Why Holder Won't Prosecute Bushco's Crimes

[Dover]

Attorney General designate Eric Holder raised eyebrows and a few howls when he told Utah Senator Orrin Hatch that he would not prosecute any Bush officials for authorizing dubious wiretapping. Holder has little choice in the matter. That would bog the Obama administration down in an all consuming ultimately no win factional fight with Congressional Republicans, the courts -- especially the Supreme Court which upheld Bush provisions authorizing torture, and legions of holdover Bush Justice Department and civil rights division-appointed attorneys. There were few squeals from Congressional leaders at Bush's borderline legal and constitutionally dubious executive orders that permitted the long checklist of civil liberties abuses, warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens, being one of the more glaring.

That's only part of the reason why Holder is seemingly willing to let bygones be bygones when it comes to prosecuting Bush's crew members for the blatant civil liberties abuses. The other part is that it would pry open again the Democrats dirty but hardly unknown secret. When word leaked out about the scope and complexity of the warrantless wiretap program before the 2006 midterm elections Congressional Democrats not only did nothing about it, they aided and abetted the Bush administration in the illegal spying.

The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the "Protect America Act." This put the Congressional stamp of approval on what Bush did and actually expanded his powers to snoop. The targets weren't just foreign terror suspects and known operatives but American citizens. Democrats knew this and approved it by inserting in the law open-ended wording that permitted legalized spying on anyone outside the U.S. who intelligence agencies "reasonably believed" to possess foreign intelligence information The law deliberately made no distinction about exactly who the target could be. Then there was the infamous clause that granted immunity from lawsuits to communications service providers that made Bush snooping possible. With no fear or threat of legal action against the companies, the wraps were legally off on who could be snooped on. As an added sweetener, the law also gave Bush emergency power to tap for up to a week anyone deemed a terror threat; all without a warrant. That didn't end matters....cont'd

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/holder-cant-prosecute-bus_b_158447.html

----

And Another Reason:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/another-good-reason-for-n_b_158392.html

[rwheeler31]

1. Wrong

[LakeSamish706]

2. I don't so much care about prosecuting the wire taping as I do about the war crimes....

I don't see that he has much choice about prosecuting those, or at least turning them over to the International courts.

[Dragonfli]

16. I don't much care about prosecuting marijuana laws because users aren't violating my rights - howeve...

I somehow don't think that everyone being held on such charges will be considered above the law and have all charges dropped.

Why should crimes against our liberties be so "optionally" enforced? We are a nation of laws or a banana republic. I'd rather be a nation of laws and work toward abolishing laws against non-crimes than be a nation of men where "some" may do as they please regardless of the law.

[ProSense]

3. Dershowitz and Hutchinson are clowns. n/t

[Dover]

5. True.....

And I hope they're also wrong.

[ProSense]

8. Here is Feingold on FISA

In a statement just distributed to reporters, Feingold declared that the court's decision "in no way validates or bolsters the president's illegal warrantless wiretapping program."

He continued:

It did not support the President's claim of inherent constitutional authority to violate the law. In fact, the court explicitly stated that "we caution that our decision does not constitute an endorsement of broad-based, indiscriminate executive power."

The whole statement and an accompanying "fact sheet" follows after the jump...

link

[lonestarnot]

4. The law says he must and I do not intend to take responsibility for a torturing serial killer to the

rest of the world and there are plenty thinking the same thing.

[scarletwoman]

6. Well, it just wouldn't be seemly for members of the Ruling Class to be seen

airing the dirty laundry of their predecessors. It would totally threaten the survival of the Status Quo.

sw

[Dover]

7. Ain't it the truth. And for such a white collar crowd, there sure are a LOT of dirty collars..n/t

[scarletwoman]

12. Shush! You aren't supposed to notice!

[rhett o rick]

20. I am so hoping you ain't right. But I fear you are.

In 2000 I was shocked when the idiots of our country elected Bush-the-idiot. Yeah I know the SCOTUS had a hand in it, but if it wasn't for the tens of million of gullible chuckle-heads the SCOTUS wouldn't even been involved. And again in 2004 different story but the same punch line. The chuckle-heads strike again. Even with Obama's win I still didn't feel too good because over 60 million chuckle-heads voted essentially for torture, war, bad economic policies, etc. It's getting late and I am not sure where I am going with this, but I just hope Obama doesn't let us down. after 2000 and 2004 I set my hopes on a Democrat saving us. I don't know how I would handle it if he is just another of the "ruling class".

[spanone]

9. carnac?

[Brucie Kibbutz]

10. That's OK we weren't using our civil liberties anyway.

:patriot:

[chill_wind]

11. We may find out one way or another

sooner than than expected...

Bush, 30 Officials, To Be Named In Torture Complaint To Go To Obama Administration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4839787

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/87734

[Dover]

13. Has anyone come across a list of Bushco's crimes?

I'm referring to war AND other crimes.
Is anyone keeping tabs or creating a list of legally defensible claims?

[ProSense]

14. Here:

torture, admitted

[originalpckelly]

15. He owns them if he doesn't prosecute them, inaction is a war crime.

[OnyxCollie]

17. If no action is taken, how will we ever know if the domestic spying has stopped?

The power to spy on anyone may be too tempting to relinquish.

Face it; The game operates at a higher level now.

[Dragonfli]

18. Imagine Hoover with this technology - The folders will be numerous and full

The power to blackmail incredible. Perhaps that is the reason there is so little interest in enforcing the law, everyone wants the uber-Hoover power that this represents.

[OnyxCollie]

19. I believe that is where we are at now.

Secret domestic wiretaps and splices in undersea cables are now in play.

[AtomicKitten]

21. May be nothing to prosecute -- FISA court ruled that warantless wire-tapping was/is legal.

Court Affirms Wire-Tapping Without Warrants: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?hp

The ruling is a bit fuzzy on past actions though.