Obama not ruling out interrogation prosecutions

[cali]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama Tuesday refused to close the door on prosecuting authors of Bush-era legal rationales for terror suspect interrogations, after offering immunity to CIA operatives involved.

Obama made a distinction between the agents who carried out harsh interrogations permitted by the White House after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and the legal officials which justified such methods.

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws."

Obama also said that Congress should also make sure that any investigations into the enhanched interrogation programs did not evolve into political witch hunts and should be conducted in a bipartisan fashion.

<snip>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090421/pl_afp/usattacksjusticetorture

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. It is NOT HIS DECISION

These statements on any side of the issue are interference with the independence of the AG and need to stop.

[cali]

2. I think he makes that clear in his remarks n/t

[originalpckelly]

11. It's not just that, he think he can unilaterally outlaw torture.

This system we have is no longer a system with a written constitution, it's all based upon legal precedents. If he outlaws torture with a unilateral act, then another president can come along again and legalize it, because no legal precedent was set forbidding a president from unilateral action in the area of torture, or lawmaking in general.

That's the problem here.

The law is President, the President is not the law, and an unchecked executive or, for that matter, government is not a system where the separation between law and the enforcement of law exists. If that is true, and is unfortunately true in any system with secrecy like the current one, then things like torture can be done.

[LynneSin]

3. That's what I've been saying - you have to go after the Policy Makers

going after the peons just means that new peons will be hired to do the same exact thing. My analogy was based on going after drug dealers. You arrest the guy on the street corner selling dime-bags of drugs, that guy will be replaced in a few hours with a new person selling the same thing.

We need to get the big guns. Perhaps if those committing the torture know they won't be prosecuted they will be willing to testify against those who created this policy.

[Jefferson23]

4. Obama is looking for a bipartisan approach, it would kick ass if

McCain got on board for that.

[cali]

5. i don't think so.

i think he's giving lip service to it- and that's necessary.

[Jefferson23]

6. Really? Perhaps it is my naiveness that sees the unleashing of the

memos as an indication of what could possibly unfold, and not necessarily something he ever intended to try and control once the memos were released. At this point I still find that move to be a powerful one. We shall see how the general public views the information over time and who picks up the legal ball and runs with the opportunity.

[99th_Monkey]

7. Hot Damn! A Prez. that listens to the PEOPLE?? What next? ~nt~

[DS1]

8. BUT WHAT WILL I DO WITH ALL THIS OUTRAGE NOW?

[99th_Monkey]

9. Hot Damn! A Prez. that listens to the PEOPLE?? What next? ~nt~

[Toucano]

10. He has said agents who "acted in good faith" would not be prosecuted.

This does not mean NO ONE will be prosecuted.

8 years of Bush's double talk has affected our ability to listen, I think.