Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats Divided Over 'Reckoning' for Bush
NEW YORK - With growing public support for a public investigation of crimes that may have been committed by the administration of former president George W. Bush in waging its "global war on terror", policy makers and legal experts are deeply divided on how to proceed - and President Barack Obama seems ambivalent about whether to proceed at all.
A demonstrator displays signs during a protest of the Bush administration's domestic wiretapping program in 2006 in downtown Chicago, Illinois. Two-thirds of Americans favor investigating whether the George W. Bush administration overstepped legal boundaries in its "war on terror," according to a poll released by USA Today and Gallup. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Tim Boyle) The president has said his view is that "nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen, but that, generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards."
Before his nomination to be Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder appeared to take a stronger view.
He said, "Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution... We owe the American people a reckoning."
But at his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Holder tempered his responses to adhere more closely to Obama's position.
The president initially refrained from commenting on a proposal from the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, for a "truth commission" to investigate abuses of detainees, politically inspired moves at the Justice Department, and a whole range of decisions made during the Bush administration. At the time, Obama said he had not seen the Leahy proposal, although he has not explicitly ruled it out.
Such a "truth commission" is one of several ideas being offered by those who see a comprehensive look-back as essential to cleansing the U.S. justice system and restoring the U.S.'s reputation in the world.
Leahy said the primary goal of the commission would be to learn the truth rather than prosecute former officials, but said the inquiry should reach far beyond misdeeds at the Justice Department under Bush to include matters of Iraq prewar intelligence and the Defense Department.
The panel he envisions would be modeled after one that investigated the apartheid regime in South Africa. It would have subpoena power but would not bring criminal charges, he said.
Among the matters Leahy wants investigated by such a commission are: the firings of U.S. attorneys, treatment and torture of terror suspect detainees, and the authorization of warrantless wiretapping. He said that witnesses before such a commission might have to be granted limited immunity from prosecution to obtain their testimony.
Other Democrats have called for criminal investigations of those who authorized certain controversial tactics in the war on terror. Republicans have countered that such decisions made in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks should not be second-guessed.
An arguably stronger measure has been proposed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and nine other lawmakers. The measure would set up a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, with subpoena power and a reported budget of around 3.0 million dollars.
It would investigate issues ranging from detainee treatment to waterboarding and extraordinary rendition. The panel's members would come from outside the government and be appointed by the president and congressional leaders of both parties.
This body would be much like the 9/11 Commission, set up after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, to examine failures within government anti-terror efforts. The commission's investigation did not lead to any prosecutions.
Human rights advocacy groups and many legal experts have been more forceful in their proposals.
For example, Amnesty International is urging its supporters to press lawmakers to investigate the U.S. government's abuses in the war on terror and hold accountable those responsible. The organization is calling on Obama and Congress to create an independent and impartial commission to examine the use of torture, indefinite detention, secret renditions and other illegal U.S. counterterrorism policies.
But the organization does not necessarily see a conflict between a 9/11-type body and a "truth and reconciliation" commission. In answer to a question from IPS, Amnesty International's Tom Parker said, "I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. Both could go forward at the same time. The immunities that may have to be granted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would not be absolute."
Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, does not favor the "truth and reconciliation" approach.
She told IPS, "As President Obama said, 'No one is above the law.' His attorney general should appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute Bush administration officials and lawyers who set the policy that led to the commission of war crimes. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are used for nascent democracies in transition. By giving immunity to those who testify before them, it would ensure that those responsible for torture, abuse and illegal spying will never be brought to justice."
A similar view was expressed by Peter M. Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University. He told IPS, "The immunities that might be granted in connection with a congressional or commission investigation of the Bush administration could well compromise the prospects for criminal prosecution, as our experience with the Iran-Contra affair demonstrates. There is likewise reason to fear that justice cannot be completely served without recourse to prosecution."
"On the other hand," he said, "I believe our paramount need as a country is for a full and fair airing of the historical record; democracies depend, I think, on an unblinking understanding of their past."
"One would hope that immunity might be granted as narrowly as possible and that efforts would be undertaken to allow the Justice Department to preserve its investigative integrity based on independently developed evidence. Should push come to shove, however, I think history is more important than prosecution," he added.
Brian J. Foley, visiting associate professor at Boston University law school, takes a harder line. He told IPS, "Until we have Truth and Reconciliation Commissions rather than prosecutions for drug offenders and others accused of non-violent crimes whom we promiscuously throw into our overcrowded prisons, we should not bestow 'justice lite' on our political leaders. It appears that laws designed with government actors in mind were broken. There should be prosecutions."
And Georgetown University's David Cole, one of the country's preeminent constitutional lawyers, believes the Obama administration or Congress "should at a minimum appoint an independent, bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission to investigate and assess responsibility for the United States' adoption of coercive interrogation policies."
It should have "a charge to assess responsibility, not just to look forward", he said.
This divergence of viewpoints - from doing nothing to appointing a special prosecutor - is putting President Obama in an uncomfortable position. The most recent Gallup Poll shows that a sizable majority of citizens favors an investigation into Bush-era misconduct.
But Obama appears reluctant to take any action that might further divide the country. Moreover, he may be loath to antagonize Republicans, whose support he may need on many other issues in the future.
The Democratically-controlled Congress does not need the president in order to act - it can hold extensive hearings, grant itself subpoena power and in effect take whatever action it desires short of legislation, which would require the president's signature. But Congressional Democrats may well be reluctant to overtly defy the wishes of the president, who is the leader of their party.
So the form of the Bush-era retrospective - if there is to be one - is yet very much a work in progress that will continue to put pressure on the young Obama administration.
- Posted in
91 Comments so far
Show AllMaybe the recent news about high-dollar US graft, corruption and theft in Iraq will create an atmosphere where not investigating fully will be unthinkable.
Then the investigation can go forward without Limbaugh's predictable cries of "partisan politics" having any more credit that they (and he) deserve.
And then Obama can take the leash off Holder.
Let's get to it. Take the leash off Holder. The politics of conciliation and the dream of unity should not deter clear and extensive investigation. "Justice lite" is not appropriate in the aftermath of the Bush violations.
Boy, it's sad there isn't a viable third party. I am so digusted with the gutless, cowardly, timid, Democrats. They do not deserve our respect. Apparently, they have already forgotten their oath of office, barely weeks old for many of them. They only thing they were required by that oath to do was defend the Constitution and they can't even do that.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
I agree completely. The democrats are spineless facilitators of the Bush crimes.
And now it seems the blush is OFF the Obama rose. He facilitates the Bush crimes by refusing to prosecute them.
Government is a joke.
This 'truth commission' is just another way of covering everything up.
It needs to have the power to recommend prosecution for any criminal activity it uncovers.
Otherwise it will just happen again and again, getting worse each time.
Yes, I can see the commission report now. "Oops, our bad."
IF the US didn't have a hopelessly corrupt rogue government, I'd suggest these simple remedies to restore our country's honor, values and economy.
What needs to be done is a bi-partisan effort. I think the American people would go for it, if we just told them the facts for once. It would be worth it for the MSM to tell the truth for a change, if only to have a full blown media circus covering the comeuppance of those who deserve it. It's past time for impeachments and indictments. The Karmic wheel has got to turn on the slimy scoundrels before it turns even more on the rest of us.
The Republicans can impeach Pelosi, Hoyer, Harmon, Nelson, Reid, and Rockefeller for aiding and abetting torture and illegal wiretaps. I bet they'd like that.
Let's even allow that to proceed first, in the spirit of bipartisanship. After that gets under way, we'll have Obama's Department of Justice live up to its name and indict Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Gonzales, etc. for torture, war crimes, and illegal surveillance.
That's my little dream of justice for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
www.davedubya.com
If no one is above the law and the law has clearly been broken, why is there a debate? Any grand jury in the country would return an indictment based upon the evidence to date for several of the Bush administration crimes.
Once again, politicians knuckle under to the siren song of their own survival rather than do what's right.
camus13
I think the main reason the Beltway crowd (Obama included) is that many Democrats were in on the games. They knew from the beginning and they are the vocal one's on doing nothing.
If we do nothing I as one will be finished with this country. If we do nothing this makes us all guilty.
They broke the law the one they took an oath to uphold and if this is not finished then we all should able to break the law and go our merry way.
Jarhead
How could we honor Obama as a leader if he wants to trade the murders caused by a repug. dictatorship for a few votes from their brain dead party. He has at this moment the people and the democratic house with him. WHY does he think he needs them? Or is it the way people are beginning to think? It is one party after all. Lock up all of the repugs responsible for all this mess so there wont be a repug dictatorship again.
notapacifist
Good post and welcome home brother.
The reason Obama needs to reach out to Republicans is because the Democrats do not have a filibuster-proof majority, and also because the Democrats don't always vote as a unified group. We need to move the country away from partition gridlock and towards true democracy.
The Republicans did plenty without a filibuster-proof majority, and the Democrats refused to filibuster when they could, and should have. The Dems could have 95% majority and they would still cave into the fascists and imperialists. The game is rigged! It's been rigged for years -- it's just worse now. And the excuses have gone beyond the ridiculous.
This is REAL simple: we have crooks and war criminals walking around, proven guilty by the public evidence already out there, and they are being allowed to get away with it.
You are one of the awake ones bluepilgrim. Like I have said many times: We do not have a Government but a crime family posing as a Government. Washington D. C.is the district of criminals with very few exceptions. One example: when the false flag Gulf of Tonkin resolution, to go to war in VietNam, was voted on, only two Senators voted against it: Senator Morse of Oregon and Senator Gruening of Alaska.The crime family voted to murder 55,000 of our brave and patriotic soldiers, not to mention maybe 2,000,000 Vietnamese!
The reason Obama reaches out to the Republicans is a twofold answer.
One, they share common goals
two, he hasnt the experience or the foresight to understand the game they play, a game in which the winner is never the American people.
Obama may turn out, in the end, to be as much an outsider as was Jimmy Carter.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
I no longer vote for Democrats, and a big part of the reason for that is that they are just 'mini-Republicans' who represent neither law nor the people. The breaking point for me is when Pelosi took impeachment 'off the table' and it has not gotten any better since. They are just rival gangsters, and they seem quite happy to defines themselves as such, by both words and actions (or lack of action). To hell with the lot of them. It's all up to the people now -- sink or swim.
Amen.
But I woke up during the Reagan era, long before Pelosi cast Dem complicity in stone.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
"I no longer vote for Democrats"
That's the same as voting Republican! I hope you're happy with President Palin.
Forget that noise --- It certainly is NOT the same as voting for Republicans, and that you don't know the difference says much about your level of political awareness and logical ability -- neither one towards the good.
First, voting for a Republican adds a vote for the Republican tally; voting for a third party does not. How is this hard to understand?
Second, you are just parroting a bit of 'false choice' propaganda put out by the Democratic political machinery: I don't know if it's deliberate or not, but in either case, it's not true.
Third, Palin has a chance in hell of ever becoming president; people know she's an ignorant clown. She'll be lucky if she can get the governorship again, and she was already in trouble before this election.
Lastly, it doesn't matter anyway if either of the two parties get in and the people sit on their duffs because only strong political, and maybe even economic or direct action, will be sufficient to make a significant difference -- and even that may not matter because none of that matters when we are standing in the middle of Hell, which is where the country is currently headed. All bets will be off soon and even the zombies will notice their feet are on fire.
What you are trying to offer is a choice between being mugged by one gang or the other gang -- and I decline either choice. The Democrats are as responsible for the current genocides and disasters as the Republicans are, and their games are transparent to anyone who drinks a bit of coffee instead kool aid.
"First, voting for a Republican adds a vote for the Republican tally; voting for a third party does not. How is this hard to understand?"
That "third party vote" does not come out of thin air, it often a person who used to be a Democrat. The Democrats lose a vote, how is this hard to understand?
If half the Democrats voted Green Party instead, how would either party defeat the Republicans when the electorate is consistently split @50/50 between the Democrats and the Republicans? For a third party to defeat the Republicans it would require every last person to abandon the Democrats, and that will never happen. Guys like Nader might as well be Trojan Horses planted by the Republicans.
As for all your ramblings about Democrats and Republicans being the same, simply put, Obama has already proven you wrong. If you can't see the vast differences between him and McCain then you are blind.
You are a consistent poster of nonsense and your politics is a peculiar mixture of fertilizer and childishness. You do not display any evidence whatsoever of researching the crap you constantly spout here, Joe, nor are you aware, probably, of how really foolish it makes you seem.
You havent the foggiest notion of how a Nader voter would act if he had to make another choice. Most polling data has shown that many would not vote period, others, believe it or not, would vote GOP, some would certainly vote Democratic, but that is far from what you claim. All this data is available on the internet, I suggest that, instead of regurgitating mindless party propaganda, you spend a half hour with a reputable search engine and become enlightened, if that is even possible.
Odd that one of the blindest posters on this site accuses others of that unfortunate defect.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
If someone would otherwise vote for a Democrat then the Democrat loses the vote, but the Republicans do not gain it, so voting 3rd party is ot a vote for a Republican. If someone would have voted Republican then the Republican loses the vote but the Democrat does not get it either. Some us would have voted 3rd party anyway, or not have voted. My vote does not come out of thin air -- it comes from me -- a citizen who has the right to vote for anyone I want, and not controlled by the false-choice propaganda.
Obama is not McCain -- and I've said that all along, but neither is either party on the side of the people: they are are both on the side of the unrestrained capitalist corporatocracy and oligarchy. You think voting for a Mussolini instead of a Hitler is a good thing?
To think that Nader is a Republican plant is as wild a conspiracy theory as thinking that the WTC was taken down by an alien energy weapon; to think he might as well be is to misunderstand reality almost to the same extent: Nader exposes the corruption of the Repblicans and as well as the Democrats.
The bottom line is that I refuse to vote for any party which supported the aggressive war and genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Haiti, and elsewhere), or the destruction of law and the Constitution -- and the Democrats have done just that. They are evil. It's a 'good cop - bad cop' game, played by the corporate fascists and imperialists. The current financial disaster and corporate takeover of the media is as much Clinton's and Democrat's fault as the Republicans.
If I'm blind, then I'm as blind as Tiresias, the blind prophet of mythology, because I've been warning about these problems for many years (although it might have been hard to pick my voice out from the crowd of others making similar warnings).
You can't win, you can't break even, but you CAN get out of the game.
No particular body should be allowed to police itself. Not the clergy, not the bankers, not the oilmen and definitely not the government.
Any effort to prosecute the Bush Gang will have to begin with proving that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were illegal. Otherwise they will use the War Excuse and all that nasty shit they did was, regrettably, due to The War. I feel sure that Congress would be right on board with that train of thought, so that's probably what we'll get. (Yes, we did authorize illegal wiretapping, but there's A War On.)
A well respected, well funded Special Prosecutor with the full force of the law and a record of sending white collar criminals to jail sure would be nice. It wouldn't interrupt the busy schedules of our lawmakers, and they could continue to look forward.
Ray Berthiaume
The whole world is watching! They see the crimes of the U.S. more clearly than us citizens. Will this republic acknowledge the lawlessness of the previous 8 years or ignore it and continue some of the policies that savaged millions?
This is not a negotiable issue. Justice must be done. You can't fail to investigate a crime because you might hurt someone's feelings. I would like to look forward, too, but I'm beginning to think we have nothing to look forward to. We've got unresolved issues in this divided country of ours; we might as well have it out and clear the air. Obama can't run away from this fight, because it will find him sooner or later. Better to take them on here, on the sins of Bush/Cheney, than to let the GOP pick the subject.
What bothers me more than this issue as far as Justice is concerned is the double standards that exist at all levels of Government. There is general reluctance to investigate, indite, and bring to trial anyone of signicant wealth or importance.
The actions of a very few people in finance are responsible for the highest crime that I have witnessed in my entire rather long life. Millions are suffering around the world from their greed and irresponsibility. I will get much worse.
And yet, there is no rush to justice, no real outrage -- in fact some of the responsible individuals are allowed to participate in the recovery process.
Will we ever be able to stop this from happening again when no one is even under serious investigation for the biggest scam ever perpertrated against humanity?
While Bush and Cheney remain free men, the whole world will know that little has changed in America, that all the talk of change was merely window dressing.
If Bush were arrested and put on trial, it would show that Americans accepted that their political system was deeply flawed and that they intended to do something about it.
I'll guarantee that there will be a lot of talk and no action! American imperialism will continue and so will the attempt to prop up the failed capitalist system.
Neo-humans want change. Neo-humans demand change.
www.dangerouscreation.com
I don't blame Obama for wanting to forget the whole thing and just get on with it. He has a huge job ahead of him. But what happened this last eight years cannot be swept under the rug. It has to be addressed, quickly, thoroughly, and with finality. The lesson learned should be that no one is above the law (except perhaps for OJ) and that if you act like a Nazi fighting terrorism you will be punished.
Waddya expect. The Dems are covering their own a$$e$ for their complicity in past crimes, and future crimes they will commit over the next 4-8 years.
The only way we will get responsible, honest leadership is to hang these creeps out to dry (after a good water boarding). If politicians do not like being held responsible and accountable, then they don't have to take the job. Remember, people volunteer to serve the public, not vice versa.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. ....Thomas Jefferson
Simple solution:...Hey, you weak-kneed wishy-washy spineless sell-out Demorats...you want public support for your upcoming felony bailout?? Investigate and prosecute the Bush cabal....AND RE-OPEN A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION OF 9/11.
Yeah, yeah...I know it's dreaming...BUT, it's the way things COULD work if Americans gave a crap or were willing to take a damn stand for justice.
NEW 9-11 INVESTIGATION NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree. illegal wiretapping is a minor misdemeanor of a crime, compared to 9/11.
It seems to me that the question, put succinctly, is: Should our government succumb to political expediency rather than prosecute criminality?
Put them on trial no excuses
... Told ya the Bushco Boys would walk.
Walk in peace.
The ones letting this go are FAKE democrats...they are moles...quislings. They need to be purged. DLC types who are just as responsible as Bush and Co. Holder is their stooge and so is Clinton. We shall see about Obama but it looks bad. The people have to take matters into their own hands now.
"The immunities that might be granted in connection with a congressional or commission investigation of the Bush administration could well compromise the prospects for criminal prosecution, as our experience with the Iran-Contra affair demonstrates. There is likewise reason to fear that justice cannot be completely served without recourse to prosecution."
I agree completely. Without recourse to prosecution, don't waste our tax money!
If this "Truth Commission" is anything like the "omissions and distortions" 9/11 Commission, don't do us any favors. We want the "whole truth" and we want the guilty parties to be prosecuted!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20GR20051213&articleId=1478
notapacifist
I gave blood for our country in another war started on a lie. If you look back in history (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.html) you'll find that is nothing new. In the past we had to rely on history written by those in power and the truth was as they wanted it percieved. Now we have history at our fingertips. But I fear that nothing will change as long as we allow our government to withhold secrets from us. The only way to achieve this is to hold them accountable and to do this we must have a media that provides us with the truth. We have to have representives that listen and represent we We The People, until then were screwed. We've had smoke blowen up our collective asses so long we all belive them and to think otherwise is to realize our lives have been a lie. This is a pretty hard pill to swallow especially if you've fought for these lies. For the most part things will have to get alot worse before those of us who haven't been raped by our country to understand.
notapacifist
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear: Cicero Marcus Tullius - Born on January 3, 106 BC and was murdered
theinitiate
What's to reckon?
Oh I know- There is a terrible fear that an attempt to bring the bush admin criminals to justice WILL DIVIDE THE COUNTRY-THAT THERE WILL BE A LITERAL SPLIT like you know a civil war or revolution... so there is fear...
To think that Suddam was held responsible for the death and torture of his people. Suddam was tried found guilty and hung. Bush is responsible for invading a country, Iraq. Was and is responsible for the deaths of over 2,000,000 Iraqi people,the destruction of an innocent peoples homeland and the deaths of almost 5000 of our troops, over 30,000 of our troops wounded, some for life and the dispacement of 100,000's of Iraqi people and the deaths and injury of the children and their familys and the lives of the unborn...and nothing is done to these WAR CRIMINALS,GW Bush and Dick Cheney,Donald Rumsfield and Paul Wolfiwich and all the rest of his administration.
When will,.... "no-one is above the law" be issued....When will justice prevail.
and...... "Justice for All!"
There's a song/video to support the effort to bring to trial the criminals in the Bush Administration at
http://www.coolhanduke.com/shame.html
Investigate. If warranted, prosecute. If guilty, punish. That's justice.
No investigation, no justice, and the "law of the land" is bullshit.
But Obama appears reluctant to take any action that might further divide the country.
------------------
The majority of Americans want an investigation.
Therefore, to DO NOTHING would divide the country.
I noted the exact same thing.
I hope someone - us? - remembers to call that to the attention of the political hacks that do these calculations as to what is "politically" viable.
Mr. Axelrod? Paying attention here?
More than 2/3rds of U.S. citizens (and probably most of the rest of the nations on the globe) want investigations - a respectable 1/3 favor CRIMINAL prosecution.
Axelrod? Is that getting through? You're supposed to be the channel out of the DC Bubble....
I second that emotion.
Excellent post DaveBronstein 6:58. I second your assessment. If history is any guide, the best we'll get is some lame Congressional inquiry into one or two of BushCo's lesser crimes, e.g., politicizing the Justice Dept., and some Democrats will be featured on TV asking "tough questions" of various BushCo officials; there will be no prosecutions and lots of hand-wringing. Then the criminal enterprise of the US govt. will go on its merry-mayhem way.
The Democrats are NOT deciding the the appropriate course to hold the Bush administration accountable.
They're deciding how to stage a farce that'll convice the masses justice was served, without actually holding accountable their Republican cousins.
A farce similar to the 9-11 Commission.
ain't gonna happen - Pelosi knew about the torture. A "truth commission" would get in the way of her fund raising.
Punishment of the Bushies (not capital, wh/i adamantly oppose) would send such a positive statement/example to the whole frickin' planet.