Anyone here want to present a defense of Obama's stance on Bush admin prosecutions?

[Smith_3]

I'm just curious and would like to read one. Please no "because that is what he said he what do" posts. I would like to read a real honest post on why you believe he is doing the right thing.

[Bluerthanblue]

1. Has Obama issued as statement himself on the administration

prosecutions?
I've been away for the day- has he made some new statement?

thanks-

[JDPriestly]

3. Rahm Emmanuel said something in an interview by Stephanopoulous

[Smith_3]

4. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5490862

[JDPriestly]

2. K & R Smith_3, so would I.

I've been trying really hard to think of one. Here is what I have come up with so far:

How about -- because he is a coward and thinks he can buy the support and cooperation of the bullies on the far right for his policies if he is just "nice enough." Isn't that a good reason?

or how about this one -- Because he thinks that the Geneva Conventions are old hat and deserve to be disregarded?

Or how about -- Because he wants to show those terrorists that if they try anything bad while he is president, he will make them suffer great misery before they get to enjoy all those virgins.

Or -- Because he wants to show the world he could be just as mean and tough and criminal as the crooks in the Bush administration if he decided to be.

Or -- Because he thinks someone else should do it?

Or -- Because he made a deal that if Bush would leave him alone, he would leave Bush, et al alone?

[zeemike]

5. No he is not doing the right thing he's doing what he CAN do

to do the right thing he would have to have a purge that would rival the Stalin purges in the USSR.
Stalin could do that because he was a dictator with a loyal secret police that would follow his orders.
Let's be real people for god's sake...we would not like it much if he had such powers.
And while it is fine to stand on moral principles reality must play a part in what we do.

[originalpckelly]

19. Well, to ignore torture he'd have to turn us into Nazi Germany.

I don't know, Stalin or Hitler.

I, however, don't think prosecuting torture could ever be considered an act of tyranny. We just want it to be, so that we can weasel out of the right thing.

[earth mom]

6. This should be good. This I gotta see.

:popcorn:

[Bluerthanblue]

7. Thank you! and i DID just go listen to the entire segment with

Rahm, and I feel much better than i did after reading the post which references the Daily KOS one-

So... here is my answer to your question-

"THIS IS NOT THE TIME"

THAT in a nutshell is ALL that was said by Emmanuel- Please go listen to the interview for yourselves and take in what he said- not anyones spin- the actual words- Emmanuel encouraged people to read Obama's statement for themselves- particularly the 2nd paragraph, and then he defined it by saying "THIS IS NOT THE TIME"-

And i personally agree that right now, there is so much intense division and hatred- that the 'bailout' crap is all being dumped on Obama, people who are panicking about their finances are yelling at the 'ambulance attendants' - and those who simply hate Obama are using the financial crisis as a tool to undermine any and everything this administration is doing.

Add to that the friction over pirates, Iran/Israel issues, the global financial meltdown, N.Korea's nuclear crap, the homeland security right wing/military/kkk extremists flap- out of control gun violence issues- ... it's an awful lot to balance in your first 90 days of office-

So, the statement that THIS IS NOT THE TIME is one I can give them some - not indefinite- room for.

And I'm going to try and do that. There are other venues where this can be addressed- And unless and until Obama states unequivocally that he will never support or allow prosecution for those who tortured, and ordered torture, I'll continue to expect and encourage him to hold those who did this accountable-

:shrug:

for what my opinion is worth.

[Smith_3]

8. Thank you. I sort of agree. I am willing to wait a few years.

If there haven't been any efforts on prosecution in, say, two years, I'll start to get worried. Before that, oh well, lets not add more stuff to the shit-list.

[Raster]

14. "This is not the time." Really? Then WHEN is the RIGHT time?

I disagree heartedly! NOW is the time! NOW is the opportunity! NOW is our moral responsibility to assure those that abandoned international laws and treaties be punished for their actions.

We Can Do Better!:kick:

[radfringe]

9. in NOT, at least investigating - 2 precedents are being maintained/set

bush-cheney admin set the precedent for "whatever the admin does is not illegal". they accumulated a lot of unfettered presidential power, free of oversight, free of accountability

this was passed onto Obama.

by NOT investigating, and not considering prosecutions (if the investagation warrents it) - Obama is maintaining that power, and setting a new on whereby previous administrations won't be held accountable

some may say "but Obama wouldn't use presidential powers in the same manner of Bush-cheney" - that may be true - HOWEVER - what about future presidents? We've had lousy presidents in the past, and probably will have them in the future - do we want this kind of power and lackof accountability in their hands?

[HamdenRice]

10. Have you been reading the debates?

Look for the posts about the effects of "legal opinions" and "estoppel".

The point is that when the DOJ issues a person an official legal opinion that an act is legal, the DOJ cannot then turn around and prosecute that person for committing the act.

As Obama's statement said, this applies only to people who acted on good faith on a DOJ-OLC opinion. It does not apply to people who tortured before the opinion was issued, who went beyond the scope of acts described as legal in the opinion, nor to anyone who did not act in good faith on the opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8347886

[deacon]

11. NO. Rule of law was promised. He had a fan in me. I will take my vote elsewhere in the future. n/t

[Anser]

12. Hide the dirty laundry

A prosecution would be an international spectacle. I know it's cliche to say "we should look forward," but really think about that. Do we want to world to see us as what we were from 2000-2008?

We need the rest of the world, or as much of it as possible, on our side. That will be harder with a constant and public reminder of the crap the Bush admin pulled.

[bemildred]

13. I am not yet ready to go after Obama for saying that it is not time yet.

And I very much think that accountability is a neccessity. He has a lot on his plate, his enemies are frothing at the mouth, and he has not been idle.

[lunatica]

15. I made an attempt to understand why he's doing it but not whether it was the right thing

I think he has a dilemma because of the trouble it would cause on many levels, including National Security if he 'outed' CIA agents. Remembering Valerie Plame and how the years of work she had done in the Middle East tracking nuclear weapons was destroyed, costing many lives of people who had worked with her and untold intelligence gathering down the drain. I think in the case of the CIA what we don't know can really hurt us if it comes out. Us and others in the world. This is why Cheney is so confident and Bush is happily drunk now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5485025

[Voltaire]

16. I can't say he is doing the right thing. . . YET

If he is serious about not prosecuting, then no, he is not doing the right thing. But then, why even release the memos if he will not have Justice prosecute these war crimes? Is this an example of "Make Me Do It"?

Did he put the memos out there to create a public outrage that he as president could not ignore, forcing him to name a Special Prosecutor?

I wouldn't put words in his mouth or thoughts in his head, but I would wait a bit before I condemned him to hell for inaction.

[leftofthedial]

17. He's just so much smarter than we are...and so dreamy too.

And which is more important to you? Seeking "justice" or getting more corporatist and ex-lobbyist appointees approved by Congress and moved into positions of power? I bet you'd prefer George Bush was still President!

Pathetic, inane disruptor!









:sarcasm: in case you couldn't tell.

[Psychic Consortium]

18. Obama does things in his way and on his time line.

He moves as fast as he can when he is able.
On other issues he moves slowly, methodically and strategically.
Pieces are put into place. Avenues are opened up.
Much behind the scenes activity.

Right now it is time for the whole truth to come out.
It is premature to take action until we know all the details of
what happened and by whom.

Obama works on that piece now. There is more to come in terms
of information and evidence.

Then the next step is up to the American people.
It is not Obama's call. It is ours.

[Wildewolfe]

20. It's all being very subtle...

The it's not the right time I believe is true.

The public is slowly being educated about the abuses and the torture that occured. Where if the prosecutions happened day 1 there would have been this huge uproar, this slow and constant release of information is waking people up and building a consensus up. Here we know, there are no doubts. 50% of america is just waking up.

[Joe Fields]

21. You won't get one from me. About a year ago I wrote here that

no matter which democrat got into the presidency after Bush, they would not be interested in rescinding the expanded powers of the presidency that Bush and his cabal strongarmed. This, of course means that the Democratic president, no matter who it may be, (in this case Obama) COULD NOT PROSECUTE, and would not even be the least bit interested in prosecuting any BUSHCO crimes.