Isn't it too late for Obama to go back on his word and say he will prosecute torturers?

[Cali_Democrat]

Wouldn't that make Obama look even worse? I think so.

Constantly complaining about it serves no purpose at this point because Obama has already made the decision not to prosecute.

It's time to cut our losses and realize that there will be no torture prosecutions for the war criminals.

I know it sucks, but it's time to move on.

We need to look ahead and consider this battle lost, but it is just one battle in a long war.

:shrug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Are you on Orville Redenbacher's pay-roll?

[Cali_Democrat]

4. I just think Obama has made his decision and that's that

There's not much we can do at this point IMO.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's the case.

[Xipe Totec]

12. We can all make our decisions too, and that's that

This is a deal breaker for me.

[rug]

2. Prosecute torturers versus "make Obama look even worse".

Think, think, think . . . .

[WeDidIt]

3. I simply cannot forgive this one.

And I'll NEVER forget.

I'm not moving on.

[LSparkle]

5. He doesn't have to do it himself ... a special prosecutor would work

And, frankly, I don't think going back on his word could
make him look WORSE than he already does if he doesn't
allow investigations to go forward. I was a die-hard
supporter and I spent the weekend absolutely depressed
over this. HE MUST NOT TAKE HIS BASE FOR GRANTED.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Woudn't Obama have to be the one to appoint a special prosecutor?

[LSparkle]

13. Yes, but he wouldn't be the one getting "bogged down" ...

The special prosecutor would do all the work -- leaving
the president "bog-free" to concentrate on the economy,
etc.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Good point. (nt)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. No, but presumably he would give Holder permission

Interestingly, Holder could just march outside and announce an appointment and I don't know that Obama could undo it... at least not easily. On paper it's Holder's call.

And if Obama fired Holder for going after torture... that's a base-killer.

So Holder could probably get away with it. (Not that he would do it.)

[Adelante]

30. No, the president does not do the appointing

The AG applies to a three-judge panel of the Independent Counsel Division of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The panel does the appointing. Holder can do this without Obama getting involved at all. Ideally, Congress presents information to Holder, from its own investigations or from a commission such as Leahy proposes, which triggers a DoJ investigation. At the end of that investigation, Holder decides whether or not to apply to the 3-judge panel for an independent counsel. (Special prosecutors were done away with toward the end of Clinton's second term.)

[panader0]

6. I can only hope that Obama is somehow legally out of the loop

and that prosrcutions can still happen by DOJ or internationally. He may know this. He may think he can't buck the CIA. I just hope that there's a method to this madness.

[rocktivity]

7. "Circumstances" may "force" him to change his mind

sometime in the future, that is...

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[RandomThoughts]

9. You assume leaders are not accountable to there constituencies.

Hey, imagine that, that's what is said about the Bush Administration.

You say "Battle lost"?, :rofl: speak for yourself, or maybe you just did.

[kas125]

10. There IS no moving on from allowing people who committed

crimes against humanity in our names get away with it because it's the easy thing to do.

[Starry Messenger]

11. I'm trying to be more civil this week.

:banghead:

Ethics are not a movable feast. What is going to make Obama look worse is when the Republicans start spinning this stuff. Think this through.

[Cali_Democrat]

14. I'm sorry if my post made you angry.

That's really not my intention. I'm just trying to look at this from a different angle.

[Starry Messenger]

21. I like looking at things from different angles too.

Torture is not one of them. I'm not happy with DU today. I think it was your shrug smiley that set me off.

I suspected that our government might take the path of least resistance, but I was hoping for more of an outcry from the board.

The Republicans will make this an issue in the next election. It will not matter that it happened on Bush's watch. They will have plenty of time. That is my concern (outside of my anguish as a human being).

[JuniperLea]

16. The President Doesn't Prosecute...

And this isn't over yet.

Chill.

[ProgressIn2008]

17. We're talking torturers and the rule of law. I don't give a damn how that "makes Obama look"

to be honest. You think a politician's image trumps the rule of law?

"Constantly complaining about it serves no purpose"? Is this satire?

[Thrill]

19. Obama AND Holder have only said CIA agents wouldn't be prosecuted

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Then Gibbs will offer a clarification tomorrow

When the press secretary mis-states the president's view it is generally corrected.

[Thrill]

23. I just look at how their statements were carefully crafted. Clearly leaving

open the possibility of going after the Attorneys and Administration officials

[peacebird]

22. A special prosecutor must be appointed. Tiny, niggling thing called THE LAW.

Obama can remain above the fray, but AG Holder is required to do his job, and that includes investigating and prosecuting treason, war crimes, and things like previous AG Gonzo letting pay for play treason with AIPAC slide to get votes for warrentless wiretapping. In all of the above scenarios innocent until proven guilty is, of course, the rule, but these potential violations MUST be thoroughly investigated and followed to their logical ends. Which means - if found guilty then even high level sorts must face jail.

[depakid]

24. Nver too late for a politician to go back on their words- as we see in today's NAFTA announcement

[jenmito]

25. Eric Holder is from the Justice Dept. which is SUPPOSED to be independent of the WH, and HOLDER

may name an outside counsel to investigate torture. Obama (the WH) has nothing to do with it. :D

[Adelante]

26. As it should be

The pressure should be on Congress to demand an independent counsel from Holder. That way, Obama can run the friggin' country.

[jenmito]

28. Exactly. So Obama doesn't HAVE to go back on his word. Holder has nothing to do with

Obama re: investigations. So Obama can CONTINUE his "I want to look forward" line and deny even KNOWING about what Holder may do. Good move!

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Sounds good to me

:D

[jenmito]

29. Me, too. It was just "breaking news" on Rachel Maddow's show...

that Holder is seriously considering it.

[HopeOverFear]

33. I posted that earlier today

[jenmito]

34. Oh. I didn't see it. I'm glad you posted it. So I guess it wasn't really "breaking" on Maddow's

show tonight. :hi:

[NYC_SKP]

31. Obama is doing this exactly right. He released the memos, there was a reason.

A new administration does not go full force in prosecuting the prior administration, it is not done, it is bad form.

Obama has at once made a subtle statement about where he stands AND has released just enough information to set wheels in motion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5493965&mesg_id=5493983

So, I'll say it again, he released the memos, he did that for a reason, he knows what he is doing.

He's doing it right.

NYC_SKP

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. Absolutely not. Obama has said that it is important to admit mistakes.

Ruling out prosecutions is a mistake.