General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama and War Crimes, 2009, 2011 and 2014
Ever since I saw the fuss on DU on Friday, I've been wondering why people only now are outraged about the Obama administration's decision not to prosecute war crimes, when I recall it's being clear early on, even before his inauguration, that he had decided not to have the Justice Department pursue indictments.
I remember objecting to it at the time, but not many people seemed concerned. Yet suddenly Friday people here began to express outrage due to the comments in the President's press conference. We even have an OP reposting a piece by Charlies Pierce in Esquire, positioned below Cameron Diaz in a wet shirt, declaring the President's statement at the press conference "the single most revolting thing this president ever said in public."
Now I may be at a disadvantage in not having had television the past couple of months, but I am having trouble understanding why those comments were worse than his decision six years ago not to proceed with full investigations and prosecutions of war crimes. Is my lack of outrage due to being deprived a repeat loop on cable television reminding me how this above all else is a seminal moment the Obama Presidency? Did I hallucinate prior press coverage from years ago making clear no prosecutions would take place?
No, it turns out I did not hallucinate. Jan 11, 2009, NYTimes:
In the clearest indication so far of his thinking on the issue, Mr. Obama said on the ABC News program This Week With George Stephanopoulos that there should be prosecutions if somebody has blatantly broken the law but that his legal team was still evaluating interrogation and detention issues and would examine past practices.
Mr. Obama added that he also had a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.
And part of my job, he continued, is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., youve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I dont want them to suddenly feel like theyve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders. . . .
There was no immediate reaction from Capitol Hill, where there has been a growing sense that Mr. Obama was not inclined to pursue these matters. In resisting pressure for a wider inquiry, he risks the ire of influential Democratic lawmakers on Congressional judiciary and intelligence committees and core constituencies who hoped his election would cast a spotlight on President Bushs antiterror efforts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html?_r=0
Using the Google machine, I found some articles from 2011 maintaining that the President feared a coup if he pressed for prosecutions.
Christopher Edley Jr., law dean at the University of California and a high-ranking member of the Obama transition team, made the revelation during a 9/11 forum at his law school on September 2. Andrew Kreig, director of the D.C.-based Justice Integrity Project, reports that Edley's comments were in response to questions from Susan Harman, a long-time California peace advocate.
Edley apparently tried to justify Obama's "look forward, not backwards" policy toward Bush-era lawbreaking. Instead, Kreig writes, Edley revealed the Obama team's weakness in the face of Republican thuggery:
Edley's rationale implies that Obama and his team fear the military/national security forces that he is supposed be commanding--and that Republicans have intimidated him right from the start of his presidency even though voters in 2008 rejected Republicans by the largest combined presidential-congressional mandate in recent U.S. history. Edley responded to our request for additional information by providing a description of the transition team's fears, which we present below as an exclusive email interview. Among his important points is that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a coup.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/07/1014303/-Obama-Advisors-Feared-a-Coup-if-the-Administration-Prosecuted-War-Crimes
I don't know if those fears about a coup were legitimate. They strike me as exaggerated, and I certainly can't comment on what actual threat might have existed. However, my question to DU is the following: Where were you on this issue in Jan. of 2009? Were you outraged then? Did you communicate those views to the President? Or did you wait until this past Friday to become upset? Why did it take six years? And why was the speech Friday worse than the interview on ABC's This Week in Jan. 2009 when it was clear he had decided not to move forward on prosecutions? Did you think he would magically change his mind over those six years? Or did you just not think about it until Friday's press conference? How is it possible that the statement on Friday can actually be worse than the decision not to prosecute six years ago?
tech3149
(4,452 posts)it was always on my mind, it's not.
on point
(2,506 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)There is a rumor, which I am inclined to believe, that under President Johnson that the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs and all of the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps & Air Force, nearly resigned in protest due to their objections to how President Johnson was handling the Vietnam War and his tendency to micro-manage the selection of targets for the Air Force. I would consider that a revolt.
I find the idea that the military would overthrow a legitimately elected President before he had even assumed office to be absurd.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They started screaming shortly after he was elected, and have not stopped.
Every other thing he says is the "worst thing" anyone has ever said in the history of ever.
The 2012 primary of Obama never came. That was painful.
Then, even though he and the Dems needed to be punished severely, he was somehow re-elected in 2012. Ugh!
The howling will continue with periodic out breaks of the game "Worst thing ever said!!" from now until he leaves office.
Some here want a coup (there needs to be one hovering overhead) because only that, or a total collapse of the US economy (predicted ever couple months), will remove the current government, and lead to the utopia they demand.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Sigh.
I couldn't have stated it better myself.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)TBF
(32,070 posts)and left Washington. 9/11 is the defining date, and many of us believe that it wasn't just a random successful terrorist attack - but a LIHOP event (of some type). I didn't trust Bush Cheney et al at all. I knew Obama's job, should he choose to accept it, was to calm people and keep the capitalism going. I don't know about big conspiracies, but I do think there was more said behind the scenes than we will know in our lifetimes, that we were very lucky to have a peaceful transition of power in 2008, and that the torture reports we've seen are likely the tip of the iceberg.
GeorgeGist
(25,322 posts)as your Cameron Diaz slam is cheap.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and the article above proves my memory is not "deluded." You could try reading it.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)to pursue prosecution of war crimes. Not because I don't think think they are warranted. Primarily for three reasons.
First, the backlash against the left would have been long-lasting, to the point where we would have a much harder time fixing the economy. Since many people were (and still are) hurting from the massive redistribution of wealth to the top 2%, I feel that issue of making people's lives here better takes precedence.
Second, because many democrats, including Hillary Clinton, voted to grant George W. Bush almost sweeping authority with regard to the War in Iraq. I vehemently opposed it at the time. I wrote my senators and congressperson. Out of those three, I'm happy to say that two of them voted against the Iraq War resolution. But the hatred that would come out of prosecutions, I feel, would have a long lasting effect, to the point where republicans would prosecute nearly everyone with whom they disagree, contributing to even more divisiveness in Congress and perhaps turning into more of a banana republic than we already are at this point in time.
Finally, I felt then as I do now that prosecutions would undermine our foreign policy, both vis a vis our allies and with our enemies. It would in long-lasting ways make us look like a laughing stock around the world, something we cannot afford.
I know that many reasonable people disagree with my assessments, and I understand and in many ways sympathize more with their point of view. To the question of was the Iraq war in and of itself a violation of international law and to the question of were numerous war crimes committed by members of the Bush Administration both individually and collectively my answer to both questions is an unequivocal yes.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and I understand the view that prosecuting war crimes was not the first priority compared to the economy. I would also add health care to that. Establishing some national healthcare was essential, and Obama clearly decided those were his first priorities. If he hadn't, we might be in a much worse place right now.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Off topic, you made a post the other day that really got me thinking in a positive way. I read the thread late at night and then went to sleep. I believe it was a discussion about poverty and how many get stigmatized further with notions that it's their fault, or they haven't tried hard enough. You mentioned that is also how many women feel regarding the issue of rape. Thank you for that amazing comment. It really got me thinking. It is so true. A friend called me this evening. She just left someone who was abusive toward her. In addition to making sure she is safe, I mentioned your comment. Paraphrasing, of course. She said yes, that is true. It has taken me a long time to understand it. But I think I'm beginning to understand that rape and physical abuse does not just harm the physical victims. It also denigrates and unjustly causes half of the people in our population to live in fear. A fear that should be eliminated. I'm sorry if my paraphrasing or conjecture isn't one hundred percent accurate to what you said. But just know that I thank you for getting me to think about, and discuss with people in real life, an issue that you have brought more to my attention. Have a good evening!
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and thank you for sharing that. I am glad your friend is safe now, and I hope her life continues to improve.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)TBF
(32,070 posts)will likely be discussing for awhile. As the poster above explains there are definitely different views on whether folks should have been prosecuted. Good arguments on both sides I believe.