What did Pres. Obama mean in his speech when he said.....

[FrenchieCat]

I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

?

I agree with this answer from the Daily Kos ....

He is not shutting the door on prosecutions. He could have shut the door today, but he did not.

He's going to let this Department--a group of attorneys who cherish their independence and role as protectors of the Constitution and the laws of this nation--look into the matter.

we know that the Department is already looking into the actions of its own, former attorneys (And here I must state the opinion that I think that for as much as Jesselyn Radack of the Government Accountability Project is to be applauded, her views regarding the effectiveness, aims, and intent of OPR should be taken with a small grain of salt. Because she was the subject of an Office of Professional Responsibility investigation by the previous Administration, she may have feelings about the Office that are colored by her own bad experiences with the Office in its previous incarnation, and as it does not exist today).

Whether it goes beyond OPR, and whether DOJ attorneys looking at the law decide that prosecutions are warranted or worth further examination remains to be seen.

But Obama left the door open.

That's what I took from Obama's speech.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/21/733145/-%5BUpdated%5D-A-Government-Attorneys-Take-on-Obamas-Speech

[rpannier]

1. agree

[izzie]

5. Me too. Let Congress do their job and the rest of the govt.

Congress most likely will not as they like their high paying jobs so worry they may not get a vote but some one may do their job as they should. Lets try that first.

[frog92969]

2. I hope more than anything that you're right

I couldn't be more confused by the things he's been saying and doing.
I have to admit that he's lost all my trust, but he could easily gain it back by standing up forcefully for the rule of law. In action and not just word.

[HopeOverFear]

7. ...

:eyes: *smh*

[LooseWilly]

3. I took it as a laying of this particular "hassle" at the doorstep of Congress.

Like a burning bag of dogshit.

I read absolutely no signs of interest in actively pursuing accountability for the previous administration's activities, vis. a vis. attempts to redefine a torture technique as an interrogation technique, in any sort of investigation. In fact, I still find it hard to make any sense of Obama's decision not to release the latest batch of "torture photos" except as an attempt to keep himself absolutely at arm's length, politically speaking, with any attempt to make any such inquiries into abuses of the previous administration.

I still don't buy the "will incite a new wave of anti-American sentiment" argument. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it now. I think everyone who might be "incited" by the latest batch of photos, everyone abroad that is, already has heard stories, perhaps first or second hand, and has seen previous photos... and the notion that new photos will alter the credibility or the outrage seems to me ridiculous.

On the other hand... I suspect releasing the photos would potentially re-ignite domestic outrage... and might lead to a new demand from the publik to investigate the previous administration's abuses. A demand that I get the feeling that the administration does not want to be associated with in any way, shape, or form.

Isikoff's (admittedly unconfirmed sourced) reporting suggested that Obama took the liberty of speaking for the DoJ in expressing no interest in investigating the previous administration's abuses.

So, basically... I took that line from his speech as saying that, and here I'm putting paraphrased words into the President's mouth, because it can be fun... as saying that he was couriering this particular burning bag of dog shit over to the Congress, by bike messenger I suspect, to do with as they will... and on the off chance that Congress can manage to "grow a pair" and come to the point where they are ready to call upon the DoJ to issue subpoenas or what have you, then he won't interfere.

So now, those of us who think that there should be accountability so that no executive in the future thinks that he/she can get away with having some half assed legal opinions cover them while they start torturing, or what have you... we're now being told to rely on Congress tackling the job.

Constitutionally... I have to say, his argument does make sense. If the Congress can keep its collective head out of its ass long enough to do it... then it will be a re-establishment of the constitutional power of Congress as a co-equal branch of government... and a re-establishment of the design of checks and balances... the only problem is that Congress is all too often a clump of cowardly shits.

You'll be relieved to hear that I, for one, think that, much as I'd've liked to hear that Obama was going to personally make sure that this was taken care of... I actually think this was a very shrewd and correct move on his part.

It's now up to Congress to not fold... and if they do fold... then the executive branch of the future has every right to treat them as a doormat.

Obama was right to keep his hands off this one, after all.

[snowdays]

15. Without Leadership from the WH, (kicking it down the road is not

leadership)--I fear Congress will cave.

[uponit7771]

4. ...and the reason Dick Cheney is out in front and Bush could care less

...about this.

I'm starting to think Bush didn't run a damn thing but his mouth

[FrenchieCat]

16. Yep....I'm suspecting that Bush was even more of a Front-man than we thought

and that Cheney was more of a con-man than we gave him credit for.

[ima_sinnic]

6. great, noncommittal as usual. if he felt obliged to uphold the Constitution, as he must,

he would say unequivocally that those who engaged in treason, torture, war profiteering, lying to Congress and to the American people, an plundering of the public treasury would be brought to justice, that "rule by law" applies to everybody, not just pot smokers, desperate people robbing convenience stores, and others not endowed with ill-gained power and wealth.

why must we continually parse his words? either he is for "the rule of law" or he is not. I didn't hear him say anything yesterday to indicate that "rule of law" is not simply lip service. For example, he never flat-out said, "torture is ILLEGAL," and for good reason, and that is the reason that defines everything else about it, or something to that effect. In fact, he has already said that people who tortured would be given a pass, and he never did say what would happen to those who ordered it, which just reeks of simpering centrism and don't-rock-the-boat dereliction of duty.

[rug]

8. Except the same speech denies access to the courts to a whole category of detainees.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. I felt encouraged when he said that.

It sounded to me too that the door was not closed. The Kos diary was reassuring in a number of respects.

[Still Sensible]

10. It's just the politics of the thing

Does Obama want any prosecution of those responsible for the torture policy? I don't know.

What I do know is that he doesn't want:

1. His agenda to be completely stymied because the country and media is glued to what would no doubt be a months-long soap opera that would rival the O.J. trial for distraction;
2. To start a tradition where the goal of each new administrations is to go legally after the old administration;
3. Whatever happens to be seen by the public as simply a politically motivated vendetta.

No doubt, the RW will see anything as politically motivated vendetta, but the President is not concerned about the wackos, he's concerned about the rational electorate. What he did in the speech IMO was basically explain the blueprint for others to press the issues. The mechanisms are there.

Many want the President to be the front man for this. But regardless of whether or not he wants full investigation and/or prosecutions to take place, he believes it would not be politically sound for him to be the one pushing the agenda.

All Dick Cheney's blathering of late is, IMO, trying to set the stage for the "it's just Obama playing politics" spin that will surely be a big part of the pundit narrative if and when this starts happening. This "it's just politics" meme was an important and successful defense mechanism for Bushco for much of the last eight years and Cheney is working off the old playbook.

[ericgtr]

11. Obama spoke? You wouldn't know with all the Cheney coverage

Every station had nothing but Cheney on, you wouldn't even know Obama spoke. I had to google search the speech.

[GreenArrow]

12. why is he repeating the "enhanced interrogation"

horsecrap? Seriously, why use use the Republican's insulting euphemism? Why not call the issue under discussion what it is, torture?

[emulatorloo]

13. Actually he said "so-called" enhanced interrogation - and called it "brutal" and "torture"

Check the transcript

He goes on to call it "brutal"

He goes on to call it "torture" by way of a McCain quote

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html

[FrenchieCat]

18. Please GreenArrow, this is not the only reference to this issue in his speech.

it is only the part I wanted to highlight based on what is said about the DOJ.
The Horsecrap kneejerk is just not required, as he linked the Enhancced Interrogation
to torture more than enough time, for those who actually listened to the speech.

Cynicism has it's place, and Lord knows there is more of it on this board than anything else,
but Due Diligence of what we type should always be called on, especially when we choose
to criticize our Democratic President. I don't think that is asking for too much.

[GreenArrow]

20. I haven't actually heard the speech

so I was just going off what was in the shaded area of your OP. Kneejerk? Probably. It absolutely chaps my ass when I see Democrats parroting the "enhanced interrogation" line. I'm glad to hear that he prefaced it with a "so called."

[grantcart]

14. I think that he will allow investigations to continue, if and only if, they can

be done in such a way that is completely without partisanship.

If you think about it and how a precedent could be established for partisan prosecutions in the future, it is a very wise move.

[gkhouston]

17. It means the DoJ could prosecute. Doesn't mean they *should* or *will*.

Right now, they seem to be standing around like a bunch of seventh graders at a party trying to get up the nerve to ask somebody to dance with them. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

19. I still don't believe this should be politicized......

because if it is, we lose.....and I believe that this is the last thing this President needs,
considering the mess he needs to fix, and the amount of forward movement we need to make on ALL fronts.

It's called being politically smart in the face of so many who have a stake in bringing this President down if they can. Doh! :crazy:

[gkhouston]

21. I don't think it should, either, which is an argument for keeping Congress out of

it and appointing independent counsel. Cheney's obviously trying to make it be about politics, and Obama obviously wants to avoid that. Doing nothing at all will be harmful to the country and probably to this administration. Congress will either do nothing or botch the job. One or more special prosecutor types (good ones, not grandstanding jackasses like Starr) would seem to be indicated.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Your interpretation seems likely, or at least I hope it is likely. nt

[Cha]

23. Slowly slowly

building methodically while cheney with the collaberation of the corporatemedia is fighting for the right to torture.