So is the Obama Administration going to throw the book at Bush officials' crimes?

It doesn't appear so. Krugman supports enforcement:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.

...If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it’s probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he’s going to swear to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That’s not a conditional oath to be honored only when it’s convenient.

how you swing between being the world's most cynical man and its most naif is a thing of wonder

oh yeah, they CAN'T do it....

Pathetic.

they can do anything they want but it's not like obama ran on the vengeance platform

I'd just be happy if they dismantled all the bullshit bush & co erected during their reign of terr'r

ALL the bullshit? well that's clearly not gonna happen either

morbs if there's going to be a torch-and-pitchfork brigade storming the compounds in kennebunk or crawford or wherever, it's pretty facile to think obama would be leading the march

try the fascists for their crimes and all, yeah yeah, but let's allow the new prez to keep his glossy sheen of hope for a while, eh?

elmo otm

punitiveness does not become a statesman

so is this question rhetorical?

allegorical

enforcing the law certainly does not become a Democrat

so is it just too-too to be bummed out that nobody from the Bush administration who flouted the law and/or constitution will ever be held accountable? because it does seem like that's where the narrative's moving - the "looking forward" trope. No illusions mind you I don't think Obama ever suggested directly or indirectly that he was interested in pursuing criminal charges against the Bush admin - doesn't seem like what he'd think of as productive use of his time or office, and, y'know, if that's an accurate read on him, I can see that position - it's not without merit. But I dunno, maybe other people don't find it kinda depressing on the whole - but it's hardly sporting to fault people for thinking "it sucks that everybody has to get off scot-free, there ought to be some reckoning other than hoping karma sorts it out"

There's a difference between thinking "it sucks that everybody has to get off scot-free, there ought to be some reckoning other than hoping karma sorts it out" and "I AM A SNEERING WONDER ABOVE ALL" in that I think 95% of the people on this board agree with the former and 95% of the people on this board agree with the latter only when they say it, plus they usually manage to say it without the bold overtones.

IOW people are taking way more issue with the tone than they are the content.

I find it incredibly depressing, but I didn't expect it to be any other way. He pretty much point blank said this was what he was going do during the campaign.

I will make Sneering Wonder t-shirts for me and Krugman, then

do right wingers think the same thing about clinton for jizzing on the oval office floor and see red when he purrs "I love this carpet"

If you set up anonymous payment, you could probably get most of ILX to buy them as well, DM!

right-winger: "it's not that Clinton jizzed on the Oval Office carpet, it's that he was a perjurer"
left-ish response: "yeah but perjurer about something trivial"

left-winger: "Bush is a war criminal"
right-ish response: "yeah but he was keeping us safe"

and on and on we go...

I'm quite dejected, and think Obama's Aureole of Hope is such that he can call for the creation of an independent committee investigating war crimes without looking like a recriminatory asshole.

Yeah, I'm bummed at the likelihood that no senior Bush admin officials will be made to account for the administration's crimes! But I don't want to spend the next 4-8 years picking at scabs, wasting effort, exacerbating partisan hostilities and sinking in shit. If there had been substantial public demand for investigation and prosecution during the Bush administration (as there was during Nixon's), then progress would have been made in this direction, Obama wouldn't bother wasting political capital trying to quash it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Therefore, our frustrations are better directed at the decisions that WE (as members of the American public) have already made than with ones we think Obama might or might not make in the future.

Am I disappointed that the Americans have been so cynical and apathetic about Bushco's crimes? Hell yes! But I don't blame Obama for recognizing and respecting the verdicts we've already rendered on these matters.

If Obama's election has proved ANYTHING, it's that the received wisdom of Beltway pundits is so much shit talking.

But I don't want to spend the next 4-8 years picking at scabs, wasting effort, exacerbating partisan hostilities and sinking in shit. If there had been substantial public demand for investigation and prosecution during the Bush administration (as there was during Nixon's), then progress would have been made in this direction, Obama wouldn't bother wasting political capital trying to quash it, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Have you seen the statistics for support of the Iraq war? The public is sufficiently outraged; besides, "the public" is what TV news says it is.

Americans aren't cynical and apathetic. Blame the talking heads for interviewing Cheney and being so intimidated by his scowling bald dreariness that they don't press the administration's complicity despite enormous evidence.

I don't blame Obama for recognizing and respecting the verdicts we've already rendered on these matters.

I can only conclude from this that American Idolization of America is complete. When was the vote, and on what show?

So contenderizer, you think Krugman's "If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again" is total BS?

The public is sufficiently outraged; besides, "the public" is what TV news says it is.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn

I'm not convinced on either point. Prosecutions due to responsibility for economic collapse seem much more politically reasonable, therefore likely.

I do feel like it's almost too late to make American culture value accountability. The only upside to this is that I think I could probably get away with a ton of shit in a culture where blaming your mistakes on someone else is a virtue up until my conscience turned me into a suicidal wreck, so at least my family could profit.

Prosecutions due to responsibility for economic collapse seem much more politically reasonable, therefore likely.

"When all are guilty, none are" -- Hannah Arendt. It's much harder to prosecute when ample evidence exists of malfeasance on both sides.

he probably got hold of the presidents secret book by now dont you reckon

believe me, I understand how difficult is to argue for the ineffectiveness and moral outrage of torture: my dad used to say, "Why do you want to give these terrorists rights?" But, that I can recall, I have never heard one TV talking head plainly and succinctly describe why torture and warrentless wiretapping are crimes.

blaming "americans" for what the washington establishment does is one of my least favorite cynical-observer moves.

otm

didn't obama's administration already come out and say they're not interested in a witch hunt but if compelling evidence of wrongdoing is presented they will be forced to act on it?

if nixon hadn't been so obviously guilty of the shabbiest possible crimes, like stuff that couldn't be spun no way as "looking out for your interests," then you can bet washington would've refused to make any moves toward impeachment. it's not like they wanted to impeach him for bombing cambodia or illegally impounding funds for social programs.

So contenderizer, you think Krugman's "If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again" is total BS?

― Dr Morbius

It's not total BS, though the inclusion of the word "guarantee" tilts it towards a brand of moral hysteria that I'm leery of. I'm more a moral pragmatist than an absolutist. I'm much more concerned with productive ends than with the need to take "correct" actions or to balance the scales of justice. And on that score, I believe some real good would be accomplished by prosecuting the Bush administration for its crimes. But I strongly suggest that any victory would be Pyrrhic, and that levelheaded cooperation will be more valuable over the next few years than the satisfaction of furious vengeance.

Cooperate with whom? The Rumsfelds and A. Gonzaleses?

JD, yeah, that's why Jimmy Breslin's Watergate book was called How the Good Guys Finally Won. It seemed like such a miracle. Now, you mean none of the last 2 terms of shenanigans qualify as shabby?

If none of the prime players are held to account for this shit, the Constitution is turned from "a living document" to a mossy tombstone.

The Constitution has been a mossy tombstone since 1992.

if nixon hadn't been so obviously guilty of the shabbiest possible crimes, like stuff that couldn't be spun no way as "looking out for your interests," then you can bet washington would've refused to make any moves toward impeachment. it's not like they wanted to impeach him for bombing cambodia or illegally impounding funds for social programs.

― J.D.

Exactly. Find Bush or Cheney with their hand in the cookie jar or their pants down in the oval office, and then the outlook for prosecution looks a whole lot rosier. But trying them in court for "protecting the American people" (i.e., wiretapping, waterboarding) would result in a nation meltdown and would go a long way towards unifying and reenergizing the currently shattered Republican party.

what happened in '92?

it was the year punk rock broke, duh

i don't think demanding that presidents uphold the constitution (which is, yknow, the point of being president) is "moral hysteria."

If none of the prime players are held to account for this shit, the Constitution is turned from "a living document" to a mossy tombstone.

― Dr Morbius

In this equation, the Constitution is Shrodinger's cat, and it never entirely settles out one way or the other. Living tombument.

Cheney with (his) hand in the cookie jar

I'm pretty sure there's a fair amount of evidence of this? I could live w/ Dick in prison and Bush in glum disgrace.

o wait that was 1991, nevermind

Yeah, after Watergate, "the good guys won" -- they celebrated by pardoning Nixon, for the sake of "the healing process."

Gerry Ford was not a Good Guy

more and more i think pardoning nixon was where we all went wrong, forever

i don't think demanding that presidents uphold the constitution (which is, yknow, the point of being president) is "moral hysteria."

― (The Other) J.D.

No. But, "if we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll GUARANTEE that they will happen again!" at least tends in a hystwardly direction.

xxp: but point taken. I became the way, y'know, I am the day of the pardon...

But I strongly suggest that any victory would be Pyrrhic, and that levelheaded cooperation will be more valuable over the next few years than the satisfaction of furious vengeance.

You understand that said cooperation will be a one-way street, right?

But trying them in court for "protecting the American people" (i.e., wiretapping, waterboarding) would result in a nation meltdown and would go a long way towards unifying and reenergizing the currently shattered Republican party.

Just like how Ford pardoning Nixon avoided a bunch of poisonous partisanism and helped us move past the nightmare of Watergate, right? Only to bring us, of course, the Reagan years and the triumph of movement conservativism, followed by Nixon 2: Electric Bushaloo.

xxxxpost

Scooter Libby was this administration's Don Regan: the fall guy whose perfidy and condemnnation in the minds of the Beltway exonerated them from ever giving a shit about prosecuting his boss.

but that's completely spurious because no judge would've sent nixon to jail, his crimes just would've been exposed and recorded as, yknow, crimes. which would've given every future president something to think about when he considered some extra-legal shenanigans.

that's about as convincing as "the death penalty lowers crime rates"

being indicted might the one thing that might get Cheney to talk to Oprah

"and, representing the prosecution, oprah winfrey"

http://brownsugarpages.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/oprah_wideweb__470x3120.jpg

"Steadman and I want to CRUSH that Dick Cheney's head like a grape."

But trying them in court for "protecting the American people" (i.e., wiretapping, waterboarding) would result in a nation meltdown and would go a long way towards unifying and reenergizing the currently shattered Republican party.

Just like how Ford pardoning Nixon avoided a bunch of poisonous partisanism and helped us move past the nightmare of Watergate, right? Only to bring us, of course, the Reagan years and the triumph of movement conservativism, followed by Nixon 2: Electric Bushaloo.

----------------------------

ford was a republican as was nixon, so this wasn't exactly a "reaching across party lines to move past a national embarrassment for the greater good".

yeah I was just a kid but I remember Ford pardoning Nixon as the moment when the most cynical lefties got to say "I told you they were even more corrupt than you could imagine"

i think where we went wrong was deciding, mostly in retrospect, that watergate was a "nightmare" rather than an inspiring example of democracy and justice in action.

(uh i mean the watergate investigation and consequences, not watergate itself obv)

or just a happy accident. The reforms that followed in '74-78? Blown away since.

what happened in '92?

That was the date of the last Amendment (which btw took a mere 202 years to ratify): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I wasn't associating its relevance w/ the passing of new amendments.

I think you folks are seriously underestimating the red-state freakout that prosecuting Bush would provoke, or how useful said freakout would be to Republicans interested in making hay by opposing whatever it is that Obama decides to do over the next few years.

Cheney prosecution? Maybe. Gonzales? Definitely a good idea, and more besides. But prosecuting Bush for overseeing the mess just seems suicidal. That'll depend on what comes out in the wake, though...

OK, first off, the Republicans are going to oppose whatever it is that Obama decides to do anyway. At the national level, that's all the party has right now -- ideology. It doesn't have majority power, it doesn't have a coherent governing philosophy, it doesn't have useful policy positions. All it has is "We are not liberals," and it will act accordingly. Has it escaped your notice that the hardcore 30-percenters have all but anointed Palin as their 2012 candidate?

But beyond that, who cares if it would provoke a red-state freakout? Is that how we decide to enforce the law?

lol "red-state freakout"

Republicans are going to oppose whatever it is that Obama decides to do anyway.

...Has it escaped your notice that the hardcore 30-percenters have all but anointed Palin as their 2012 candidate?

But beyond that, who cares if it would provoke a red-state freakout? Is that how we decide to enforce the law?

― Pancakes Hackman (selected)

First statement is OTM, but could play out any number of ways, depending on what Obama does how his actions play with Americans in general and moderate conservatives in particular.

Second hasn't escaped my notice, but I expect the field to shift a LOT over the next 4-8.

And enforce the law? Most of Bush's "criminal" actions were justified with legal interpretation provided by the justice department. Enforcing the law here would be a huge ordeal (though perhaps a worthwhile one, in the long run). Personally, I'd rather Obama spend his term working to fix the economy and accomplish some progressive good.

First statement is OTM, but could play out any number of ways, depending on what Obama does how his actions play with Americans in general and moderate conservatives in particular.

I don't believe that last part, and with a little bit more examination I doubt you would, either. The so-called "moderate conservatives" in the House and Senate never failed to fall absolutely 100% in line with pretty much everything the Bush administration asked for over the last 8 years. I can't think of a single time in which any percentage of Republicans seriously opposed something the President wanted, and even if they did so out loud, they always fell into line by voting time. Once Obama's in, the minority whips aren't even going to need to come to work.

Most of Bush's "criminal" actions were justified with legal interpretation provided by the justice department.

Sure, once the President and his staff explicitly forbade the OLC from giving them any answer but the one they wanted. And whether those opinions are even legal controlling on actions taken outside the executive branch offices is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be examined by the courts. I can't get away with committing a crime just because my lawyer tells me it's legal, and I don't believe the president can, either.

Not talking about moderate conservatives in the House and Senate. I'm talking about moderate conservatives in cars and houses everywhere. The character of their response to Obama will be determined in large part by their constituencies' response to Obama.

"their" in that third sentence flips back to "conservatives in the House and Senate", for no clear reason

I can't think of a single time in which any percentage of Republicans seriously opposed something the President wanted

Social Security

I can't think of a single time in which any percentage of Republicans seriously opposed something the President wanted

an immigration policy that didn't involve rounding up all the "scary brown people invading our borders with diseases to contaminate and sodomize our daughters" and sticking them into holding camps or drumping them across the border at Brownsville Station

Did either of those things ever actually appear in bills that got voted on? My recollection is that they didn't, but my memory is (clearly) hazy these days.

In any case, I think my basic point is sound - the Republicans are going to oppose Obama in blocks so tight it will make the Clinton administration look like a cakewalk.

...unless MAYBE if unemployment goes to 15% and shit gets really fun.

I realize that Obama is not Reid & Pelosi -- I do give him that much -- but they've been the capitulating faces of Dem "levelheaded cooperation."

the moron doesn't get that Reid & Pelosi are going to be on Obama's left

ever hear the term "lustration," morbs?!?

Did either of those things ever actually appear in bills that got voted on?

I don't see how this matters, considering that the president does not submit bills to congress to be voted on. Congress disagreed with him on those issues, and he didn't get what he wanted.

Now that Bush and Cheney have escaped impeachment during their tenure in office, I do not think there are good legal grounds for prosecuting them after leaving office. Impeachment remains the one legal remedy provided by the US constitution and the Congress left it in the box. Lost opportunity, gone forever.

Most of Bush's "criminal" actions were justified with legal interpretation provided by the justice department.

What can be usefully done at this time would be to haul these opinions out into the broad light of day and destroy them all, through examination by the courts. Office of Legal Counsel opinions and Justice Department opinions are just opinions until they are upheld by court rulings.

Also, it would be very useful for Congressional hearings into the more culpable crimes of the Bushites, where the American people could learn what kind of shit was going on, coupled with prosecution in the most egregious cases. Bush and Cheney may be out of reach, but their flunkies are not. Where actual crimes happened, someone needs to be flushed out of hiding and flayed.

Was it Jonathan Turley who last week suggested on the Olbermann show that some other country might choose to prosecute these guys for war crimes, thus forcing the Administration's hand? [/wishful thinking]

I don't think that would force Obama's hand in any direction. Most likely he would issue a statement regretting the action and initiate under-the-radar actions designed to forestall their success. It isn't the sort of thing a US president of either major party is likely to welcome.

It would be a pretty risky business for the outside country, too, given how USA conservatives never forgive and never forget such acts of lese majesty. That country would be on a shit list for a century at least. Those guys are vindictive as hell.

That country would be on a shit list for a century at least. Those guys are vindictive as hell.

Given that the Reagan Revolution took less than 30 years to run itself into the ground, I'm unimpressed by "a century." Also, it's not like right wingers have totally steered clear of criticizing this stuff.

I thank Jesus everyday I haven't been saddled with gobbknob's level of political perspicacity.

No Eis, "lustration" is new to me -- what kind of purification? South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission style?

Impeachment remains the one legal remedy provided by the US constitution and the Congress left it in the box. Lost opportunity, gone forever.

This doesn't sound correct to me. Impeachment certainly is not the only legal remedy for lawbreaking by the President or other officials; if it were, Ford would have had no need to pardon Nixon, as he was already out of office, which is the Constitutional penalty prescribed following impeachment and conviction. The fact that he did pardon Nixon indicates to me that there was still at least the theoretical possibility of prosecution and criminal penalties for Nixon.

Here I was thinking you'd have the decency to just shut up for one day, Morbs.

As you've pointed out, you're not a political person, so have a nice party.

and I'll give you a Joe & Jill Biden thread

I'm a moderately political person. I'm not a militant person.

Elizabeth Holtzman in The Nation:

Holding Bush Accountable

"On January 20, Barack Obama will take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, which requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Much as President Obama might like to avoid controversy arising from investigations and prosecutions of high-level Bush administration officials, he cannot let them get away with breaking the law without violating his oath. His obligation to pursue justice in these cases is all the more serious given his acknowledgment that waterboarding is torture--which is a federal crime--and the vice president's recent admission of his involvement in and approval of "enhanced" interrogation techniques.

Moreover, under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, our government is obliged to bring to justice those who have violated the conventions. Although Bush smugly ignored his constitutional duty to enforce treaty obligations and laws that punish detainee mistreatment, Obama cannot follow the same lawless path...."

I will make Sneering Wonder t-shirts for me and Krugman, then

― Dr Morbius, Friday, January 16, 2009 2:19 PM (5 days ago) Bookmark

Don't try to put yourself in the same t-shirt as Krugman.

When does the hammer come down?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush-memos4-2009mar04,0,643986.story

Conyers is ready.

But David B. Rivkin Jr., an associate White House counsel under the first President Bush who is scheduled to testify at the hearing on Wednesday, said he planned to urge Congress not to move forward with that proposal, which he said would violate the rights of Bush administration officials and set them up for prosecutions by foreign courts.

“They want to pillory people,” Mr. Rivkin said. “They want to destroy their reputation. They want to drag them through the mud and single them out for foreign prosecutions. And if you get someone in a perjury trap, so much the better.”

I seem to have missed something.

If the context was different, I'd say that Rivkin sounds pumped!

Hahaha!

I think Yoo is down here at Chapman for the quarter? He and Hewitt must be regularly consoling each other.

don't make them go up there and commit perjury, that's just dastardly

So Yoo is indeed down here and he's, you know, a little thoughtful:

Q. Do you have a different perspective as a private citizen?

A. The thing I am really struck with is that when you are in the government, you have very little time to make very important decisions. You don't have the luxury to research every single thing and that's accelerated in war time. You really have decisions to make, which you could spend years on. Sometimes what we forget as private citizens, or scholars, or students or journalists for sure (he laughs), is that in hindsight, it's easier to say, "Here's what I would have done." But when you're in the government, at the time you make the decision, you don't have that kind of luxury.

Q. Is there anything you would have done differently?

A. These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think – would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice. I certainly would have done that differently, but I don't think I would have made the basic decisions differently.

...

Q. Do you worry about your legacy?

A. No, I don't, so much. I do have the luxury of being a scholar, so I have the time to write books. People will make their judgments about someone years or decades later. The best I can do is explain what I think and why I do what I do.

Q. The Department of Justice is looking into the legality of some of the memos you wrote. Is this a possible cost?

A. I wish they weren't doing it, but I understand why they are. It is something one would expect. You have to make these kinds of decisions in an unprecedented kind of war with legal questions we've never had to think about before. We didn't seek out those questions. 9/11 kind of thrust them on us. No matter what you do, there's going to be a lot of people who are upset with your decision. If Bush had done nothing, there would be a lot of people upset with his decision, too. I understood that while we were doing it, there were going to be people who were critical. I can't go farther into it, because it's still going on right now. I'm not trying to escape responsibility for my decisions. I have to wait and see what they say.

But he thinks the food down here's good, though he can't get his iPhone to work.

Scott Horton plotzes:

Of course, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, OLC memos fix government legal policy and are binding on all government agencies. The Justice Department has made a practice of publishing them for more than a century. But Yoo does not feel constrained by these facts when he speaks with the popular media; the facts might complicate things.

you know what they might be able to do in much-mocked Switzerland that we can't do here? Arrest Bush.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/06/bush-torture-swiss/

Amnesty, HRW recommend that Dubya be arrested in British Columbia next week. Canada demurs.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/10/rights-groups-jointly-demand-that.html

This is our mess. If we don't clean it up, our allies won't clean it up for us. As I mentioned above, this is far too risky for them. The only major country that I know of with the brass balls to do this sort of thing in the face of US government opposition is France, and I rather doubt this is a fight that Sarkoszy is interested in.

This is fundamentally the result of a choice by Obama, and is arguably the most stunning political malpractice since World War II https://t.co/uaXO80VNce

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) January 31, 2018