The Devil advocates for Obama admin's collusion with GOP to kill the Spanish inquisition of Bush 6

[BurtWorm]

(which nobody expected). (See David Corn's Mother Jone's piece for specifics.):

I've seen the point argued on other threads here that Obama got nothing out of this "bi-partisan" action. This may be so, but the question has to be asked, what if the Obama admin had NOT argued against allowing the Spanish inquiry to continue? What if, instead, they had argued *for* it to continue? (These are actually two different questions, but, as we'll see, they amount to the same under present American circumstances.)

Let's be clear that the inquiry *did* continue: it was assigned to a Spanish judge to determine if Spain had jurisdiction over the Bush Six. According to the Spanish human rights' org that brought the case, Spain did have jurisdiction because Spanish nationals were the complainants, thus, a (Spanish) Constitutional standard was met. The judge has yet to render a verdict.

David Corn, in his Mother Jones piece cited above, says that since spring when several human rights groups, including the American Center for Constitutional Rights, filed in favor of bringing the case to trial, "there's been no action." But then, I think, he overstates his case: "The Obama administration essentially got what it wanted. The case of the Bush Six went away." In fact, the case has not gone away.

Earlier this month, CRC issued a strong statement with a European counterpart noting that GW Bush had admitted to authorizing torture in his memoir, Decision Points. The statement ends with this: "But we will not wait any longer for the Obama administration to act – we will continue seeking justice and accountability under the principle of universal jurisdiction and as counsel in the ongoing investigation in Spain.” Has the case really gone away, then, David Corn? Not officially, as far as I can tell, and who knows what effect the wikileak will have on it?

What did the Obama administration want? It seems clear that they wanted Spain's government--the executive part of it--to argue against a Spanish trial for the Bush Six. Did they want the case to go away? They certainly didn't seem to want it to go forward in Spain, at least. They've ignored requests from the Spanish courts for information on cases against the Bush Six in US courts--and we know there are no cases against them in US courts. In short, they've communicated passively and aggressively that they don't want the Bush Six tried anywhere. But why have they taken this stance, given their clear opposition to the use of torture in interrogations? This brings us back to the questions I posed above. I think the answer lies in any calculation one does of the alternatives to the actions thus far taken. (This is the curse of the Obama administration, it seems, this necessity to always calculate to the nearest thousandth of a millimeter or closer.)

Assume the admin had refused to cooperate with the GOP on fighting the inquiry. Even given that the Republicans were walking wounded in early 2009, when the case began, it seems likely that any lack of enthusiasm against prosecuting Bushies in Europe, by a socialist government, no less, would have been met with a very enthusiastic charge of treason against Obama from Republicans across the board.

So what, right? Well, easy for anyone not burdened by the demands of public office in America to say. Much as I can't stand the dishonesty that corrupts American politics stemming from fear of the Great (presumably conservative) Unwashed, the risk of disturbing them has to be calculated, unfortunately. It seems to me that doing nothing would have been the worst course politically. It would have opened the administration up to predictable Republican attacks, and they would have looked weak and passive in response, which would have led to worse attacks from Republicans and the media (and, no doubt, from the usual Democratic suspects as well).

How, then, would it play for Obama to have actually encouraged the Spanish to continue the prosecution? If he were a different kind of president--a different kind of man, really--one less given to ultraconcern for civility and the sensibilities of the center, one might imagine him holding the Republicans at a distance while grandstanding to the American people about the hole those schmucks dug for themselves and what a waste of US resources it would be to help them out of it because of the dishonor they'd done to the American name. One can easily imagine a Republican president having exactly that attitude to Democrats who'd gotten into international hot water. And here, we're talking about people who plotted and committed torture!

One could also imagine an administration taking the supremely ironic stand that Americans who did nothing wrong, including above all Americans who held political power, should have no need to fear prosecution anywhere in the civilized world. But the problem--the tragedy, really--is, it's not so easy to imagine *this* administration being so bold. So, I, as the Devil advocating for them, can only submit that they did what it was in their power to do. It was not in this administration's power to change the corrupt way the political class in the US watches out for itself, above all other interests. They simply did not have the audacity.

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

[BurtWorm]

2. kick