It's official: No U.S. prosecution of Bush officials

[debbierlus]

Gross. Really gross. If Obama doesn't prosecute, he becomes complicit. Uphold the Constitution, Mr. President. That is the oath you swore...

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/04/its-official-no-us-prosecution-of-bush-officials/

Bad news for anyone hoping that President Obama might still be open to the possibility of prosecution of high-level Bush officials: It ain't gonna happen.

That much was close to being certain before the torture memos were released Thursday. But the statement from Obama released with those shocking memos included this sentence: "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."

By singling out CIA interrogators to assure them they will not be subject to federal prosecution, I thought perhaps he was leaving room for future prosecution of higher ups. Given that he released such explosive materials almost without redactions, I thought perhaps he might allow himself to be influenced by shifting popular sentiment.

Nope: Obama's right-hand man, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, explicitly rejected that possibility this morning on ABC's This Week. Emanuel said that the president believes Bush officials "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go." Not that that should surprise anyone: Obama said as much from almost his first day in office, when he told reporters he wasn't interested in a proposed Capitol Hill "truth commission."

That commission, of course, still hasn't happened, as our elected representatives reach across the aisle to block any prosecution suggestions.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: "I think it would be disaster to go back and try to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice that you disagreed with to a former president."

Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri: "I don't think we want to look in the rearview mirror."

It ain't gonna happen.

-Jeremy Gantz

[DURHAM D]

1. So, it makes you wonder who else the spooks have wire-tapped. n/t

[TBF]

2. They should start w/prosecuting the underlings so they can get information

to hang the higher ups. And they're not going to do it. It's absolutely disgusting.

[MarjorieG]

3. And the government stops while try this, which many say is a defensible argument?

[mopinko]

37. so, it is ok to go after minnows because it works? is that what you are saying?

hang lyndsey england, even tho the justice department handed down legal opinions, because if you squash enough of these little bugs, you might get a big fish? do whatever it takes to get the result you want?
is that what you are saying? just checkin'.

[rhett o rick]

44. It's not one or the other. Go after them all. The small fish were the hands on torturers.

They broke laws. Their ignorance is not a defense. Following orders is not a defense. They tortured innocent people, children and they killed people. How do you let that go? This is not my America and I pledge to change it. We are a country of laws and justice.

Damn the big fish, but also damn those that so willingly did their bidding.

[PatSeg]

4. Why do we have laws

if we aren't going to enforce them? And why do we have "LAWmakers" if they make laws we aren't going to enforce?

[LaPera]

5. Disgusting and people here at DU can't understand the continued broken promises they

believe we should just ignore it all and say rah rah Obama for everything, stupid fucks, fuck even republicans started trashing Bush for his elitist corporate fascism.

And Obama is ignoring some of BushCo most hideous crimes, not closing torture camps, not ending the war in Iraq, denying the right of habeas corpus to US prisoners on foreign soil, disregarding NSA domestic spying, allowing BushCo republicans to run the treasury & give the banks near status quo, et al - on & on, with some nice shit though and scraps thrown in to keep us happy.

This is a lot like Clinton, as we were so fucking happy to receive anything after twelve years of republicans Reagan & Bush, after eight years of republican Bush's corporate fascism we are now ecstatic with anything coming our way...So rah rah President Obama - We democrats will all look the other way at the broken promises because you are a democrat and we are happy to have any crumbs thrown our way!!

[dionysus]

7. that was the largest run-on sentence i have ever seen.....

[FrenchieCat]

6. Perhaps President Obama is not the only route to prosecutions.

IN fact, I'm not quite sure why it is up to this President to begin with. I don't recall any President in American history ever being the one that led prosecution charges against a prior administration.

Though I guess it makes it easier to expect action from him, and not from anyone else....after all, there appears to only be one branch of government as far as Obama critics are concerned.

How convenient!

Here, something to do: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5494148

[AtomicKitten]

8. President Obama has provided the ammunition.

Emanuel chatting up the Sunday talking heads isn't an official position. The body politic is still digesting the implications of these memos, the remedy still forthcoming. In other words, it ain't over til it's over.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I still don't understand everybody shitting on the President

and acting like he is the end all, aka a Messiah fallen!

Folks need to grow up and if they feel strongly, and take things into their own hand.
Barack Obama appears the source of all of their ire, simply because he's not leading the charges
in doing something no other President has ever done. The expectations toward this president are
unrealistic, especially by those who never expected anything good from him to begin with.

Obama suggested that we were the ones that we had been waiting for.
He didn't say, just let me do it all, while you sit back and whine about what I ain't doing.

[bdamomma]

12. we should have taken things in our hands a long time ago.

when the bush regime was in abuse of power.

I guess no should/could of's could help us now.

[Fire1]

18. Well, cause he's a constitutional lawyer and professor,

he took an oath to uphold and enforce the laws of the constitution, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!! Besides, didn't he just sign some legislation to ensure this doesn't happen again? Heard reference to that on msnbc.

[Fire1]

24. Nevermind. He has banned enhanced torture practices.

[960]

43. It's coming Frenchie. And Obama is on the wrong side of history.

[Bluerthanblue]

49. a fricken men Frenchie-

so very well said.

:grouphug:

[asteroid2003QQ47]

56. The man changed (much for the better), the administrators did not...

thus I totally agree with you that "The expectations toward this president are
unrealistic...".
There is nothing that could make me walk in his shoes.

As for your not understanding the situation might I offer this as
a factor?--

"I was born in Paris and raised there. I know what Europeans like about America."
--FrenchieCat (3/9/09)

[Luminous Animal]

58. But he's leading the charge

against investigations and prosecution. You don't think that Holder is getting the message loud and clear?

[chill_wind]

40. Took the words out of my mouth, AtomicKitten.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8356764#top

[AtomicKitten]

55. President Obama called it ILLEGAL at the CIA today.

HE FUCKING CALLED IT ILLEGAL BEFORE THE CIA AND AMERICA TODAY!!!

He released the ammunition. The statute of limitations is +/- one year. He said it's illegal in front of the CIA in his statement before a bank of cameras.

Now it's up to the Congress and/or the Department of Justice.

Go get 'em!!!

[Yukari Yakumo]

14. "I'm not quite sure why it is up to this President to begin with."

It isn't. It's the DoJ who gets the ball rolling.

That won't stop the local shitbags around here from stinking up the joint.

[Fire1]

19. But the irony is, the DOJ 'approved' the advanced torture

techniques. Independent prosecutor is the best bet, imo.

[LooseWilly]

23. The DoJ is part of the Executive branch.

If there's one thing we all should've learned from Gonzales, and more especially from Mukasey, it is that the DoJ takes orders from the President now. It may've had a bit of a mind of its own once upon a time, but that time is passed.

And that is why most of us were hoping that Obama would signal some interest in pursuing an investigation. What we were really saying was that we wanted the President to signal the go-ahead to the DoJ.
Instead, the President has given the DoJ a red light, and no investigation of violations of the law, let alone war crimes, will be pursued by the DoJ. Or at least that is what it sounds like.

Maybe Congress will try to investigate, but judging by the effectiveness of issuing Congressional subpoenas in the face of DoJ uncooperativeness in the past... I won't be holding my breath that that investigation will go very far.

Ahh well, Kissinger was a war criminal, and the country lived in with him sheltered from International Law. Hell, he was probably an inspiration to Cheney and company. And now, it's reassuring to know that future generations of American War Criminals will have a new generation of role models...

[bdamomma]

10. I think some Constitutional scholars should pay a visit to President Obama

unless the then Senator Obama was illegally wiretapped too.

[DURHAM D]

15. Exactly. n/t

[brentspeak]

11. Where are the tools from last week's threads?

The ones who claimed that this was all just a clever ploy by Obama to let the little guys go in order to get at the big guys?

[Danger Mouse]

27. Tools? Are you perhaps speaking of yourself?

[brentspeak]

41. Here's one!

Thanks for raising your hand.

[Danger Mouse]

51. I never said any such thing.

Only that I hoped that was what Obama was trying to do.
How dare I!

[newview88]

50. Those "tools"

as you so maturely stated it, are in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8358338&mesg_id=8358338 using logic instead of your vile Obama bashing tactics.

[stillcool]

13. Gosh..it's too bad we only have one person...

in our government isn't it? Of course the torture had been going on for what 7 years? Ah well...'next time' you can elect your favorite and they will save the world for you. Just watch the tv. It'll happen.

[mvd]

16. It's very disappointing if true.

But it sounds like our whole government, save for a few people brave enough to want the truth, is letting us down. There are obviously some things that they want to hide from us like we are children.

[vaberella]

17. I like how this article listed A FEW of the people against prosecution.

And people wonder why O doesn't do it...he's got enough people who would back him against a wall and I don't think Senate nor Congress would allow this to go through.

[mvd]

20. There's no way I can endorse him saying "move on"

It would have been better to just release the memos and stay out of it if he didn't want to challenge the establishment (which needs challenging IMO.) Maybe defer the questions.

[vaberella]

22. I don't think O said "move on" did he? n/t

[mvd]

25. Sounded like it to me

:shrug:

[vaberella]

29. Oh you're reading into "reflect and retribution"...understood. n/t

[mvd]

36. Thanks for understanding

I was going by what Emanuel said.

[vaberella]

54. I understand. I respect the feeling and I'm starting to feel the same way

when I heard O's speech today. So far it's my first disappointment with him. Everything else has been a B+ to A....this might be my first D. But he never claimed to be perfect and to agree with us all the time, so I'll tolerate it although Bush needs to be be under oath.

[cwcwmack]

21. pandora's box...

do you think that MAYBE during 1992-2000 MAYBE one or two CIA agents did something BAD to someone? MAYBE some black ops mission where they did things that weren't "published"???

How about WW2? After the Malmedy massacre a group of US soldiers executed 50 or 60 German POW's... and were never punished.

I think Sen. McCaskill has it right.

[mvd]

26. I don't buy that argument

This goes beyond the CIA, and war was never declared on us.

I would understand if he was trying another incremental approach with the memos, but it seems it ends with those.

[cwcwmack]

30. and war was never declared on us?

I'd call THIS a declaration...

[mvd]

35. It's different when it's terror, and not a country

We have the obligation to obey the Geneva Conventions.

If you call that war, you might as well say we are always at war, since there's a terrorist somewhere. I don't see it this way.

[Danger Mouse]

28. Well shit.

[Hutzpa]

31. I am not buying this BS story

I AM NOT BUYING THIS STORY...PERIOD

This is my opinion, mine only and I'm entitle to it.

[WI_DEM]

32. So rawstory means it's official?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. I thought we had THREE, count 'em, THREE branches of government

Can the president stop investigations? Why not just appoint a special prosecutor if they are so concerned about the political implications of pursuing these investigations.

Let me get this straight:

The Republicans spent EIGHT years investigating a president and TWO years and millions of tax payer dollars impeaching him over sexual indiscretions. They don't even flinch when it comes to investigating real or imagined transgressions committed on the behalf of Democrats. WHY? Someone please tell me why the Democrats won't pursue legitimate charges of constitutional misconduct?

[ProSense]

34. It's not official. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

48. shhhh- don't interupt the outrage with actual facts.

:hi:

Obama knew this was going to be a very dicey issue- What he couldn't have known is how badly messed up everything would be right from the begining.

I won't condemn him for not prosecuting right this minute. I'm glad he released the memos, and that he is making it abundantly clear that tactics like bush ok'd will NOT be tolerated under his leadership. He's taking a raft of crap for this important decision.

We can't undo what was DONE- but we can stop it from continuing which Obama DID, and bring those involved in this to justice, which I am trusting Obama will DO, or will help happen.

[960]

38. It became official the moment Obama became the nominee.

[ProSense]

39. Yeah, because the other candidates would definitely have released the memos

and launched a war crimes trial?

[960]

42. Obama was the only candidate to state during the primaries he wouldn't prosecute.

So, that is the point it became official.
Would Hillary have respected the constitution? I would say yes. And we may yet find out.

[Bluerthanblue]

45. NO- get your facts right! He said:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.



stop putting YOUR words in his mouth- please!

[Number23]

53. "Would Hillary have respected the constitution? I would say yes."

Ahhh. I am beginning to understand the source of much of your anger...

[Bluerthanblue]

47. but of course,

everyone knows that!

NOT-

How simple everything appears when it's only supposition, eh?


:shrug: what the hell is wrong with all of us??

[cascadiance]

46. We nee to make "looking forward" MORE expensive for them to avoid what needs to be done!

We can't stand back and let this coverup and surrender of our constitution happen! Those in government, Democrats OR Republicans need to be made to pay the price for this BS!

[DutchLiberal]

52. Big surprise...

After all, considering how Watergate and Iran-Contra were settled, who would have thought Bush and Cheney would be able to walk away from their crimes without any consequences? :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

57. It's official! Emanuel's statement was corrected:

You're welcome.

On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC News program “This Week” that “those who devised policy” also “should not be prosecuted.” But administration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21intel.html?_r=1&ref=fp1