RSS Feed MenuPresident Obama is sliding toward one of the most dangerous decisions of his administration – and very possibly one of the most dangerous in the history of the American republic.
Yesterday, Obama opened the door to possible prosecutions of former Bush officials. If the president’s words represent his intentions, this country may be about to plunge into a cycle of partisan reprisal that will make the years from Watergate through the Clinton impeachment look like a golden age of good feelings.
Until very recently, Obama has resisted all urgings from the more partisan Democrats to institute legal proceedings against former members of the Bush administration. As recently as Sunday, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel restated this view:
STEPHANOPOULOS: What about those who devised policy?
EMANUEL: Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were — should not be prosecuted either, and that’s not the place that we go — as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement — not the letter, the statement — in that second paragraph, “this is not a time for retribution.” It’s time for reflection. It’s not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution. We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don’t use anymore. He banned it.
Then yesterday at a press conference alongside the king of Jordan, the president seemingly reversed course:
OBAMA: With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.
Now it’s very possible that there is less here than meets the eye. The president may be looking for a gentle way to say “no” to his party’s angry wing: Punt the issue to the attorney general, wait 6 months for emotions to cool, then decline to take action. That would be less than heroic behavior, but it might represent the least politically fraught route to the correct answer.
But if Obama’s words mean something more, we are all heading for a world of trouble.
Since Watergate, American politics has moved into a new era of the criminalization of politics. Special prosecutor begets special prosecutor in a cycle of reprisal that has by now embittered the lives of dozens of former administration officials in the two parties.
Until now, however, this revenge cycle has had one limit: It ends when the administration under attack ends. The Clinton administration did not prosecute Reagan and Bush officials; the Bush administration did not act against Clinton officials.
Now Obama is musing about extending the political reach of the criminal law. If he does so, he will find he has opened a new front of political warfare that will not soon end.
After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush drew a curtain of oblivion against all the errors and mistakes that had led up to the attacks. There was accusation and counter-accusation in the media, but at the official level there was no recrimination against President Clinton’s decision not to kill bin Laden when he had the chance, no action against those who had failed to stop the 9/11 hijackers from entering the country.
If Obama proceeds to take legal action against those who did what they thought was right to defend the country, all that will change. Prosecutions launched by Obama will not stop when Obama declares “game over.” If overzealousness under Bush becomes a crime under Obama, underzealousness under Obama will become a crime under the next Republican president.
Revenge will be exacted for revenge, the costs of government service will escalate, mobilizing cross-party support will become practically impossible for any important action, and the political life of the American republic will take another step toward the play-for-keeps destructiveness of the last days of the Roman republic.
It’s a nightmare future. Let’s banish the possibility now. President Obama needs to do three things:
1) If he wants an investigation, he should follow the precedent of the 9/11 commission, whose mission was confined to fact-finding only.
2) He should declare unambiguously now: There will be no prosecutions, period.
3) He will serve notice on the European allies: Attempts in Europe to engage in local proceedings against Americans for official acts during their service in government will be regarded as unfriendly acts for which costs will be exacted across the full spectrum of government-to-government relations.
Obama’s promises of unity and change could have meant – could still mean – a departure away from the tit-for-tat use of law as a weapon of politics of the previous generation. If however it turns out to mean an escalation of the use of law, be warned: this is one escalation that will not soon be de-escalated.
PiltdownMan // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:17 pm
This is all red meat for the extreme Left. Even if Holder were inclined to prosecute, it’s not clear exactly how he might go about it. Chris Matthews asked Wasserman-Schultz that question and she said “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves” which means “I haven’t a clue”. I haven’t seen anyone explain which laws were allegedly broken. But, don’t expect Obama or anyone else to go out of their way to kill the story or dim the hopes of those who have visions of Dick Cheney being carried off to Super Max with his feet “hardly touching the ground”.
PiltdownMan // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:20 pm
This is all red meat for the extreme Left. Even if Holder were inclined to prosecute, it’s not clear exactly how he might go about it. Chris Matthews asked Wasserman-Schultz that question and she said “Let’s not get ahead of ourselves” which means “I haven’t a clue”. I haven’t seen anyone explain which laws were allegedly broken. But, don’t expect Obama or anyone else to go out of their way to kill the story or dim the hopes of those who have visions of Dick Cheney being carried off to Super Max with his feet “hardly touching the ground”.
Mike K // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm
“The CIA folks in the audience loved Obama; cheered and applauded upon completion of his speech. One would guess that if they felt under attack, the reaction would be slightly more subdued.” Yes, I could see where you might think that. After all, the CIA loved Frank Church, right ? Analysts like Valerie Plame ate it up. Covert agents like Bob Baer, not so much. Did you read his first book ? I recommend it along with Reuel Marc Gerecht’s first book.”ottovbvsTotal exaggeration. No CIA officers are going to be prosecuted nor any air force officers.”No, just the DoJ lawyers who wrote the legal advice.” You don’t seem to realize the CIA was at war with the Bush admin for most of his presidency.”The analysts were but not the agents. Do you know the difference?”Remember Tenet, Goss and his buddy Dusty Foggo were going to clean up the place. By contrast they seem very comfortable with Obama judging by the reception he got the other day. You need to stop living in the past and move into recent and current times”Yes, Tenet who was never an agent but a Congressional staffer, was comfortable with Clinton who appointed him. Goss tried to clean it up but Bush caved and left Goss twisting in the wind. Goss had been an agent, unlike Tenet.When the bomb goes off in New York or DC, the one al Qeada gets from Pakistan, I hope you remember this exchange.
tarazeigler // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Mike K said: “When the bomb goes off in New York or DC, the one al Qeada gets from Pakistan, I hope you remember this exchange.”This is just gross and this is the kind of rhetoric that was rejected in the last election. If Republicans want to keep losing, they will keep repeating lines like this.
ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Mike K 6:32 PMI just watched Baer on TV this evening commending Obama’s actions and saying what a waste of time torture is. Not just the lawyers if they are considered to have condoned illegal conduct but anyone else involved. This is a complicated legal matter so there will have to be a finding of fact.Analysts and agents, get your facts straight. Bush had to fire Goss because he was screwing up all over the place including lettting go operational people. Obama/Panetta just recalled one of them and made him director of clandestine ops. Foggo just got convicted for corruption.You seem to forget that 9/11 actually happened when Bush was president and he ignored warnings
danbmil99 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:56 pm
DF: isn’t it obvious that the right wing of the party is making things worse for themselves by constantly bringing forth their tired arguments from “24″ about ticking time bombs? Can’t they be man enough to just say “we made a mistake”?They are digging their own grave here. The argument has no force, as anyone with an ounce of philosophy or ethics background can see plainly. If waterboarding doesn’t work, why not start snipping off fingers? Surely one terrorst’s fingers (he’s still got 8 or 9) is worth less than thousands of American lives, right?This playing to the base instincts of the crowd is the death-knell of a party. You can’t blame the Dems for smelling blood and closing in for the kill.
danbmil99 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm
DF: isn’t it obvious that the right wing of the party is making things worse for themselves by constantly bringing forth their tired arguments from “24″ about ticking time bombs? Can’t they be man enough to just say “we made a mistake; torture is immoral”?They are digging their own grave here. The Jack Bauer argument has no force, as anyone with an ounce of philosophy or ethics background can see plainly. If waterboarding doesn’t work, why not start snipping off fingers? Surely one terrorst’s finger is worth less than thousands of American lives, right?This playing to the base instincts of the crowd is the death-knell of the Grand Old Party. You can’t blame the Dems for smelling blood and closing in for the kill. For the most part, you brought it upon yourselves.
HHomer // Apr 23, 2009 at 2:34 am
David, if authorising torture is not a serious enough crime to warrant a criminal investiagtion then where do you draw the line?If Bush officials had given legal cover to state sponsored, rape, or child abuse would an investigation still be playing politics? If they had authorised torture of US citizens on the US mainland would you consider this playing politics? Please tell us where you draw the line.
ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 5:21 am
danbmil99 10:58 PMMy thoughts entirely. There’s no benefit for the GOP going forward in making a big issue of this. They are making themselves the torture and elevating people like Cheney who is totally distrusted and merely serves to remind everyone of the disastrous Bush admin. It is digging your own grave, but the GOP seems to have made a bit of science of this.
sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:38 am
No! I do NOT agree that torture is inadmissable under all circumstances. Nor do I insist that any means of interrogation greater than gentle questioning is to be regarded as “torture.” In America, police forces had used something call “the third degree” for many years. If they were pretty sure a suspect had committed a serious crime, they took him down into the basement of the police station and worked him over till he confessed.In the 1960s, in the Escobedo v. Illinois case, the Supreme Court struck down forced confessions. But that means that we had been using forced confessions regularly in the U.S. in criminal investigations till the 1960s.
sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:46 am
I have suggested that the real issue here is the arbitrary use of Executive power to decide tricky issues of extreme measures, detention without trial, and (as has been in the news recently) domestic surveillance of political extremists.When Bush started doing these things way back in 2001-2002, I pleaded with my fellow conservatives to consider how they would feel if a future Democratic President (say Hillary, who conservatives hated back then) would use these measures against suspected right-wing extremists. I got no answer. I was prescient in my concerns, given the recent flap over that Homeland Security memo.The answer is what our Founding Fathers gave us: Checks and balances. I suggested that extreme measures could be carried out by the Executive Branch, on a case by case basis, only if at least one of the other two branches of government were willing to sign off on that particular case. In our time, that would mean either Chief Justice Roberts or Speaker of the House Pelosi. That would eliminate the possibility of the Executive Branch abusing its ability to order such measures.Finally, I think it should be made policy that such measures should be used only as a last-ditch means of interrogation in a specific case. They should never be used for punishment or revenge. (Some folks on RedState.com believe that torture could be used because these terrorists “deserved it.” That is inadmissible in a civilized society.)
sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:48 am
danbmil99: If there were another large-scale terrorist attack that took place under Obama’s nose, there would be enormous benefit for the GOP. They would look like Churchill in the 1930s, warning against a growing threat while the leadership slept.Unfortunately, I believe that is what the GOP is counting on. They are sure that Obama’s soft foreign policy is going to invite another large-scale terrorist attack on our shores, and they are setting themselves up to make the most of it.Exactly how the liberals during the Bush Administration positioned themselves to profit from America’s difficulties in Iraq.
Breggers // Apr 23, 2009 at 6:53 am
Yes, the most dangerous decision in the history of the American Republic. Just to clarify, are we going back to 1791, 1787, 1776, or earlier?
ottovbvs // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:03 am
“sinz54 wrote 18 minutes agoNo! I do NOT agree that torture is inadmissable under all circumstances.”…..Ok your in favor of torture….you can’t draw distinctions because there aren’t any. “Unfortunately, I believe that is what the GOP is counting on. They are sure that Obama’s soft foreign policy is going to invite another large-scale terrorist attack on our shores, and they are setting themselves up to make the most of it.”…..Indeed they are…..just as they are hoping for economic failure…..And this is supposed to be the patriotic party….the problem is just as they did with the economy they are going to make it too obvious…. They simply have no idea of how exposed they are over this.
krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:09 am
Here is President Bush’s take on torture.”I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture…” – Official proclamation by President Bush, June 26, 2003.So there you have it from the horses mouth. we need to investigate, and prosecute according to President Bush. And he is never wrong. Right.
krove // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:40 am
This is the sum total of the information gained from Zubaydah.This information is contained in the 9/11 commission report. The commission asked for and received all intelligence gained from torture. So for 86 waterbordings this is all we got!Full details here.http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/22/abu-zubaydah-waterboarded-83-times-for-10-pieces-of-intelligence/1. “Abu Zubaydah describes his role running the Khaldan and Derunta training camps.” 2. “Abu Zubaydah describes Rahim al-Nashiri’s success as a recruiter.”3. “AZ describes Bin Laden’s popularity.”Story continues below 4. “AZ gives tempered description of KSM’s popularity.”5. “AZ insisted there were no ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.”6. “AZ claims Bin Laden expanded the scope of KSM’s original plan.”7. “AZ provides description of the origins of “the Encyclopedia,” a terrorist training manual created during the anti-Soviet campaign.”8. “AZ provides a description of Bin Laden’s actions after the Cole bombing.”9. “AZ provides information on Abu Turab, who reportedly conducted the final training for the 9/11 plotters.”10. “AZ provides a comment on whether Saudis were selected for the 9/11 plot specifically.”
sinz54 // Apr 23, 2009 at 7:58 am
Breggers: Those who are moaning and hand-wringing over Bush’s measures forgot that in World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an Executive Order consigning 100,000 innocent Japanese-Americans to detention camps for the duration of the war. None of them was ever convicted of any crimes. Even FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, no civil libertarian he, protested this action. Yet *nobody* at the time said that America was “lowering herself to the level of the Nazis.” We knew that despite detention camps, despite executing German saboteurs without trial, despite Dresden, despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were still much, much morally superior to our enemies. And because we won the war, we control the judgment of history.The difference, of course, is that America’s participation in World War II lasted less than 4 years. Whereas Bush seems to have let America drift into a state of perpetual war, with no hope of putting al-Qaeda out of business, yet obviously unable to surrender to them either. Perpetual war means a state of perpetual hemorrhage of morality. And that, in the long run, could doom a democratic society like America.
barker13 // Apr 23, 2009 at 10:07 am
Wow… more posts mysteriously “disappeared” from the thread.I thought Pinochet was dead…?!?!(*SMIRK*)BILL
LJS // Apr 25, 2009 at 10:45 am
FOX News had this information.Gen. David Petraeus, along with a number of other high ranking military officials, believe all the pictures related to allegations of detainee abuse should be released — a number that would total in the thousands — a senior defense official close to the U.S. military commander told FOX News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/25/source-petraeus-wants-release-photos-showing-detainee-treatment/