My God! The US president "leaves the door open" to prosecuting war criminals, that is news!

What next, will he leave open the door to doing his other official duties? I need to sit down, give me air!!

Oh but, he doesn't want to prejudice the decision of his attorney general, but he doesn't think prosecution is apropriate, well that is veeeerrrry contradictory, isn't it?

Here is Attorney General Eric Holder's e-mail address:

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

And his phone number:

Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555

All found here:

http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html

Here is the letter I wrote:

"Dear Attorney General Holder,

Please uphold the laws of the nation and the rule of law as a principle: appoint an independent prosecutor to determine if torture war crimes were committed, what those crimes were, and to prosecute those who committed them.

You are obligated by your oath of office to do this. Anything short of this is a cover up.

The Nuremberg precedents are US law via Article 6 (2). Start at the top.

The War Crimes Act and the Convention Against Torture also apply. So do other US laws.

This situation has pragmatic, legal and moral aspects, and all point to enforcing our laws.

Please let me know your intentions and your analysis about this issue."

Sorry Mr. President, there are not any complicated issues at all. Those who authorized torture, and those who commited torture violated several laws and need to be held accountable through prosecution and incarceration. The laws are very clear on this and there is no ambiguity.

Meh.

Yes, I am exasperatingly inclined to scoff at such Baby Steps, hints, winks, and nods.

So it's no surprise that I'm skeptical of Obama's latest comments suggesting that he's "open" to Congressional probes of the torture episodes reported in the recently published memos.

And I'm also generally skeptical of the alleged independence of an Attorney General-- no pun intended.

Obama certainly is promoting the idealistic notion that his AG is and will be independent, and single-minded enough in the pursuit of justice that he will act without regard for the ripple effects vis-à-vis the president's preferences and policies-- or at least without being "influenced" by the possibility that his actions may be politically risky, controversial, and inconvenient for his boss.

This is why I agree with the Founders that partisanship undermines rational government. If the post of Attorney General were truly independent-- if the AG were directly elected by the people, or even by Congress-- and required NO party affiliation, which is of course unimaginable given our history and status quo, then it might be possible to have confidence that an AG would dispassionately pursue government-committed or sanctioned criminal conduct without regard to partisan interests.

But there's no way I believe that Holder is not as much a "team member" of the Obama administration as the veep, the odious chief of staff, or any of the banksters.

I haven't exactly made a study of AG actions throughout history, but EXCEPT for the Saturday Night Massacre, I can't recall situations where an AG publicly opposed or contradicted the president's views.

After all, as a political matter, Holder would presumably want a second term for Obama and himself. So it's inconceivable to me that Holder would drag Amerika down a path that our feckless messiah obviously fears to tread.

Which leads me to consider less attractive explanations for this latest "openness", e.g. that it's just more stagecraft to keep hope alive-- perhaps setting up a faux tension between the White House and the AG to allow justice to slip between the cracks while everyone's distracted by the kabuki dance.

· Yr Obd't Servant

"There's a host of very complicated issues involved there. As a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

President Obama is exactly right. A prosecution will play directly into Republican hands and put the brakes on his agenda. He is leaving the door open to prosecutions, but trying at the same time to distance himself from it.

He would make things so much easier for himself if he put these difficult issues up for referendum.

The "White House" has no business to tell the Justice Department who can and who cannot be investigated. Nor does the "White House" own any doors which it can close or leave open.

If the Bush administration had done the same thing the cowardly segment of the left would have yelled "impeach, impeach, impeach"!

Eric Holder, just do your job.

Joe

Obama said it will be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether or not to prosecute the former officials.

Sure. Obysmal is going to let Holder make this decision all by himself. "It's okay, Eric, you don't have to clear it with me first. I'm just the president." Since they retook the congress in '06, the Democrats' principle character trait has been cowardice. Obysmal continues the tradition. Since Peckergate, when the T-Bangers almost got rid of Clinton, the Dems have shown repeatedly they have no stomach for a fight based on principle, except if lots of money for or from their mega donors is at stake. Torture and other war crimes are small potatoes. They refuse to get their hair mussed over something like that.

The president has the same "out" as Gerald Ford had. He can issue a pardon to any individuals he wishes. He can spell out in detail exactly what crime(s) the pardon covers. By accepting the pardon, the individual pardoned is admitting the criminal act, as Nixon, by accepting the pardon admitted the crimes in attempting to cover up his involvement in the whole sordid Watergate mess. As Ford explained his reasoning for doing so, he wanted to move forward and he did not want to turn this nation into a banana republic. Now in the event that Cheney and company refuse the pardon because they refuse to admit that they are criminals, then a federal grand jury should be convened to indict them.

Upon further thinking about the series of constitutional blunders that President Obama has committed I suddenly discerned the box he has placed himself into.

Imagine that criminal investigations will be held and that prosecutions with convictions plus hefty prison terms will ensue. Suppose that CIA operatives who conducted water boarding are among the convicts.

If Obama is still president at the time of the convictions and will not either commute their sentences or pardon these convicts his opponents will call him an deceiving hypocrite and deservedly so.

If he commutes the convicts' sentences or pardons them during his first tenure he will become Ford II and will be overwhelmingly defeated in 2012 by the political left, middle, and right. He may not even be nominated as the Democratic contender.

Does Obama know the box he's potentially in? I think that he is sufficiently intelligent to know this. Now he is trying to mend fences with both sides but that will not do. His only hope is that prosecutions will never happen or will be delayed until after January 2013. Both are likely to happen for this Teflon President II.

Wishy Washy!

officials who drew up the (il)legal basis for torture will only be persecuted if Tel Aviv orders it.
No chance - birds of a feather stick. . .

It's a tough call, but is it wrong to think that Obama may be a reincarnation of the "good" politician? Time will tell.

To be honest, I think you should refrain from criticizing him if you refuse to take into context the fact that I think 90% of presidents (and probably 100% of those of the past four decades), would have backed down in the face of CIA opposition to the release of these memos. In politico-speak, to make enemies of the powerful is a recipe for disaster. So I give him credit for that, definitely. That being said, lauding one brave decision is obviously a non-sequitor argument in regards to what his behavior has been (will be?) since their release. I am just saying that it isn't an easy call.

But, being a politician is full of tough decisions, the problem I think is that most politicians try to make them easy ...

mr. obama, "... us losing our moral bearings" is perhaps the funniest thing you've said since placing your hand upon the lincoln bible. if only it weren't so pathetic.

"Torturegate" has the potential of widening still.

1. If Attorney General Holden does not order an investigation into all criminal activities of "Torturegate" he will become known to me and probably numerous others as Alberto Gonzales II, just another run-of-the-mill AG who does the President's illegal bidding.

2. Potentially the most explosive issue of a thorough, no-holds-barred investigation is the question when did the US Congress know that torture was done? Who in the Congress was in the know and when? Why was nothing done?

Political landmines all!

I think there needs to be a big stink over this issue, louder than even trying to impeach Bush/Cheney. There were laws on the books that prevented torture of prisoners. Certain members of the Bush administration chose to ignore those laws and advocated torture to gain access to whatever information they could to enhance their "war on terror". There needs to be a review of the laws that were broken and by whom, regardless of the political ramifications and fall-out that comes from such a probe!! Attorney General Holder, do your job please, restore my faith in the US government and the laws of this land!!

by us and international law, the obama admin is legally obligated to investigate and prosecute any and all officially sanctioned acts of torture. those who committed them, those who ordered them, those who justified them.

there is no middle ground, legally.

the cesspool is big & deep. quis custodet custodes? that's the only reason. there'd be a shitload of people from congress, the executive (incl. CIA, etc.) and even the judiciary doing hard time (and hopefully people in the media, too).

ergo ipso fatso, not gonna happen. too many people knew about it, approved it, or were involved in it (incl. perhaps obama himself). 99.99% of the gov't, and 95% of the country, if not in on it, looked the other way.

Article one of Lex Obama.

Doing cocaine or marijuana is a much greater crime than torturing.

Imagine how appreciative all those people currently doing time would have been had a judge simply declared at the time of their sentencing, "Let's look forward and not backward."

Hey, don't we all recall what Obama said about his appointees - that ultimately he decides things?

Obama made that point a few months ago. He was trying to assuage people about his Clintonite and right-wing cabinet picks at the time. So, now we're supposed to believe that what he said back then wasn't really true?

And how would Holder be expected to react after his boss (Obama) opined that the torturers should not be prosecuted? As others pointed out, Holder is legally obliged to prosecute both the torturers and policymakers that supported torture.

What a bunch of junior-league assholes. The Obama administration is starting to make the evil Bush administration look competent.

-TIA

When Cheney and Co./the Mossad perpetrate an AQ attack inside America in 2 years, a set-up for the GOP taking it in 2012, (BO didn't keep you safe)

BO will fight back with his Justice department, Holder being "forced" to Indict some of the Sick-Six. CAN this Professor can brawl? The third round decides this fight. Yoo & Bybee questioned on the stand, live, would be an effective feint and strike.

1 Corinthians Ch 13 v 4-7.

Like an infant's (or frail elder's) soiled diaper, the stink of the Bush adminstration is growing and getting harder to ignore. Barack Obama is behaving like some wuss-bag first-time father who is alternately repulsed at the stink and too squeemish to do what it takes to clean it up and allow the body of American Democracy to go on without suffering ill effect.

So he passes the buck to "nanny" Eric Holder with explicit instructions that nothing disgusting must be revealed. Thus the stink continues and grows and infects the body politic while these dainty fellows rub their collective hands together in frustration wondering what to do. Blind fools!

Poet

Posted elsewhere, but still applies.

It sure would be nice if the administration could get their story straight. Sunday Rahm says the President has no interest in prosecution, then Monday the President says, "wait a minute"......lets not closde the door, lets wait till the AG decides. This is a Presidential decision, no others.

They seem inept.

Aside from that , legal doesn't make it just or right. So if you aren't going to prosecute those in charge, those that made the decision to proceed, leave the little fish alone. Its like going for the street dealer and leaving the Cartel alone.

There should be no problem as per fair trials etc. However there is no court in the USA with enough integrity or respect to be seen to be involved(too many special interests) The WORLD COURT in den HAGUE is the court for war criminals. Any court in the USA would not be able to be objective given the fact that many of them would be on the list as suspects etc.