A Special Prosecutor To Investigate BushCo Crimes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:07:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In an editorial today, The New York Times writes:

We can understand that Americans may be eager to put these dark chapters behind them, but it would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened — and may still be happening in secret C.I.A. prisons that are not covered by the military’s current ban on activities like waterboarding. A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.

I agree. But I find the Times' reticence to include top officials in the White House surprising and wrong. As Vice President Cheney has made clear, these decisions went all the way to the top - to the President of the United States. A Special Prosecutor should be empowered to investigate the criminal actions of the President and Vice President as well.

Speaking for me only

< Georgia's Conservative Politicians Want More Death | What Greenwald Said >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

A Special Prosecutor To Investigate BushCo Crimes | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

if no criminal charges (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by cpinva on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:28:09 AM EST

would be forthcoming (as has been alluded to by obama), why bother with a special prosecutor? it's a waste of time and money.

how presumptious of the nyt's (and consistent) to assume so many people (other than republicans) just want to

put these dark chapters behind them

i don't. i suspect lots of other folks don't either. i want accountability, just like conservatives demand personal accountability.

it might also go some way towards re-establishing our moral position in the world, totally shredded by the bush administration.

but hey, that's just me.

: And you are (none / 0) (#8)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:50:11 AM EST

one of my heroes here, cpinva, even though we often disagree.
Conservatives don't believe in personal accountability. "Heck'uva job, Brownie!" You flooded that town damn good. Damn good. Washed out all them Democrats and made me a Republican district in the Heart of Dixie. Damn good job, Brownie!
Nice torture job there Rummey! You really squeezed their nuts off! Not so sure they really are going to blow up that bridge with the gay pride parade, but who needs an excuse to shut them down? Heck'uva job.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Heck'uva job, Georgie!

No Kidding (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:58:01 AM EST

After Cheney basically said nah nahnah nah nah, you can't touch me bragging about authorizing torture, it is a big obvious omission on the NYT's part not to include the WH in their entreaty.

To Buhdydharma : are (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by oculus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:46:39 AM EST

you happy now?

: Petition Holder (none / 0) (#14)
by Edger on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 09:00:05 PM EST

to appoint a Special Prosecutor.

too hot to touch (2.00 / 0) (#13)
by diogenes on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:15:22 PM EST

If Obama appoints a special prosecutor to indict Bush and Cheney for "war crimes" and then an act of terrorism occurs on US soil, too many people will say that the terrorists perceived Obama as being "soft". He'll never do it.

Ultimately (none / 0) (#1)
by Steve M on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:17:54 AM EST

prosecuting the prior administration for its official acts is far too politically charged to be delegated to some prosecutor. The buck has to stop in the Oval Office on that one.

Maybe someone thinks it's a good idea to have a prosecutor investigate and recommend charges just so Obama can make some Ford-like gesture and magnanimously decline. I sure don't. And I think we all know that pursuing these issues simply isn't Obama's cup of tea.

Sometimes (none / 0) (#3)
by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:30:30 AM EST

it's hard to believe Obama graduated law school, let alone lectured on Constitutional Law.


: ignore stupid comment above (none / 0) (#4)
by Fabian on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:56:13 AM EST

my brain went flying off on a tangent.

: Sometimes it is hard to believe (none / 0) (#7)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:42:47 AM EST

that ANY lawyer ever graduated law school, much less attended (awake, not hung over, actually took notes, etc) a CON Law class. Thankfully BTD and Jeralyn and others here renew my faith that some people do pay attention and some lawyers really do mean their sworn oaths. Thanks, TalkLefters.
Obama is hung on the dual hooks of outrageous, world renown criminal behavior by his predecessors, and the natural tendency of the athlete to say "no blood, no foul" when thrown a sharp elbow. "That's the way the game is played. Have a commission, bring it all out into the light. Everybody gets a pony." But people died and MILLIONS of laws were broken (ok, just 50USC 1809 over two million times and a few thousand war crimes violations). The real people responsible for this fiasco are the LeaderSheep: Reid and Pelosi did not impeach the worst President EVER. "Worse Than Watergate" (great book). "Broken Government", Dean's other book, shows how the failure to react to these traitors to the Constitution has doomed the future of America. "The Assault on Reason", Gore's book, tells us in great detail what went wrong. But nobody stood up at the time and stopped it. Its like watching Auschweitz ramp up and not crossing the fence to stop it. It may save your ass today, but you will be ashamed forever.

Of course (none / 0) (#2)
by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:27:50 AM EST

a special prosecutor should look into this. I am not as disturbed that the Times limits (I say begins) investigation to top DoD officials. We all know where any such investigation will lead. Cheney and Bush have already told us.

Not to do it is criminial in itself (none / 0) (#5)
by Saul on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:00:30 AM EST

As I posted several times here before. Here is one of my prior post on this subject.

The greatest injustice was not impeaching Bush and Cheney. If ever there was an administration that needed to be impeach it was this one. IMO you should be able to still charge these guys with a crime even after they leave the office of the presidency. IMO it would be easier than going through the impeachment process. There should be a fact finding commission under the Obama administration to see what crimes these guy actually did and then indict them for trial.

John Nichols and Bruce Fein had a great discussion on impeaching Bush and Cheney on PBS Bill Moyer show. They explain how harmful it will be if they were not impeached

Here is a link to view it.

Let the chips fall (none / 0) (#10)
by mmc9431 on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM EST

To ignore the criminal acts of this administration would allow future administrations to move the bar even further from the Constitution. Obama and the Democratic leadership may not want to open this snake pit, but for the future of the country it should be done.

The problem in an investigation is that too many high powered Democrat's were in on all of it from the beginning.

As a country we need to reclaim the moral high ground if we're going to try to influence the rest of the world on policy.

Cowardly (none / 0) (#12)
by pluege on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 07:11:18 PM EST

I find the Times' reticence to include top officials in the White House surprising and wrong.

Since everyone knows that any credible investigation leads straight to bush and cheney, the Times took the cowardly route in avoiding controversy by not citing this obvious practical outcome of such an investigation.