Can someone give a snark-free explanation of why we ought not prosecute crimes by the past admin?

[Stinky The Clown]

[leftstreet]

1. I can't do it without snark

Sorry

:o

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. I don't think it's possible (to give any reason not to prosecute, that is)

[derby378]

3. I don't think one exists

:shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Snark-free?

Uh--no.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. I think if we DON'T prosecute the crimes,

some other country will, and won't that be fabulous for our international reputation?

ed. Oops, I guess that was a little snarky.

[polichick]

6. There's only one reason politicians may steer clear - to cover their own butts.

[Pirate Smile]

7. Should we wait until Bush no longer has the pardon power first?

[Stinky The Clown]

9. That's as close to an actual reasonable answer as any I have ever heard

I think it is not a valid concern, but at least it **is** a defensible position.

[liberalmuse]

8. Well, because...

...um...we need to uni...Dammit! No, sorry. :(

[truedelphi]

10. there is only ONE SNARK FREE statement that could be used

We cannot prosecute Bush Cheney Rove Card Rumsfeld et al, because they are innocent.

And although that is snark free, it is NOT TRUE!!

[Skink]

11. Bush has to answer to the Hague.

[sam sarrha]

12. ...they don't have Capital Punishment, would be interesting if he got some of his own punishment

[WhiteTara]

13. not me.

I think they should be prosecuted

[Occam Bandage]

14. Same answer as I'd give to your other "snark-free" thread:

Because Obama forgot to enter the cheat code giving him unlimited political capital, and he may decide to spend what he has on things more important than thumbs in the eye to the now-powerless Bushies.

[Fumesucker]

16. There are things which in your mind are more important than not repeating the last 8 years?

Because we have already done this twice before and the same people ended up in power due to the fact that the nation did not properly flense the gangrenous rot from our body politic.

What has happened is political gangrene, if it is not fully removed leaving only healthy flesh then the host will eventually succumb to it.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Yes. For instance, not having the next four years go worse than the last eight years.

In case you didn't notice, we're in economic free fall. Turning the national attention to the enormous media circus that would surround the absolutely, literally unprecedented act of prosecuting a former President for decisions he made in office would effectively put a complete stop to any momentum Obama carried into the White House. When Americans turn on the television, they should be hearing President Obama explaining why they need to support his jobs and healthcare packages, not hearing President Bush explaining why he felt it so important to protect America from The Terrorists.

[Fumesucker]

21. Don't worry..

I have no illusions that investigations and trials are going to happen.

But when they don't we'll be right back to this point again before all that long.

After Nixon I didn't expect another Repub president for a generation, we got exactly four years of Carter before Reagan was coronated.

[iamjoy]

15. Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged? Politics?

Perhaps, and this is quite cynical, Obama doesn't want to prosecute Bush etc because he is not convinced his administration wouldn't do something similar and then face prosecutions. I'd hate to believe that about Obama, and don't really consider it very likely, but it is a possible explanation. And if it's easy to not believe Obama is so cynical, it's easy to believe there are other Democrats who have been complicit with the crimes and would not help prosecute them.

Another more likely explanation is that he is looking at it with cool pragmatism. In his heart he believes a crime was committed and should be prosecuted, but he doesn't believe the evidence is there to convict. In this case, Obama knows if his administration prosecuted the crimes and lost the political fall out (domestically) would be astounding. Maybe that's still a little cynical, but from what I understand District Attorneys do the same thing when deciding what crimes to prosecute - take the ones they think they are most likely to win.

[sandnsea]

18. The massive number of enablers

and the names of those enablers.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

19. Nope. Sorry. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. I'll give you the one used several administrations back (without endorsement)

Every administration has done things that were in hindsight questionable and has people who did not always play by the rules.

If an incoming administration from the other party turns the lawyers loose on the outgoing one, what will happen when it is replaced by one of the other party? How will we every get quality people to work in the appointed levels of the Federal government with that risk hanging over their heads?
=============================
The above assumes that its not possible to govern effectively and follow every rule. It also assumes that there is enough latitude for one administration to think something is legal and another to disagree (Gitmo & water boarding anyone?). Most of all its based on self interest. If I go after these guys, when they get the power back, I will be the target. Not saying I like it, but there is some decent rationale in there.

Some will claim that this administration exceeds the tolerable level (whatever that maybe) of evil doing and some of them must pay. Okay by me, but anyone who goes after them will clearly have a target painted on them for a long time.