I can't believe a former Constitutional scholar...

[misanthrope]

...like our new president can't see the slippery slope involved in not prosecuting the legitimate crimes of the previous administration. What kind of precedent is it setting for ignoble politicians of the future?

I don't care about their party. I don't give a damn who it was, the weight of prosecution needs to hang over the heads of all public officials.

Ignoring these breaches says to me that the rule of law only applies to some of us. It says politicians above a certain position get to do whatever they want, legality be damned.

And for clarification, I didn't really care about the fact Clinton was impeached either. I had no sympathy since he was stupid enough to perjure himself when he knew others were gunning for him with that intensity.

Citizens at that level deserve the utmost scrutiny. It's part of the weight of the responsibility.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. Well, we don't know all that yet

He's not yet even sworn in. Take it easy.

I don't know that any prosecutions will be brought, but, if they are, I would like to see them come via Congress and not the Executive Branch.

But, we don't know what's going on, so let's just enjoy the good vibes reverberating all over the world today.................

[anonymous171]

2. Maybe Congress should stop wimping out and actually do something.

Unless they can get real solid evidence (like 210% solid) Obama will not prosecute. IMHO.

[KharmaTrain]

21. Bingo...It's Their Job...

One President can't impeach or go after another...that's the job of the Congress and a rebuilt Justice Department. For the past 2 years, Democrats have not only met a stonewall of "executive privilidge" that hopefully vanishes at 12 noon today, but a Justice Department that was highly politicized and refused to investigate, yet alone prosecute the booosh regime. There are still outstanding subpoeans and on-going investigations, and my hopes are they will start making some headway over the upcoming months. The people to put and keep the pressure on are Congresscritters...and it's to their benefit to restore both the credibility of their branch and it's independence.

[Horse with no Name]

3. I think I am finally starting to "get it"

Obama would be overreaching to talk about prosecuting Bush. It isn't in the executive branch job description. However, it is in the judicial and legislative branch job description.
I look forward to them doing their jobs...but Obama does NOT have the Constitutional authority to investigate it.

[Syrinx]

5. the Justice Department is in the executive branch

[Horse with no Name]

7. Since when?

I said the JUDICIAL BRANCH and unless the Constitution has changed, there is an executive branch, judicial branch and legislative branch.

[Syrinx]

12. since forever?

Or at least since 1870, when the department was created.

There are indeed three branches of our government.

Judges are in the judicial branch, prosecutors are in the executive branch.

And would you want it any other way? Would you really want judges and prosecutors to be "pals" of the same branch?

[merh]

24. Don't confuse the justice department with the judicial branch

the justice department is an arm of the executive branch, whose duty it is to enforce the laws written by the legislative branch. the judicial branch is the body that is responsible with the interpretation of the laws in accordance with the constitution.

It is his duty to enforce the laws and ask his justice department to investigate any violations of the laws and the constitution.

[Beregond2]

9. Justice is a separate "branch," unless things have changed radically

since I took high school civics.

[Syrinx]

13. you better check that again

The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch of government. Judges are of the judicial branch, but prosecutors are of the executive branch. And no judges work for the Department of Justice.

This is Civics 101. Perhaps you skipped school that day.

[merh]

23. The judiciary is the seperate branch

executive, legislative, judicial (judiciary)

The justice department is an arm of the executive branch and it is the duty of the executive branch to implement and enforce the laws as written by the legislative branch. The judicial branch is there to interpret the laws to make sure they comply with the law of the land, the constitution.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/teacher_lessons/3branches/1.htm

[JDPriestly]

11. The legislative branch can investigate and exercise oversight

of the executive and can pass laws to organize the judicial branch. The judicial branch can try cases including criminal cases. The Justice Department includes the FBI and the Attorney General's office. The FBI investigates crimes and cases, and the attorneys in the Justice Department decide what crimes to charge and prosecute. Then the Justice Department lawyers prosecute.

So there is a difference between the judicial branch of the federal government and the Department of Justice which is in the executive branch of the federal government.

The various administrative agencies have quasi-legislative (rulemaking) and quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) powers in specific areas as well as executive powers.

[liberalmuse]

4. We need to remind him...

that even though it is noble to love and forgive, sometimes the only justice in the Universe can only be doled out by US.

[anonymous171]

6. Also all violations of the law must be prosecuted, not just "blatant" ones.

[peacetalksforall]

8. There will be a cloud over the nation if there isn't justice.

Justice or Congress or many smart lawyers bringing civil cases, plus the World Court.

[dysfunctional press]

10. if they aren't prosecuted,it gives the next set of them carte blanche for next time...

and there WILL be a next time- especially if nothingis done about it THIS time.

[sohndrsmith]

14. I have to agree with the first reply-er... it is presumptuous to assume

that Obama has "decided" not to bother with Bush or the war crimes of his admin.

I think we need to keep in mind that Obama is being handed a crisis situation of monumental proportions... and that everything has to be prioritized, including dealing with Bush and whether or not he committed war crimes (or, well, maybe not "if" but "how much will he pay").

But - people in this country are suffering and in crisis - and I think that is the only reason why you're not seeing a more "full-throated" offense on the Bush war crimes issue...

Personally, I respect and understand the priority. Bush's violations will never go away, so the need to address it TODAY is not as immediate as other crises truly are. It needs to be addressed, just not today. Not until we deal with issues of immediate survival.

no?

[Mind_your_head]

15. No one really knows what he's going to do yet/how he's going to handle things.

We all voted for Mr. Obama b/c we believed he had the best interests of america at heart and was skilled enough to continue those best interests, in light of the sensibilities of the rest of our planet.

Give 'peace' a chance? Give Barack a 'chance'?.......another 9-10 hours to go before he is the president...not royalty. As president, WE THE PEOPLE give him OUR authority to act in our best behalf!

[moondust]

16. It's divisive.

Look at how much time and effort he has already spent trying to unite the country and move past the partisan animosity of recent years. I don't think he wants to risk opening the old wounds and sinking the already battered ship. It's a tough call.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Lincoln

[Ani Yun Wiya]

18. Crimes have been committed

Crimes against the planet.
Crimes against humanity.
Crimes against the nation.
Crimes against the office.

The planet cries out.
Humanity cries out.

To whom will * be accountable and when will Justice be served ?

[moondust]

19. Um, ask Eric Holder?

Isn't he The Decider of whether to investigate and prosecute crimes? Didn't the Bush/Rove White House get into trouble by telling Gonzalez what to do with the Justice Department?

[cali]

20. You want bushco prosecuted in U.S. courts for crimes against the planet

and humanity? I'm so tired of lofty language and nonsense posing as integrity.

There may be evidence that bushco committed specific crimes. That's what he/they should be investigated and prosecuted for.

Oh, and this is hardly the first time that the President has committed crimes.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

22. From your point of view...

has * done anything worthy of arrest and prosecution ?

Perhaps my list of his criminal actions is simply longer than yours.

[bigtree]

17. push him

. . . it's what he expects; it's what our democracy expects.

Best place to start is through advocacy and appeals to our senators and representatives.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Yeah, well there's a hell of a lot of unfounded faith that's going to be unfulfilled

Obama is NOT going to prosecute Bush. Various Congresspeople will move on it, but he will avoid any involvement in it while carefully imparting a feeling to frustrated lefties that he's for it while insinuating to conservatives that he's against it. This is his way.

It's too hot to handle. His vigorous and continuous courting of the right would be ruined by this. So very many people are absolutely convinced in dewy-eyed certainty that he's everything they've ever hoped for, and careful maneuvering has not only served him well, it's become such a deeply ingrained habit that it'll be hard to break.

Let's be serious, too: he's got disasters facing him everywhere, and if he focuses on what will be seen as revenge rather than active staving off of ruination, he'll be seen as vindictive and obsessed. Saving the building is more important now than bagging the arsonist, lest we forget, and that's begging the question that's really at hand: is he really that much at odds with the corporatist elite?

Not gonna happen.

In seven and a half years of active posting on this board, I've only been as unqualified with a prediction as this on one issue, and that was whether Bush would attack if he got the IWR. That was also obvious, too.

[anonymous171]

26. He might do it if Congress can get super solid evidence.

But you're probably right.