Is today's clarified prosecution stance a political error?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I understand that there is some political sensitivity here but even politically the Rahm Emanuel clarification that the president wants to avoid ANY prosecution of ANY Bush era official (including policy-makers and order-givers) seems an error.

(re: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3839080 & linked video)

(Rahm offered his comments as directly stating the president's contemporaneous thinking. As with all statements by spokes-persons they are worth whatever they are worth.)

Doing nothing seems, to me, more perilous in practical political terms than appointing an Independent Counsel to follow the torture trail however seems appropriate under US law.

Appointing an Independent Counsel disconnects Obama from the issue and buries the story for literally years... probably past 2012. It offers the "don't talk about ongoing investigations" out squared since most of the IC's work would be classified, at least throughout the investigatory phase. (And "no commented" properly, since the perception of non-partisanship is key to an IC's functioning.)

And it avoids the specter of vociferous--however minority--anti-Obama protests from the left.

Being heckled from any quarter makes a president appear weak. And any fracture in base is undesirable. The "Sister Souljah" upside isn't nearly worth the larger downside. (Particularly since those who currently view Obama as an ultra-left peacenik are in that un-persuadable 28%.)


If the objective is to side-step the issue then appoint an IC and move on. And if the objective is the impartial application of US law in a way that is perceived as non-partisan then appoint an IC and move on.

Good policy. Good politics.


PS: Anyone knowledgeable about the limitations of an IC that might prevent being effective, please chime in.

[jody]

1. "Good policy. Good politics." and IMO morally bankrupt. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Appointing an independent counsel would be morally bankrupt?

Why? (Serious question)

[jody]

7. I must say it depends because an IC might procrastinate until the political heat is off. We've had

IC before that were ineffective IMO.

I don't rely solely upon wiki however the following list with links to credible sources appears to be complete.

Investigations carried out by Independent Counsel

* Independent Counsel Arthur Christy relating to allegations of illegal drug use of Jimmy Carter's aide Hamilton Jordan, 1978
* Independent Counsel Leon Silverman relating to Raymond Donovan, 1981-84
* Independent Counsel Jacob A. Stein relating to Edwin Meese III, 1984
* Independent Counsel Whitney North Seymour, Jr. relating to Michael Deaver, 1981-89
* Independent Counsel Alexia Morrison relating to Theodore Olson, 1986-88
* Independent Counsels Arlin Adams and Larry Thompson relating to Samuel Pierce and others associated with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1988-98
* Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh relating to the Iran-Contra affair, 1986-93
* Independent Counsels Joseph DiGenova and Michael Zeldin relating to improper search of passport records, 1992-95
* Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz relating to charges of corruption against Mike Espy, 1994-2001
* Independent Counsel David Barrett relating to Henry Cisneros payments controversy, 1995-2006
* Independent Counsel Curtis Emery von Kann relating to Eli J. Segal, 1996-98
* Independent Counsels Kenneth Starr, and Robert Ray relating to the suicide of Vince Foster, the Whitewater scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, and later the Lewinsky scandal, 1994-2001
* Special Counsel, Nicholas J. Bua (November 13, 1991) relating to allegations that high-ranking officials of the United States Department of Justice during the Reagan Administration (1981–89) had acted improperly for personal gain to bankrupt Inslaw Inc.. Bua was appointed by Attorney General William Barr to advise Barr on whether or not an independent prosecutor ought to be appointed to investigate the allegations.<1>

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. I agree that they are often not ideal, but I would favor it on good-government grounds alone

When high-ranking officials of the other party are potential targets there's something to be said for the appearance of distance.

And I believe that something like an IC may well take things further than the Obama DoJ ever would.

But I do take your point.

[Danger Mouse]

2. I can't fathom a good reason why Obama would do this.

I just can't.

[rug]

4. We're playing chess while he's playing Three Card Monte.

[Lint Head]

5. I fear President Obama will have one term if criminals are not

prosecuted. It will break his support in two. A Gallup Poll released February 12, 2009 revealed that 62 percent of Americans want to investigate or criminally prosecute Bush administration officials who authorized torture in the so-called “war on terror.”

[MadBadger]

6. I fear President obama will have one term if he he attempts to prosecute Bush admin Officials

I understand what your poll says, but the issue will be framed as Obama playing politics while the country is in economic meltdown. Its fairly easy to see it happening, and the media will eat it up. Obama would probably lose the support of a bunch of independents and any Republican who supports him.

Everything I am saying has to do with politics. Obama is a politician, and my belief is that it is his thinking that prosecutions from his end are politically stupid.

[ProSense]

12. That's nonsense.

Read.

Also, what makes you think the Repubs wouldn't use the failure to investigate against him?

[Skip Intro]

13. It is a matter of justice and duty. If Obama is placing political fortunes ahead of duty, then

that is a sad situation.

I hope above all that that is not the case.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Juding by the questions the MSM has been asking the admin....

... or discussing on the various shows .... it's become clear to me that the ONLY people who are interested in seeing any prosecutions come from this ..... are right here on this board.

Apparently (or at least the press thinks and I tend to think they're right) "the American people" are more worried about "jeopardizing national security."

Actually, the American People are more worried about paying their light bill right now than they are the torture matter either way.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. I doubt the costs of an Independent Counsel would prevent anyone paying their light bill

[tigereye]

10. thanks for applying some rationality to this - it seems to be lacking in some

of the other arguments I have seen about this topic...

[Hutzpa]

11. I've read the article and

watched the youtube, the 1:01 segment did not mention anything about what this
heading is claiming, except excerpt from George's blog.

This is like being told by a republican that same sex marriage is now acceptable
within their party.

Folks here are too quick to jump to conclusion as to what an individual is saying
or implying.

This is what I think, the media with the help of some enablers here are goading
the Obama administration into articulating their inner thoughts on tortures, but
the problem is, they (Obama administration) are too smart for them and most of us.

Let the guessing saga continues.

[HamdenRice]

15. Because the prosecutions could be of Justice Dept itself, yes there has to be IC nt