General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Reluctant to Look Into Bush Programs. NYT Jan. 2009
By DAVID JOHNSTON and CHARLIE SAVAGEJAN. 11, 2009
WASHINGTON President-elect Barack Obama signaled in an interview broadcast Sunday that he was unlikely to authorize a broad inquiry into Bush administration programs like domestic eavesdropping or the treatment of terrorism suspects.
But Mr. Obama also said prosecutions would proceed if the Justice Department found evidence that laws had been broken.
As a candidate, Mr. Obama broadly condemned some counterterrorism tactics of the Bush administration and its claim that the measures were justified under executive powers. But his administration will face competing demands: pressure from liberals who want wide-ranging criminal investigations, and the need to establish trust among the countrys intelligence agencies. At the Central Intelligence Agency, in particular, many officers flatly oppose any further review and may protest the prospect of a broad inquiry into their past conduct.
In the clearest indication so far of his thinking on the issue, Mr. Obama said on the ABC News program This Week With George Stephanopoulos that there should be prosecutions if somebody has blatantly broken the law but that his legal team was still evaluating interrogation and detention issues and would examine past practices.
Mr. Obama added that he also had a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.
And part of my job, he continued, is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., youve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I dont want them to suddenly feel like theyve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.
The Bush administration has authorized interrogation tactics like waterboarding that critics say skirted federal laws and international treaties, and domestic wiretapping without warrants. But the details of those programs have never been made public, and administration officials have said their actions were legal under a presidents wartime powers.
There was no immediate reaction from Capitol Hill, where there has been a growing sense that Mr. Obama was not inclined to pursue these matters. In resisting pressure for a wider inquiry, he risks the ire of influential Democratic lawmakers on Congressional judiciary and intelligence committees and core constituencies who hoped his election would cast a spotlight on President Bushs antiterror efforts.
The issue will also be an important early test of his relationship with conservatives in Congress and the countrys intelligence agencies; both groups oppose any further review.
Full article at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue May 14, 2019, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)
manor321
(3,344 posts)And it wasn't just Obama. The Democratic leadership wanted to "look forward".
montanacowboy
(6,083 posts)How bad did we want them to look into the illegal Iraq war?, torture, and a million other things
they said no, look forward not backward and that was that
ergo, here we are today
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But by all means, let's blame this on President Obama.
On second thought, let's not.
stopdiggin
(11,298 posts)A Democratic president (any Democratic president) runs the risk of being crucified as "weak" by his opposition. Even before he gained office Obama was fending off charges of weak on terror, weak on crime, weak on diplomacy. Every Democratic president runs this gauntlet. As it turns out Obama was not at all hesitant about security or use of force (Afghanistan, drones). But ...
Obama's political instincts here (given the playing field) were, as almost always, 100% on target. Will he ever get credit for it ..? Up for grabs. History has a way of brushing over things.
Bush was a numbskull (on terror, intel, security, diplomacy and everything else), and FAR more damaging to US security .. but the Democrat is ALWAYS playing catch-up.
stopdiggin
(11,298 posts)Obama quote from OP:
And part of my job, he continued, is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., youve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I dont want them to suddenly feel like theyve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.
Let's just contrast the above with the clusterf*** we have with security, State, Justice, Homeland today ... Where people in DOJ and FBI are wondering if it's actually okay for them to DO THEIR JOBS!
And our take away from this? Obama shoulda', coulda', woulda' .. blah, blah.
Man, people .. I'm just not sure what channel some of you've been watching.