Turley (with Rachel Maddow) says that the President has no choice...

[polichick]

He took a vow to uphold the Constitution and MUST prosecute war crimes. Basically said Obama is protecting his own political butt. This could get very interesting.

[Top Cat]

1. Every move that the President makes they complain if he did what they want

the would still complain. I trust that he will use his best judgement and not react to all the BS.

[Hissyspit]

17. That's not true. Turley is not "complaining" by pointing out the law.

[Hieronymus]

23. Exactly, some are so enamored they will defend anything the president does.

[MissDeeds]

45. Or doesn't do

We just came through eight years of a pResident who thought the Constitution was just a "goddamn piece of paper". Obama needs to uphold the Constitution. Period.

[cali]

46. you do understand that not all constitutional scholars agree on

what the law demands, right? Not in this instance or a plethora of others.

[MarjorieG]

51. John Dean understood there was legal defense for those assured by DoJ. Some gray here.

[jefferson_dem]

2. It'll be "interesting" for one day (tops) on DU then we'll move on to the next bit of rage.

Positive or Negative.

[TTUBatfan2008]

6. There is no positive rage around here...

All negative, all the time. You would think that tea party nonsense yesterday would give people some perspective on what kind of President we could currently have in the White House.

[Supersedeas]

29. without an attempt at Justice, there is no disincentive for future Presidents to repeat the Bush

crimes -- Don't you think that teabaggers would support a President who would turn the CIA torturers on progressive US citizens -- just find a lawyer from a rightwing thinktank to label torture of progressive Americans legal and history can/will repeat itself with agents just following orders...one more time.

[polichick]

8. In the REAL world it could get interesting.

[seaglass]

9. Maybe we should start a daily DU countdown then - Day 1 Torturers not brought to justice and so on

until it gets done. Are you in? Do you care?

[bvar22]

39. The rage over War Crimes committed in our name...

and the total lack of any accountability for the Criminals has been consistent on DU since the Invasion of Afghanistan.
Where have you been?

[Windy]

3. He never said he wouldn't prosecute those who ordered the torture.

Please read the memos. I can understand why he made the decision.

[polichick]

18. Yes, Obama has left a door open to prosecute...

I guess in Turley's pov there is no IF, just a WHEN.

[Supersedeas]

52. the focus is on reflection not retribution: Turley knows prosecutions lead to GWB's desk

The rhetoric used by the President suggests that he has no intent of going there.

If the President proves Turley wrong, I will be surprised.

[polichick]

54. Turley said that it wasn't clear whether Obama plans to prosecute others.

[redqueen]

55. This is maddening...

that's exactly the impression I got from reading all the stuff here yesterday... that Obama was saying there would be *no* prosecutions... that being my impression, I was very glad to see Keith's rant last night.

But now I have to wonder... is that really what he was saying at all?

[polichick]

56. Keith's rant was still great imo, because it pointed out what happens...

...when nobody is held responsible. It's possible that those whose legal (political) opinions led to torture could at least lose their license to practice. (That was a suggestion made by one reporter on NPR today.)

Doesn't look like Obama is ready to say what "process" is underway ~ guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Connie_Corleone]

4. He could also be protecting his life.

He already pissed off the CIA by releasing the memos. Now people want him to prosecute some CIA operatives who used torture tactics that were deemed legal under the Bush DOJ.

Go after the Bush administration officials who approved torture. Obama and Holder did not mention them. Just the CIA operatives.

[TTUBatfan2008]

11. Some people don't understand how powerful the CIA is...

We have no idea what kind of pressure they've been putting on Obama. If they want to take him out, they can do it. He's got the best protection in the world but the CIA has unlimited resources to "defend the country" and whatnot. It's a dirty agency that does tons of illegal shit all the time, including the assassination of Kennedy. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they held that over Obama's head during this torture prosecution controversy.

[Thrill]

5. The President or his AG never said they wouldn't prosecute.

Administration officials. People need to stop overreacting and let things play out.

[Boomerang Diddle]

7. Well then, if Turley said it, it must be true. n/t

[DrToast]

10. For the record, I WANT him to protect his politcal butt....

Sorry, but it's true. I'm more concerned with Obama's agenda on health care, energy, and education. And I'd rather see him focus on that than prosecuting these guys.

[polichick]

12. I think the point he was making is that a President isn't supposed to choose...

...whether or not to uphold the Constitution ~ it's a given, not to be determined by politics.

[TTUBatfan2008]

14. Ahem, who says it's politics?

What if the CIA told him they'd take him out? They've done it before. See Kennedy.

[Sparkly]

25. I don't think he's a coward.

I think it's a choice having to do with his agenda, and/or he's keeping the door open enough to pursue it later (I hope). International pressure may come to bear in some way, as well.

But cowardice about his own life, mattering more than the rule of law of the country? I don't think so.

[LittleBlue]

13. Turley has morals and wants to follow the law

it's not surprising he arrived at the correct conclusion.

[Boomerang Diddle]

15. So you agree with Turley that Clinton should have been impeached?

n/t

[LittleBlue]

19. That was his legal opinion, and technically he very well could have

[vaberella]

22. So what you're saying is that our President has NO morals?! Nice. I see where you're at. n/t

[cali]

47. Is your constitutional expertise so established that you KNOW he's correct?

Mine isn't. And there are many ConLaw scholars who aren't on the same page as Turley.

[Dinger]

16. Turley Is No Idiot,

Just remember that.

[vaberella]

21. He's also no politician. n/t

[Dinger]

43. Another Thing In His Favor (nt)

[vaberella]

44. Obviously not since he wouldn't be able to prosecute.

I thought that was what you were speaking against O about. I always wonder how much better one would do over the other if they were in the same place. However, from what I read O is leaving the door wide open for prosecution of the Bush admin.

[Dinger]

49. Where Exactly Did I "Speak Against O"?

Don't try and label me, don't. You have no idea what you're talking about. Do not try and make me an "Obama-hater," because I am not. No, I did not support him in the primaries (a time I would like to forget), but I donated to his campaign, did lit-drops, made calls, went door-to-door in a very repuglican area here in Wisconsin (not easy, but it was worth it), and took a personal day on election day to get out the vote, and I will commit to do this in 2012, so just stop already. Thank God Obama was elected, but he has done some things I question, excuse me.

[vaberella]

20. Has Turley EVER given a positive word about the President?! Not once. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

35. Depends on which president you're talking about...

... never about Bush, that's for sure.

I wasn't aware he was negative on Obama.

[vaberella]

38. He has. He has never said that President O has EVER done something right. n/t

[Life Long Dem]

24. Keyword is "uphold". What was done in the past he had no say in upholding.

[Sparkly]

27. Well, it's upheld for the future by holding the line today. nt

[depakid]

26. There are also international treaty obligations

[Sparkly]

28. And that might end up bringing the pressure, even on the GOP

to deal with it here.

[CTLawGuy]

30. Jonathan Turley

also thought Bill Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office. F him.

[quiller4]

31. I don't understand why Maddow turns to Turley so often.

He is so often wrong and given to grandstanding. Maddow could invite and get the best. Kathleen Marie Sullivan from Stanford comes to mind as does David Barron.

[Hanse]

32. Fuck Turley, regardless of the otherwise important topic.

The man could make a constitutional case over a blowjob.

[stevenleser]

36. Yes, I cannot bring myself to take him seriously after that.

Idiots like him helped make election 2000 close enough for W. to steal.

[Hanse]

40. When his contract with MSNBC is up, look for Fox to sign him.

[jeanpalmer]

33. Well he should enforce the law

He took an oath to do that. It's pretty clear now that crimes were committed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld on down the line. OK so he doesn't want to hold the foot soldiers accountable. What about the higher ups? He doesn't want to hold them accountable either. Instead, he sweeps it under the carpet. If he doesn't want to do his job, why doesn't he step aside and let someone with principle carry it out. He is doing a great disservice to our country by not enforcing the law.

[TheKentuckian]

34. Turley (and many others) ignore 200+ years of actual reality

Most Presidents (and those following their orders, apparently too) have deserved prosecution including the better ones like Washington, FDR, and Lincoln. The law and the precedent have long been at odds. I don't get Obama's special responsibility to reconcile this. I'm not saying he shouldn't if he can but it strikes me as odd that he has this unusual obligation.

[Supersedeas]

58. and I suppose that there are many valid reasons for reserving judgment

as you rightly put it -- there is heavy historical precedent for not taking action that would lead directly to his predecessor's desk.

But, ignoring those who manipulated the law -- especially those at the OLC...leaves a bitter taste.

[onenote]

37. turley invents his own law every time he opens his mouth

he is a shameless self-promoter.

[democracy1st]

41. Turley either run for office or stfu!

[Occam Bandage]

42. Turley is yet again speaking out his ass.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever claim the President is bound to prosecute anyone for anything.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Either that, or the OP is. I suspect both of them are. Sen. Feingold gets it where others don't ->

Turley obviously hasn't read the DoJ decision as clearly as Senator Feingold, who released this statement recently:

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice. As I understand it, his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted. The details made public in these memos paint a horrifying picture and reveal how the Bush administration's lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture. The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable."

[polichick]

53. The op simply reported what Turley said, without giving an opinion - which means...

...it's you who are talking out of your ass ~ again! (Big surprise.)

[ClarkUSA]

50. Maybe we should also prosecute Bill Clinton for starting extraordinary rendition in 1995...

with a presidential directive. Can we see the memos regarding what the C.I.A. did under Pres. Clinton, too? Shouldn't Bubba be
investigated also? After all, Bill Clinton was the first president to outsource torture to the C.I.A. What's good for Republican
presidents who've violated the Constitution should be good for Democratic presidents who have done the same thing, right?

[Median Democrat]

57. Is There A President That Turley Has Not Wanted To Impeach?

Just wondering?

[polichick]

59. I don't recall him saying that he wants to impeach Obama.