Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Vice Presidential Debate: Joe Biden Was Right to Laugh
- Birth Control Causes Gay Men, Undesirability, Black Babies, Bestiality, Death and More Gay Men, Say Nuns
- Defeat Romney, Without Illusions about Obama
- Five Ways Deregulation Is Ripping America Apart
- Will E-Voting Machines Owned by His Buddies Give Mitt Romney the White House?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials
The House speaker suggests to "FOX News Sunday" that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions of Bush administration officials, saying they may not 'have a right to ignore' them.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."
US President-elect Barack Obama (R) meets with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, at the Capitol in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2009. Pelosi on Sunday hinted that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some Bush administration prosecutions, even if they are politically unpopular, adding: "That's not up to us to say that doesn't matter anymore.".
(AFP/Mandel Ngan) "I
think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and
do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said.
"And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to
the future rather than to the past."
Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities."
President-elect Barack Obama has not closed off the possibility of prosecutions, but hinted he does not favor them.
"I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he told ABC News a week ago. "On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."
Pelosi, during the interview in her ceremonial office, said there is merit in both arguments.
"I don't think that Mr. Obama and Mr. Conyers are that far apart," she said. "There are different subjects and you treat them differently."
She hinted that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions, even if they are politically unpopular, adding: "That's not up to us to say that doesn't matter anymore."
"We cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed," she added. "I want to see the truth come forth."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
168 Comments so far
Show AllThat is a bit of a catch 22, if he does pardon them, then he convicts them too.
If Bush pardons and Obama accepts this, considering that Bush would be investigated for his participation, it would set precedence for other public officials to be exempt from prosecution for crimes against humanity; something that our country has prided itself for protecting its own citizens and others around the world. America has long been the world police for many countries and the last few decades we have abused that privilege in the name of Liberty, Freedom and the Right to Pursue Happiness.
Pardons can be reversed by the next office should it be found that the person pardoning the criminals was also involved in the criminal act.
Although there are Americans that believe that the practices used at "Gitmo" were acceptable and not life threatening, to those I say, we as Americans must practice what we preach. We condemned the Iraq & Iran governments for their use of such treatments toward our solders and even their own people. We must decide between "an eye for an eye" or uphold our beliefs.
.
I would beg to differ when you say America has long protected people around the world from crimes against humanity. Take for instance the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Israel regularly commits warcrimes/crimes against humanity against Palestinians, and what do we do? We send them more guns and bombs. How about when we supported the Suharto regime of Indonesia in their invasion and subsequent GENOCIDE of the people of East Timore? Did we object and defend the people of East Timore? No, our government increased the military aid and weapons shipments to the Indonesian regime. I don't even want to get into the crimes against humanity that the United States government has been directly involved in when it comes to South America. Also, when you said that we condemn the Iraq and Iran governments for committing crimes against their own people, that is completely b.s. Read a book about it, don't just repeat what the corporate media tells you is the real history. When Saddam was at his worst, in the 1980's, gassing Iranians as well as Kurds from Iraq, where do you think he got the gas? He was our biggest ally in the Middle East at the time, our own CIA basically put him in power. Now that he became our enemy (because he stopped following orders out of D.C.), the media keeps pushing the whole gassing of Kurdish people as the reason we needed "regime change" (which by the way is totally against international law, you can't start a war for "regime change"). We have a long history of propping up puppet dictators around the world who may not be good people, but if they will follow orders from D.C., they are our "ally." I don't remember which book it was, but in one of Noam Chomsky's books, there is a graph (from the 1980's, but you get the picture) showing a direct coorelation between U.S. aid and human rights abuses by the government receiving the aid. The more we give, the more they abuse. Basically we support thugs and tyrants around the world. It would be nice if we didn't, but we do. Face up to the truth.
ENFORCING the LAW is looking forward! He is obviously more politician than attorney.
What did the judge say to the accused?
Judge: You've been charged with murder. How do you plead?
Accused: Your Honor, I believe our time is better spent looking to the future, not to the past. Prosecuting me for murder would only distract us from the hard work that lies ahead.
"Your Honor, I believe our time is better spent looking to the future, not to the past. Prosecuting me for murder would only distract us from the hard work that lies ahead."
"only distract us from the hard work that lies ahead."
"looking"
Look
Obey
Obama
Pelosi (and Reid) should go on trial right along with them. She (they) have done nothing but enable Bush/Cheney crimes.
It's clear that too many Democrats were complicit -- they voted to give Bush power to go to war, they approved wiretapping and retroactive immunity, they knew about torture, and encouraged stronger interrogation.
But I think the issue is more complicated than many progressives present it to be. There have long been reports about both Bush presidents taking anti-depressants, and questions regarding Bush's mental stability:
http://www.rense.com/general62/ccon.htm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/810?page=1
Too many progressives are too quick to form up the circular firing squad, and not willing to consider that many Bush critics -- on the left and right -- may consider Bush a dangerous man, and may believe he could cause far more damage if cornered with talk of impeachment and prosecution than he is already causing.
Does this reveal a flaw in the constitution? That a jerk like Bush could get elected, could buckle under the pressure, and be a dangerous madman? You bet it does.
Nixon was paranoid, but we were lucky that Goldwater and others made it clear he was facing impeachment, and that he resigned. No such luck with Bush and Cheney. But if Obama (for whom I voted) lives to be inaugurated tomorrow (note that FDR was nearly assasinated when president-elect), and if he lives through most of his first term, we will probably see increasing calls for investigation, as well as more revelations and word from whistleblowers, making it clear that there is need for prosecution. I'd be fine if this included more wide and popular discrediting of some complicit Democrats, even their prosecution.
But first, we have to wait another day till Bush is out.
Then with all the privatized military, we still have to consider the possibility of privately funded assasinations, etc. There are too many crises, and too much is at stake to assume that those who benefitted most from the orgy of the last eight years will slip off quietly into the sunset and watch calmly, and donate generously, if the government says the rich will soon have to pay the old tax rates that were charged in FDR's day.
"But first, we have to wait another day till Bush is out."
The people enjoy a special status, we don't have to wait for anything to decide the truth. Though we might wait for more information to be revealed by those who must wait, there is no law that says we must.
They have to wait. We do not.
We the people,
They the servers of our rights.
About Time Pelosi got some courage! We as progressives really need to hold Obama' and maybe even more so the Congressional Dems feet to the fire, or you can bet most of them will get cold feet!
9/11 was a bad thing in the eyes of most of the world and we have been doing bad things to suspects because of it . In the eyes of the world we do go after criminals . In the eyes of the world and to most of us we have leaders that are criminals and the world knows we know it to be true . If the crimes our leaders commited are equal to the 9/11 crimes shouldn't our leaders get the same treatment ? If not , then crime does pay because our leaders enhanced their wealth immensely .
Pelosi has a warped and inflated view of her place in the government. The number one responsibility of the Speaker of the House is to uphold and defend the Constitution. By refusing to impeach, she did the reverse; she degraded the Constitution and stood between the people and their right to remove a destructive and burdensome government.
Now Pelosi thinks she is the judicial branch of government whose job it is to prosecute those who break the law.
She missed her window of opportunity to hold these people accountable. It is no longer up to her (thank heaven) to decide who in the Bush administration gets prosecuted for breaking the law and who walks.
The Democratic Party were very foolish to let her continue to lead the House. Not only was derelict in her duty, she let the minority Party run the place.
Pelosi gives her approval only to an investigation of the Justice Department for actions that Congress wasn't involved in. I didn't hear her mention investigating the Bush administration for their war-crimes. "Look ahead! Look ahead! Don't look behind! You may see my complicity!"
Hopefully, Obama will be less recalcitrant than Nancy, more amenable to American outrage against what the Bushies have done, even though he appears to be reluctant.
Here is an EXCELLENT speech about why the Obama administration should investigate the Bush administration lawbreakers. David Swanson for afterdowningstreet.org :
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/15
Our forebears envisioned a nation ruled by law and not by men, for the most urgent of reasons -- freedom from tyrants. The "rule of men/royalty" led to the American Revolution, the battle for Americans to govern themselves. The ensuing government replaced "royal fiat" and religious oppression with law and ushered in a new kind of government in which no one is an exception to the law, PARTICULARLY not America's leaders.
If Obama has any integrity and loves America and its unique principles, he MUST not stand in the way of prosecution of the Bush-crimes, not even by implication or a reluctance due to his fear of being thought partisan. He must give investigations his whole-hearted support and instruct the investigators to get to the truth. Upholding the rule of Constitutional law is not partisan. It is American and benefits us all.
And on a personal level, if he refuses to allow investigation/prosecution of the Bush-crimes, what will he tell his daughters, whom he seems to adore? What can he say to them when they've reached the age of reason, other than to teach them that you don't obey the law when you're afraid of what people will think? THAT means if he isn't a coward, he's one of the lawbreakers himself. Is this really what he wants to teach his daughters about his values? His wife? Never mind the rest of us....
I know these are "hard words", but other American leaders have taken a courageous stand for doing the right thing when others vehemently objected and all kinds of smears were thrown, from our forefathers to the present day. Nothing worthwhile is EVER accomplished without hardship and challenge.
Obama, don't let Bert Lahr's most famous movie role serve as your model, please.
The wealth gap between the rich and poor and the sluggish job market in the United State are looming as major problems for President George W. Bush. And it has been growing over the past decades. What it will take to get the economy to where it was before George Bush's presidency is beyond the capacity of any payday loan. The growth in jobs was only 2% - the lowest in living memory – and the budget went from surplus to deficit in record time. Less people needed a payday loan with Clinton around, too – the job growth under him was 21%. All that said, Obama has a hard job ahead of him. The few of us that still have jobs will probably need to take out a payday loan to keep up with our bills at some point.