Want to heal America: prosecute those who continue to do the country harm

[ProSense]

After Bush Sr., we tried so-called unity and turned our back on the neocons.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage,” Clinton wrote. “Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience.”

We ended up with Bush Jr. and criminals from the Reagan administration, including Elliott Abrams.





Edited to clarify that looking the other way on crimes is not unity.

[Occam Bandage]

1. No President has ever--ever--prosecuted the previous administration for anything.

This will not change with President Obama, no matter how many people post angry missives on liberal message boards.

[ProSense]

2. There is always a second time

In 1807, on a charge of treason, Burr was brought to trial before the United States Circuit Court at Richmond, Virginia. His defense lawyers were John Wickham and Luther Martin. Burr was arraigned four times for treason before a grand jury indicted him. This is surprising, because the only physical evidence presented to the Grand Jury was Wilkinson's so-called letter from Burr, proposing stealing land in the Louisiana Purchase. During the Jury's examination it was discovered that the letter was in Wilkinson's own handwriting - a "copy," he said, because he had "lost" the original. The Grand Jury threw the letter out, and the news made a laughingstock of the General for the rest of the proceedings. The trial, presided over by Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, began on August 3.

Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution requires that treason either be admitted in open court, or proved by an overt act witnessed by two people. Since no two witnesses came forward, Burr was acquitted on September 1, in spite of the fact that the full force of the political influence of the Jefferson administration had been thrown against him. Immediately afterward, he was tried on a more appropriate misdemeanor charge, but was again acquitted.

The trial was a major test of the Constitution. It was carefully watched drama (Henry Adams gives a full account) as Thomas Jefferson wanted a conviction. He challenged the authority of the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice John Marshall - an Adams appointee who clashed with Jefferson over judicial appointments that were signed up to the last minute of Adams' single term as president. Thomas Jefferson believed that Aaron Burr's treason was obvious, and warranted a conviction. (Burr had run off and declared himself "Emperor of Mexico") The actual case hinged on whether Aaron Burr was present at certain events at certain times and in certain capacities. Thomas Jefferson used all of his influence to get Marshall to move to conviction, but Marshall was not swayed.

link

A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution*

Presidents are not above the law.

[blm]

6. The President Obama wouldn't HAVE to prosecute - he can COOPERATE when investigators need access

to documents. And his Justice Dept. can be told to stick to the letter of the law instead of to look the other way.

Was it worth it to you to leave ALL the thugs from IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning free to continue their illegal operations throughout the 90s? How do you THINK a Bush2 was allowed to happen? Or 9-11? Or Invasion of Iraq? ALL BushInc deserved to be jailed, including Jackson Stephens, Marc Rich, Bin Laden and AQ Khan.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Whose investigators? The Justice Department? Won't happen. No AG has ever

ordered a criminal investigation of the previous administration. That will not change with Obama's AG, whoever it is. (And seriously, if you really think that you're going to get Obama to prosecute Bush for causing 9/11, or get him to accuse Bush of working with bin Laden and AQ Khan...heh)

[ProSense]

8. Whatever form it takes, Obama is not going to stand in the way.

It could be a matter of opening all the records and letting the chips fall where they may.

There is also nothing standing in the way of lower level prosecutions. There are numerous issues here, including getting to the bottom of who is responsible for the financial crisis.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Which is a bit like saying, "whichever form the Yeti takes, Obama is not going to stand in its way."

Records may be opened, but if you think anybody's going to waste precious time and political capital getting political revenge on behalf of left-wing bloggers, you're simply deluded.

[blm]

12. So you are siding with those who use the word 'revenge' to smear those who use the word ACCOUNTABLE.

Aren't you?

[Occam Bandage]

14. Forgive me if I do not believe that

whining about semantics--even when followed by an attempt at blind us-versus-them factionalization--constitutes a serious post deserving of a serious reply.

[blm]

15. The GOPs always call accountability 'revenge' and you joined them. Claim otherwise but the bottom

line is the same.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Call it whatever you like. Perhaps if you call it

"UltraConstitutional Superpatriotiful Mega-accountabilijustice, version America.0" then Obama will heed your call and decide that taking the utterly unprecedented step of prosecuting the previous administration is the best use of his time, resources, and political capital.

I'll bet you a $20 donation to the charity of your choice, right here and now, that he won't.

[blm]

18. He doesn't HAVE TO DO IT...how many times does that need to be posted? The Senate investigation

of BCCI, and other matters needed WH access to documents that Bush1 stonewalled and Clinton demured. All Obama has to do is cooperate and Facilitate that access for other investigations - You keep twisting it into Obama prosecuting Bush and HIDING behind that, when it is the Senate and Congress who investigate and expect cooperation from the WH.

[Occam Bandage]

20. That, too, has never happened, nor will it. You're grasping at straws.

When I say "Obama will not investigate," I do not mean "Obama himself will not take out a magnifying glass, put on a Sherlock Holmes hat, and start prowling around the White House looking for fingerprints." I mean that the Obama administration, and that the 111th Congress, will not investigate.

"Well...maybe...maybe person X will prosecute!" No. The only bars that Bush is ever going to get behind are in Crawford.

[H2O Man]

22. It's true that neither

the House or Senate ever prosecutes a crime. They do not have the ability to. That ability is only found in the executive branch on the federal level, and it is unlikely, in the context of our history, that an administration would push for the prosecution of a previous President or VP.

The other possibility, of course, would be for a state attorney general or a county/city DA to prosecute Bush or Cheney, on the charges outlined by Vincent Bugliosi.

[blm]

38. Baloney - special prosecutors or US attorneys can prosecute during and after Senate or congressional

investigations find just cause to continue legally.

How the hell do you THINK Iran Contra indictments happened? Kerry's year long investigation until the rest of senate agreed to hearings.

[H2O Man]

39. Great point.

Extremely important.

[blm]

46. I'm shocked that it even needs to be brought up....you'd think most at DU would know the basic stuff

by now.

[ProSense]

28. Why on earth do you continue to insist that prosecuting lawbreaking is

"getting political revenge on behalf of left-wing blogg"?

So the law doesn't apply to people who are not on the left?

[Occam Bandage]

30. Post #17 will serve as my reply to you, as well. nt

[ProSense]

34. I've seen your responses.

Claiming that something hasn't happened before or that people don't like investigations is not a valid argument. We've never had a black President before either. Ted Stevens was the fifth sitting Senator to be indicted. Scooter Libby was the first WH official to be indicted in about a century.

This is a different time, there will be inquiries into everything, including the causes behind the financial crisis. The dynamics are different. You can claim Obama will not do this or that, but while what happens next depends on his cooperation, it's highly unlikely that he will stand in the way of any investigation.

[blm]

11. Get real - Clinton deep-sixed a SENATE investigation report, remember? And he did not facilitate

the investigation that had been ongoing in IranContra - though the special prosecutor had only recently acquired Poppy Bush's diary and could have used a cooperative Dem president to allow access to documents long stonewalled by Poppy. FYI - IrancContra's ongoing revelations helped put Clinton in the WH, but, ironically, Clinton SIDED with IranContra policy and facilitated the distribution of tons of cheap IranContra cocaine even if he DIDN'T know to what extent Poppy Bush had running that operation out of Mena Airport.

And Iraqgate was going on before Clinton took office....yet he had his DoJ settle those cases quickly with absurdly lenient sentences, just to keep Kissinger from being put under oath.

And CIA drugrunning story in 1996 could EASILY have reopened IranContra IF Clinton had an OUNCE of commitment to open government - he once again sided with the secrecy and privilege of GHWBush and his powerfuyl cronies.

[Occam Bandage]

13. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I wrote.

Yes. Clinton was reluctant to prosecute his predecessor, as no President has ever started, continued, or participated in a criminal investigation of the previous administration. I confess that I have not been able to discern exactly how you believe that nugget of information can be used to prop up your sad belief that Obama will prosecute Bush.

[blm]

16. Clinton didn't HAVE to do the prosecuting - the investigations were already INVOLVED. He focking

CONTINUED to block access no differently than GHWBush who stonewalled for years.

An honest, cooperative president would have facilitated the investigation's needs IF open government mattered to them. Clinton didn't have to INITIATE ANYTHING - he only needed to cooperate and NOT put up barriers. He focking SIDED with protecting Poppy Bush.

Worth it to you, eh?

[Occam Bandage]

19. Um...I'm not entirely sure where you got the idea

that I was saying that Bill Clinton continued a criminal investigation of his predecessor's administration. You seem to believe that, at any rate, since you insist on telling me over and over again that Clinton did not investigate Bush. I assure you that I was saying quite the opposite. He did not. Clinton did not start, continue, or participate in an investigation of his predecessor. Neither did Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, or any President all the way back to Adams. No President ever has, and I can't see any reason to believe that Obama will do any differently.

Perhaps if there were no wars, and if the economy was doing well, and if the health-care system was fine, and if nobody could see any actual problems anywhere, then Obama might consider spending his precious political capital on an investigation. As it stands? Nope.

[blm]

40. I didn't say Clinton 'didn't' investigate Bush. I said he did not cooperate with investigation

that had been ongoing at the time he took office. You don't even notice that you need to twist my posts to make some case for your line of argument, do you?

[tomp]

26. so, if something has never happened before....

...you're in favor of it never happening. brilliant! long live progress!

[Occam Bandage]

27. No pot of gold has ever materialized in front of an impoverished family.

The above statement does not mean that I am somehow opposed to impoverished families having pots of gold materialize in front of them, nor does it mean that I think that no impoverished family will ever have a pot of gold appear as if by magic in front of them.

It simply means that I think if you're hoping a pot of gold materializes in front of you sometime in the next year, you're probably going to be sorely disappointed.

[tomp]

35. that's just idiotic.

pots of gold cannot by any known law of physics just appear. however, people can and do prosecute. they may not have done it recently, or even ever, but it is within the realm of possibility.

your insistence on such analogies i take as support for the conclusion.

[ProSense]

3. America needs to get to the bottom of what happened in the Bush admin.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Perhaps A Truth Commission

JB

Mark Tushnet writes that prosecution for war crimes isn't the only alternative:

Ah, Jack, you're not thinking outside the box. There's a difference between "figuring out whether there's a case to be made" and instituting a prosecution. I've been pushing the idea of an internal Church Committee like report on what happened, leaving it to the public to decide whether it approves of what Bush et al. did. My fantasy is that there would be a section simply describing the principles of liability laid out in the Nuremberg lawyers' judgment -- and let people draw their own conclusions about Yoo.

A series of congressional investigations into the interrogation and detention policies of the previous Administration, or a special Presidential "truth commission" like the 9/11 Commission would have certain advantages. They would require only that the next Administration cooperate with Congress-- for example, by declassifying certain OLC opinions and other documents that should never have been classified, and by giving permission for certain executive branch officials to testify before Congress.

That does not mean that there would be no obstacles to such Congressional investigations or to a "truth commission." An Obama or Clinton Administration might not want to reveal everything that Congressional investigators or members of a truth commission wanted, partly to preserve executive branch prerogatives, partly because some classified materials still affect national security, and partly because some classified materials would embarrass not only the Bush Administration but also the present Obama/Clinton Administration and the previous Administration of Bill Clinton.

It's also possible that members of the Bush Administration would refuse to testify, arguing that they cannot do so without permission of former President Bush. If the commission or the congressional committee then held them in contempt, this would put the next Justice Department to the unpleasant choice of deciding whether to prosecute these former government officials, not for war crimes but for contempt.

Finally, there is the possibility that these hearings would so exacerbate partisanship that nothing would get done in Congress despite the fact that the Administration chose not to bring any criminal prosecutions at all.

Despite all of these obstacles, Congressional investigations and/or a truth commission into interrogation and detention practices is a far more likely response to the criminal behavior of members of the present Administration than a prosecution for war crimes within the United States.

[ProSense]

4. A reminder of how callous

Bush is.

[H2O Man]

5. I agree fully.

Nominated.

[wroberts189]

9. RE-HIRE the fired US attorneys. Thats a good first step. n/t

[Deep13]

21. Are we serious about the president not being above the law or not?

No president has ever prosecuted a prior president, but no president has ever been as guilty as Bush (except maybe Nixon).

[Occam Bandage]

23. The entire period from the end of the Civil War through World War One was preposterously corrupt.

Politicians blatantly gave and accepted bribes. Reagan's administration had numerous felony convictions. Nixon was fucking legendary. Jefferson's opponents thought he was a tyrant and a dictator. Heck, both Lincoln and Roosevelt abused the Consitution like a cheap whore. Jackson infamously said about the Supreme Court, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Bush is not the first President to convince the opposition party that he is uniquely guilty of crimes. He will not be the first to be quietly left to retire, either.

[Deep13]

24. Yeah, but now is the time for hope and change.

Indict the bastard!

[Occam Bandage]

25. And a massive political firestorm

involving an incoming President overseeing an unprecedented attempt to throw his now-powerless political opponents in jail--regardless of how valid you believe the charges to be--is not going to fill America with feelings of hope and unity. It would instantly make Obama the most bitterly divisive President in American history.

It would, however, be quite a change; I'll grant you that.

[ProSense]

29. That's complete BS. Americans are not going to view

the prosecution of criminals as anything but that. You are setting up a strawman argument void of any evidence. No one knows what will happen, but to argue that somehow Americans are incapable of seeing many of the actions of the Bush administration as unlawful is nonsense.

[Occam Bandage]

31. Unfortunately, confident ipsedixitism is not quite so solid a bedrock as you might hope.

Also: way to misuse the term "strawman." I like how that word has been debased to now mean nothing more than "an argument the speaker disagrees with."

[ProSense]

32. Where is the evidence that there will be a political firestorm? n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[political_Dem]

36. I agree.

Even if Mr. Obama is not directly responsible for the prosecutions, he should not block the efforts of others who want to see justice executed.

We should usher in a new day in which the nation actually sees the hand of justice work positively for a change.

[ProSense]

37. More information

here.

[Blackhatjack]

41. What is going to happen here is evidence of criminal wrongdoing is going to be secreted...

... and Obama is going to be made aware of its existence.

Obama is going to be counselled by advisors not to assist in making it public for fear that it will damage his ability to work with opponents to implement a very progressive agenda in a precarious time.

It's likely Obama won't ever address the subject of criminal wrongdoing by Bush. Obama's dilemma is will he 'allow' the incriminating evidence to be accessed by those investigating Bush Administration crimes?

Right now I predict that the Obama Administration will not address the issue at all, but rather behind the scenes will make it possible for the incriminating evidence to be accessed by issuing orders that modify official policy.

[ProSense]

42. You're suggesting Obama will be part of a coverup?

Yeah, right.

[Blackhatjack]

43. I suggested nothing of the sort.... can you read? n/t

[ProSense]

44. Yeah, I read that too quickly. Sorry.

Since Obama has already began the process of open government, I have no doubt that he will make the information available. I agree, there will be resistance.

[ProSense]

45. Obama's plans for probing Bush torture

Obama's plans for probing Bush torture

President Bush could pardon officials involved in brutal interrogations -- but he may also face a sweeping investigation under the new president.

By Mark Benjamin

Nov. 13, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- With growing talk in Washington that President Bush may be considering an unprecedented "blanket pardon" for people involved in his administration's brutal interrogation policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead with plans for a nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under Bush.

The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.

The proposed commission -- similar in thrust to a Democratic investigation proposal first uncovered by Salon in July -- would examine a broad scope of activities, including detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, the practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for abusive interrogations. The commission might also pry into the claims by the White House -- widely rejected by experienced interrogators -- that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary intelligence tool.

A common view among those involved with the talks is that any early effort to prosecute Bush administration officials would likely devolve quickly into ugly and fruitless partisan warfare. Second is that even if Obama decided he had the appetite for it, prosecutions in this arena are problematic at best: A series of memos from the Bush Justice Department approved the harsh tactics, and Congress changed the War Crimes Act in 2006, making prosecutions of individuals involved in interrogations more difficult.

more

This could work

[ProSense]

47. An investigation of the economic crisis

is going to implicate a lot of people if this is any indication.

[JohnWxy]

48. I couldn't agree more - although as a practical matter the Bush adm has committed so many crimes

it would take a whole nother Justice department to prosecute them all. but, whatever the cost is if we are a nation under law - that law should apply to everyone, even if, or especially if that person is the President, the Vice-President, Attorney General, the SEcretary of Defense, Secretary of State ...well, you see what I mean.

But they should be prosecuted.. It's just that it involves just about everybody in the entire Cheney administration, including of course, the Puppet.