Obama Considering Commission On Bush Admin Torture

[babylonsister]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/22/obama-considering-commiss_n_145729.html


Obama Considering Commission On Bush Admin Torture

Newsweek/Huffington Post | November 22, 2008 01:34 PM


"Despite the hopes of many human-rights advocates, the new Obama Justice Department is not likely to launch major new criminal probes of harsh interrogations and other alleged abuses by the Bush administration," Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports. "But one idea that has currency among some top Obama advisers is setting up a 9/11-style commission that would investigate counterterrorism policies and make public as many details as possible."

"At a minimum, the American people have to be able to see and judge what happened," said one senior adviser, who asked not to be identified talking about policy matters. The commission would be empowered to order the U.S. intelligence agencies to open their files for review and question senior officials who approved "waterboarding" and other controversial practices.

Obama aides are wary of taking any steps that would smack of political retribution. That's one reason they are reluctant to see high-profile investigations by the Democratic-controlled Congress or to greenlight a broad Justice inquiry (absent specific new evidence of wrongdoing). "If there was any effort to have war-crimes prosecutions of the Bush administration, you'd instantly destroy whatever hopes you have of bipartisanship," said Robert Litt, a former Justice criminal division chief during the Clinton administration. A new commission, on the other hand, could emulate the bipartisan tone set by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton in investigating the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 panel was created by Congress. An alternative model, floated by human-rights lawyer Scott Horton, would be a presidential commission similar to the one appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and headed by Nelson Rockefeller that investigated cold-war abuses by the CIA.

For his part, Obama's expected nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, has long spoken out against the Bush administration's torture policy.

In 2004, for example, Holder told an American Constitution Society conference, "The notion that the Department of Justice would in essence sanction the use of torture as part of the President's plenary power over military operations is as wrong as it is shortsighted. This position flies in the face of the entire history of American law, helping to create a climate in which unnecessarily abusive conduct can somehow be considered legitimate."

[liberalmuse]

1. Shhhh. Be vewwy, vewwy quiet.

We mustn't talk of such things until after the swearing in. The Bush administration is responsible for President-Elect Obama's security. There's a sobering thought if there ever was one.

And for the love of Pete, can DU put 'Obama' in it's spell check dictionary already? Thanks!

[babylonsister]

2. Is there a boo-boo in this?

I can't find it. :shrug:

And I never thought about who's responsible for security currently. :scared:

[TankLV]

3. If there was any effort to have war-crimes prosecutions...you'd instantly destroy whatever hopes you

have of bipartisanship"

no shit sherlock - that "tends to happen" when the ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION AND ONE POLITICAL PARTY IS COMPRISED OF WAR CRIMINALS!

So let me get this straight - they are still trying to find excuses NOT to prosecute WAR CRIMES.

That's the bottom line in all of this...

NO, we and the ENTIRE WORLD DEMAND JUSTICE!

BIG DIFFERENCE!

I suspect the Nazi's felt the same way...

[babylonsister]

4. My hope is that, if a commission is indeed formed and proceeds,

there will just be too much info found that will get Americans outraged, and further punishments would be warranted. The fact that an investigation could happen gives me a bit of hope.

[annabanana]

5. I'm kind of with you on this.

Say no prosecutions, then expose the crimes to a broader audience. The question is, will there be media coverage when they are exposed again. When this came to light before, it was pretty much ignored by corpomedia...

[babylonsister]

6. With a new admin in town, might not be so easy to hide. I keep thinking

at some point, even the talking heads have to get outraged.

[walldude]

7. That's the excuse? Because it would destroy "bi-partisanship"?

Gee if the American people wanted bi-partisanship they would not have loaded the Congress, the Senate and the Presidency with all fucking Democrats now would they. Democrats will become a serious viable party once they drop this whole "I want to play with the rich kids" game.

[babylonsister]

8. I imagine it's a question of fixing what is currently ailing us,

and the problems are vast, vs. contemplating how we got there and assigning appropriate blame. I hope both can be accomplished eventually.

[noise]

12. One should ask

why Republicans want to defend torture. It's ironic considering they are always championing their moral superiority.

The GOP drew the line at taking a brain dead woman off life support (Terry Schiavo). But torture--with no proof of its efficacy except the word of officials like Bush and Tenet--is something they want to defend. Any Democrat who agrees with this shouldn't be in elected office. At some point people must draw a line in the sand. Trashing American values for the sake of some fake bipartisan BS isn't acceptable conduct.

[Phred42]

9. You're kidding yourself

The Crime Family of 20th and 21st Centuries will walk.

Bet me.

[Fumesucker]

11. No bet. n/t

[Cleita]

10. This puts Obama in a very bad and dangerous position since

Congress didn't do its job (impeachment) to clear the decks for him before the inauguration.

[Phred42]

13. Agree. Pelosi is guilty of negligence - dereliction of duty