclideanOne]

9. Yes, good point.

I was so excited, that I actually said "oh good" out loud. My girlfriend even turned around and I didn't actually tell her what I thought was so cool. I didn't want to fess up that it was because of the title of a dicsussion post. But I digress.... After watching it, it seems like he is setting the groundwork for essentially doing nothing. I really hope that this is not the case, but your observations are right on the mark.

[raystorm7]

15. Agreed! Misleading headlines and not stating what is as is, brings us ever so closer to FOX NOISE.

[Turborama]

23. The thread got its title from the original YouTube video

He was 'evaluating'. However, maybe it would have been better to have said 'discusses'?

My bad, I was just copying and pasting the title from "TheSexyPatriot" - who I usually rely on to be accurate -instead of considering the semantic implications and the possible impact it might have here...

I'm still a relative newbie, apologies to anyone who's been upset by this lexiconic misdemeanor.

[earcandle]

6. RANT ALERT: The only way I can accept this is by imagining

that he must do this, have this position if he wants to stay alive and get into office. Once he is in office, if the people demand it, he will change. Because he is about change.

But not until he has won the hearts and minds of the {psychotic?} peeps who run the defense departments. He could help them to get back in their bodies and to get their integrity back intact. Sorely needed, given so many are hard/stiff as a rock, and on so many medications.

The armies, navies, marine corps, and 737 mercenary groups, must choose to drop their weapons along with their death wish mentalities to get back, be retrained,into promoting and protecting life, and values that make a difference in the quality of people's lives.

Right now, consider for a second that Obama doesn't need to be right. I am afraid the meaning of "right" goes with the necessity of "might". Buried in the concept of "might is right" is the targeted fabric of a new world order that Poppy wanted 18 years ago, and Reagan started 30 years ago, probably for Poppy.

These are peeps, like former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said yesterday on MSNBC, three times, that what is "right" is more important than what is "legal". This is preposterous thinking, and dangerous declaring. Thank goodness, the reporter fought back, addressing the fact that our constitutional issues require that we follow the rule of law so that our civilization can exist as a democracy.

Religious values rule over laws? Uh Uh.no.. not here. In the Middle East maybe, they did hundreds of years ago, but I thought those people were quite sophisticated before we slaughtered their very core of being and then their bodies. What kind of shit was this? Will this continue in Gaza and Afghanistan?

It is amazing what can be done with a few production companies generating reality, with some sold out press, when you can slaughter the press who try to investigate. These peeps are sick. They need help, but are too agressive to realize it. They may become more softened once different policies take the fear factor out of their every moment of existence. What adrenalin these poor folks, the fighters, must endure. They need to calm down, get some massages, make some love, listen to some intelligent underground music and get in the flow of life. get in touch, get love back in their life like it matters....

I am really concerned about GovB.

Anyone else see Mr. Huckabee declare that what was "right" is more important than what is "legal"? And isn't this the argument underneath what the impeachment of the working class hero Governor Rod Blagovich is about? The winning politicians in Illinois want to be right, the whole lot of them about their opinions that conform to agendas they do not want to change, so they get the press to be complicit in re-framing GovB as if he was indicted already, dupliciously mis-reporting.

The Senate cannot NOT seat Burris, legally, but they don't think it is "Right" that they should change their traditions, and so therefore, can avoid the rule of law? They are actually pretending that their little traditions trump the laws they are paid by our taxes to protect! That is bullshit and if we take that, like everything we take lying down, we might as well become cannibals and fuck it. Ewwwwhhh.. I don't want any part of that.

Lets give Obama a chance, and if he doesn't cut it, lets continue to be more active with our congressional leaders so that they do our will, rather than act like psychotic folks who need to be better off than the rest of us as an identifier. Lame reason for so much pain.

I yammer.

[iconicgnom]

7. He said NO four times. He said "I don't believe anybody has broken the law."

How can he be any clearer?

[davidthegnome]

8. The title

As another poster pointed out, is misleading.

This is the second time today I've wanted to ask the P.E. "What the heck are you doing?" Maybe it's all part of some grander scheme for the future... but somehow I think he means what he says. Which is that he doesn't intend to prosecute, to hold the criminals responsible.

Can't really blame him for it. At least not yet. When he's in office though... well, I expect him to do the job we elected him to do.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Jonathan Turley says if Obama doesn't, somebody else in the world community will.

This is something Obama has to do for America to reclaim its soul.

Prof Turley on Rachel Maddow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNoVjrOJmM

[Left Coast2020]

13. I'LL SAY 40:1 ODD'S ARE HE DOES GO AFTER DUFFUS AND DARTH

By the way, I saw that vid too. However, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Obama is playing poker here. I don't know why he's showing his hand before getting sworn in? Bush was on Faux Snooz today. And the implication is he authorized torture ON TV!!! That makes "exhibit A".

He is daring Obama to press charges! But Obama needs to not expose what his intensions are UNTIL AFTER HE'S SWORN IN!!Then he can say "Gottcha".

If no pardon, ROYAL FLUSH!! Obama wins! If Bush pardons, then Obama folds...only a pair. Not good enough.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I believe Obama will oblige Cheney's hubris.

Holder's confirmation hearing should be fun.

Hey, welcome to DU. :hi:

[nosmokes]

20. You're on!

You're in NOCal? where abouts? I'm in Oregon. We'll meet someplace and settle up w/ a dinner, eh?

[cooolandrew]

12. He does at least highlight the complications of prosecution and how you can have a destablisation of

government if you go after certain people. It's not ideal it's not perfect but just being real it's the way it's going to be.

[Divine Discontent]

16. I frown when I hear him say 'I don't believe that anyone has broke the law'

I may not be 100% certain that they've broken the law, but I believe they have based on the released documents stating auth to torture, and from the photos and claims of abuse by interrogators, and by admissions of some of them.

[iconicgnom]

21. Given Cheney's outright admissions, Obama's statement is ominous.

[Divine Discontent]

24. good point! very good point.

perhaps he's playing it safe before they're rounded up after the inaugural.... one can only hope/pray.

[roberto]

17. Bla bla, nothing will happen !!

and whatever, it's not the time to say or do so. Maybe latter, in the third year, not now.

[Phred42]

18. So much for the Rule Of Law.

Obama, Pelosi, the Democrats are confirming that we are NOT a Nation of Law. We are a Nation of Criminals.

[ProfessorPlum]

19. Quit looking at the f*ing future for five minutes, Barack

and try out the rule of law for once. Christ!

[Redstone]

26. Yeah, sure.

Redstone