This comment from Obama is concerning me.

[Lint Head]

This is from this morning's interview on 'This Week'.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, let me just press that one more time. You're not ruling out prosecution, but will you tell your Justice Department to investigate these cases and follow the evidence wherever it leads?

OBAMA: What I -- I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is he is the people's lawyer. Eric Holder's been nominated. His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not to be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So, ultimately, he's going to be making some calls, but my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/Story?id=6618199&page=3

The last sentence, "...getting things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past."

This issue I have with this every time I hear it is that All crimes are committed in the past. If Obama's logic is taken literally it means that any crime committed in the past should be ignored. I hope this obvious and ridicules concept is shot down by someone in power with the intelligence and guts to do do so. I am so tired of milquetoast cowards when it comes to this issue.
If allowed to go on it means that anyone in ultimate power can commit any crime without being punished.
Fascists and dictators 'in the past' would have loved this concept being the rule of the day.

[Occam Bandage]

1. No President has ever been prosecuted by a later President. Ever. Not once.

Not ever. And Bush is hardly the first to commit flagrant crimes.

[NoPasaran]

3. No kidding. Even Jeff Davis walked free

[Lint Head]

8. Jeff Davis was not the President of the USA.

He was the President of a seceded country.
:dem:

[unblock]

24. well, ... after being in jail for 2 years. the prosecution didn't drop the case until 1869.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis

[Lint Head]

5. Past Presidents have committed flagrant crimes that were found

out long after they were dead. Nixon was the exception and 'maybe' Tea Pot Dome. Bush's crimes are obvious and known while he is still in office. The prosecution of Bush is the exception that can restore the rule of law. It's time for America to 'step up' and prove it means no one is above the law. Otherwise we will be vilified even more by others.
There may be more than shoes thrown at Bush "in the future" by someone from another culture if he is not prosecuted.
:dem:

[Vincardog]

15. Say it again. Bush's crimes are obvious and known while he is still in office. He should have been

impeached. He bragged about his crimes on TV for Gwads sake.
We can not move into the future with this shit stain on our present(past).

[truedelphi]

27. Can someone point out to our President Elect that

Ignoring illegal of behavior of war criminals destroys the little bit of democracy we still have left.

While we stand in line at our airports, and take off our shoes, and surrender our laptops, nail clippers, and dignity, The Architects of Torture, Bush and Cheney, go free.

[nodramamama]

2. focus "on getting things right in the future, as opposed looking at what WE got wrong in the past"

We? I didn't get anything wrong. I always saw torture as illegal and inhuman. Obama didn't get anything wrong either. He should define "we". And "we" are the Bush torturers.

[rrneck]

4. Obama is a politician,

and as a politician he always has one eye on the political realities of the job. Even though those clowns have obviously committed war crimes going after them could be pecieved as political retribution. It will certainly be spun that way by the right wing nuts. Also, it would be strategically unwise to announce "I'm coming after ya" before he even gets into office. Better to get in there, shine daylight on the entire crowd, then let the public outcry at the discovery of all that outrageous behaivor fuel a popular reform movement.

[Lint Head]

6. I agree.

:dem:

[comrade snarky]

20. I'm with you

Lets just do fact finding and discovery.


Let The Hague prosecute.

[sammythecat]

16. That makes a lot of sense and gives me a little hope.

Just a little, however. I seriously doubt there will ever be any real investigations of all the wrong-doings of this administration because far too many powerful congressional leaders, Democrats included, would be exposed as, at best, stupid and incompetent, at worst they'd be shown to be weak, cowardly, and totally complicit. My very strong suspicion is they are weak, cowardly, complicit, and I might as well add self-serving and corrupt to the list.

There's just too many of them and they have to much power. They're not about to allow, let alone instigate, any investigations that would expose their own guilt. A lot of Bush/Cheney doctrines will be reversed, but there will be no accountability. We're going to be told over and over again how important it is we not dwell on past problems, we have too much on our plate right now and it's time to move on. Like we can't do two things at a time, even though we somehow managed to implement the Marshall Plan, successfully switch from total war to a peacetime economy, AND hold the Nuremberg trials after WWII.

I think the events of the last 8 years have gradually turned me into a cynic. I was hopeful and excited after the 2006 elections, but the total inaction of the Democratic leadership since then has just reinforced my cynicism.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Honestly, we may have to rely on the Europeans for this one

... I expect that at some point, there will likely be indictments from the ICC to members of the Bush Admin. Certainly Rumsfeld, Cheney, Yoo, and many others.

That's better than nothing. Hopefully, it would spur action by Americans to push the idea that we can take care of our own problems.

I don't think that will happen until Obama's second term at the earliest.

[rrneck]

19. I'm pretty cynical myself really.

Your doubts are not misplaced. The dems have spent the last eight years screwing us right along with the repubs.

Here's a link that helps dispel some of my cynicism at least if you haven't seen it already.

Click on "voting shifts". It's flash.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Translation: Getting things right in the future, as opposed to

looking and (and dealing with) what WE GOT AWAY WITH in the past. Thing is, we haven't and never will get away with anything... National karma does exist and you cannot wish it away with cleverly crafted prose and cons.

[Lint Head]

9. True! This country will pay for it's crimes one way or the other.

All things are known even if they are not known by the majority of the people.
:dem:

[TahitiNut]

10. The driver of a getaway car would have the same attitude, sadly. "Professional politics."

I like and respect Obama. The pressure to "get past it" must be ENORMOUS. The "political class" in our country detests the notion that a regime change might result in prosecutions for actual crimes. The mechanism of impeachment is something, lacking any reputation for uniform ethics, they eschew - framing it as a partisan "WMD" and regarding its use as MAD.

[Lint Head]

11. I have never been there but I love me some Tahiti!

:dem:

[Captain Hilts]

12. Obama is a politician with the situational ethics that generates. That's why he's prez and ...

Feingold, etc. are not.

He's so much like Bill Clinton, Nixon, JFK, FDR it's not even funny. All were duplicitous bastards.

[argonchloride]

13. The sad truth is, whatever they did, they've already "gotten away" with it.

The court of public opinion is the only one that will ever adjudicate anything. I gar-on-tee.

[Lint Head]

14. 'What they did' is very well known and prosecutable.

:dem:

[argonchloride]

18. Of course. And they will get away with it insofar as the "legal system" is concerned.

Hide and watch.

(I'm not hoping for that, just predicting it)

[stillcool]

21. I think there will be 'hearings'..

'commissions', maybe a 'special prosecutor'..and we will get the same results we always get.

[kentuck]

22. I remember Bill Clinton said the same thing when he came into office

He did not want to look backwards - he wanted to look forward. There can be no forward unless the people know the truth about what has been done in their names. Subpoena every record at the SMU library. That might be a good start?

Poppy got away with all the torture and illegal activities in Central America because the Democrat wanted to "move forward". That is not acceptable.

[nashville_brook]

25. it's because Poppy and Nixon got away with "it" that we're in this mess now.

so, if he's serious about his "concern for the future" he'll be doing the work of re-legitimizing the rule of law.

[Pastiche423]

23. I'm still pissed that Nixon was never prosecuted

It is long past time to stop letting our politicians get away w/crimes.

The time is NOW.

[1776Forever]

26. IMO the prosecution - if it comes - will be from overseas - most think it won't happen - link....

Published on Saturday, December 20, 2008 by the McClatchy Newspapers
Will Bush Officials Face War Crimes Trials? Few Expect It

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/12/20-0

by Marisa Taylor

WASHINGTON - Emboldened by a Democratic win of the White House, civil libertarians and human rights groups want the incoming Obama administration to investigate whether the Bush administration committed war crimes. They don't just want low-level CIA interrogators, either. They want President George W. Bush on down.

CONFESSED WAR CRIMINAL DICK CHENEY "It is mind boggling to say eight years later that there is not going to be some sort of criminal accountability for what happened," said David Glazier, a law of war expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a retired naval officer. "It certainly undermines our moral authority and our ability to criticize other countries for doing exactly the same thing. But given the legal issues and the political reality, I am hard pressed to see any other outcome."
In the past eight years, administration critics have demanded that top officials be held accountable for a host of expansive assertions of executive powers from eavesdropping without warrants to detaining suspected enemy combatants indefinitely at the Guantanamo Bay military prison. A recent bipartisan Senate report on how Bush policies led to the abuse of detainees has fueled calls for a criminal investigation.

But even some who believe top officials broke the law don't favor criminal prosecutions. The charges would be too difficult legally and politically to succeed.

Without wider support, the campaign to haul top administration officials before an American court is likely to stall.

(snip)

Americans have been reluctant to prosecute their own - no matter how appalling the atrocities. Even after U.S. Army officer William Calley was convicted for ordering the 1968 My Lai Massacre, in which as many as 500 Vietnamese villagers were killed, many Americans continued to see him as a scapegoat. He was sentenced to three years of house arrest. No other officer, including Calley's commander, was ever convicted.

This month's Senate report concluded that top officials - including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - were responsible for the use of "abusive" interrogation techniques on detainees. The Senate Armed Services Committee also dismissed the Bush administration's repeated claims that the abuses were the work of a few low-level officials.

Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented Guantanamo detainees, said the report took "one step forward" toward a criminal inquiry, noting that it concludes the interrogations were geared toward false confessions. However, he acknowledged that the Obama administration is "clearly going to need to be pushed" for a criminal inquiry to be opened.

An aide to a senior Democrat, who didn't have the authorization to talk and asked to remain anonymous, said that the reports could fuel a new zeal in Congress to pursue administration officials but added that might depend on what the president-elect wants.

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to ask his attorney general to "immediately" determine whether an inquiry is merited. "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he told the Philadelphia Daily News.

(snip)

Experts said that a criminal prosecution is more likely to succeed abroad if led by any one of the countries that is party to treaties prohibiting such treatment. The International Criminal Court, which calls itself "the court of last resort", could also prosecute war crimes charges. The U.S., however, refuses to cede to its jurisdiction, despite the court's recognition by 108 other countries.

"Americans need to know what pressures were brought to bear," Hutson said. "Who made late night phone calls saying, 'If you're a patriot, you've got to come up with a legal opinion that permits us to do these things?' Culpability is less important to me than finding out what made such smart lawyers come up with such a travesty of a legal opinion."

Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this article.
© 2008 McClatchy Newspapers

[blues90]

28. I think there is fear at play here.

They won't do anything because they are afraid for themselves. It's the only reason I can come up with that makes any sense .

[flyarm]

29. PLEASE READ : Glen Greewald at Salon!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

As Talk Left's Jeralyn Merritt documents, Obama today rather clearly stated that he will not close Guantanamo in the first 100 days of his presidency. He recited the standard Jack Goldsmith/Brookings Institution condescending excuse that closing Guantanamo is "more difficult than people realize." Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we're unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is "tainted" as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system -- most likely a so-called new "national security court" -- that "relaxes" due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we're unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.

Worst of all, Obama (in response to Stephanopoulos' asking him about the number one highest-voted question on Change.gov, first submitted by Bob Fertik) all but said that he does not want to pursue prosecutions for high-level lawbreakers in the Bush administration, twice repeating the standard Beltway mantra that "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" and "my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing." Obama didn't categorically rule out prosecutions -- he paid passing lip service to the pretty idea that "nobody is above the law," implied Eric Holder would have some role in making these decisions, and said "we're going to be looking at past practices" -- but he clearly intended to convey his emphatic view that he opposes "past-looking" investigations. In the U.S., high political officials aren't investigated, let alone held accountable, for lawbreaking, and that is rather clearly somethingObama has no intention of changing.

In fairness, Obama has long made clear that this is the approach he intends to take to governing. After all, this is someone who, upon arriving in the Senate, sought out Joe Lieberman as his mentor, supported Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the primary, campaigned for Blue Dogs against progressive challengers, and has long paid homage to the Beltway centrism and post-partisan religion. And you can't very well place someone in a high-ranking position who explicitly advocates rendition and enhanced interrogation tactics and then simultaneously lead the way in criminally investigating those who authorized those same tactics.

So Obama can't be fairly criticized for hiding his devotion to this approach. But whatever else one wants to say about it, one cannot call it "new."

PLEASE DO GO AND READ THE REST..IT MIGHT MAKE YOU PUKE..THAT IS IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE WHO DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION OR DIDN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE TRUTH THROUGHOUT THE PRIMARY!

[Skittles]

30. figured it out yet?

he won't be doing anything about bush crimes

[OneBlueSky]

31. the problem with not prosecuting presidents who break the law . . .

is that it sets a precedent for all future presidents, including Obama . . .

if Bush illegally spied on American citizens and isn't called to account for his actions, every future president, including Obama, will have carte blanche to do exactly the same thing, with no fear whatsoever of prosecution . . .

if Bush illegally ordered the torture of suspected terrorists or other individuals held captive and isn't called to account for his actions, every future president, including Obama, will have carte blanche to do exactly the same thing, with no fear whatsoever of prosecution . . .

if Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq was illegal and based entirely on lies and he isn't called to account for his actions, every future president, including Obama, will have carte blanche to do exactly the same thing to any other nation, with no fear whatsoever of prosecution . . .

given that the list of Bush illegalities is extensive, not prosecuting gives every future president, including Obama, carte blanche to do whatever he or she damn well pleases, with no regard for whether the actions are legal or illegal under U.S. or international law -- with no fear whatsoever of prosecution . . .

and given that the U.S. claims to be a nation of laws and not of men, failure to prosecute men who break those laws shows that claim to be nothig but propaganda and lies to every other nation in the world . . . and if we'll lie to them about the very essence of our democracy, then we'll lie to them about anything . . . and there's no reason for any of them to trust the U.S. or anything that we say, now or in the future . . .

seems to me that the prosecution of George W. Bush is not something Obama should be trying to avoid . . . not if he really wants the nation and the world to believe his claims that he's all about "change we can believe in" . . .