Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House
Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.
Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."
The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.
I mentioned the report in my question, and said "I know you've talked about reconciliation and moving on, but there's also the issue of justice, and a lot of people -- certainly around the world and certainly within this country -- feel that crimes were possibly committed" regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department "would aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed."
Here's his answer, in its entirety:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.
Comment removed.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ Spewing nonsense from Michael Rivero, eh? That guy is such a nutcase that he once speculated that Russ Byer's murder was the result of a conspiracy to kill conservative columnists. Pathetic.— db_cooper- What a useless question, what a useless answer ....so very typical and expected from ABC and whoever Bunch is ...to get the Liberals excited and drooling all over themselves !! A President Obama is a joke to start with !! The "God of the Democratics" who will go down in a general election defeat in a bigger way than Kerry, Gore, Dukasis, Mondale, McGovern, Humphrey, and Stevenson !! Obama is already showing signs of a "big loser" and wait till everyone realizes he is a Black Militant with ties to a Middle East terrorist !! And they think ...they have problems with "bitter" now !! I am loving it !! Ohhhhh, bring back the good old days of Carter and Clinton !!— W08
- Comment removed.
- "Adams knew that the elimination of due process and the law is the elimination of liberty. " Of course, Adams later turned around and signed the Sedition Act of 1798. Details, details. I would not exactly look to John Adams as a buttress for your position here. The Founders realized that things are different during wartime. They allowed for habeas corpus to be suspended during times of war and insurrection. Modern liberals, however, seem more intent on protecting the rights of terrorists than the lives of unborn children. And then they wonder why they have such a hard time getting political traction outside their urban safe havens such as Philly and San Fran. Gotta be the guns. Or the religion. It can't possibly be their own inherent self-contradictions.— db_cooper
- b.atkinson, out of curiousity, was this the same opinion you had when Clinton was President? Where you a supporter of the Whitewater Investigation and Kenneth Starr, Esq.? Did you support the impeachment proceedings of 1998? If you thought it was frivolous at the time, then at least you logically consistent; if you were foaming at the mouth to get Clinton, then your 'logic' doesn't exist and your arguments are only based ideological biases. Personally, wrongdoing in the Executive Branch (as well as other branches) need to be investigated. The public has a right to know whether the government is abiding by the own law and constitution that they swear to uphold. Whether it was Reagan, Clinton or Bush, politicians need to be held accountable.— Publius
- When government officials take the Oath of Office, they swear to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. Nothing else.— SteveMG
- Comment removed.
- Will, has your "woody" gone down yet? Remember, you should call a doctor if it last for more that 4 hours.— jimmymack
- This is a bone Baraqq Obama is throwing to the large kook fringe of the Democrat party. They all still suffer from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and Baraqq is acting as their pusher, stringing them along with fixes of BushHate until the election.— MiddleNameHussein
- Why is it that Democrats need to be reminded again and again that we're at war with radical Islam? They would like nothing more than see a Democrat President retreat from Iraq and elsewhere as it will give them a chance to regroup and stage another 9/11 type of attack on America.— IanMc
- Way to go will; drag Obama into the 'politics as usual' arena, and forget the hope and change stuff. I never believed that bunk anyway.— Talking Point Slueth
- True, he signed the Sedition Act of 1798, but it also cost him the election of 1800 by doing so. Also, history demonstrates that the Act was politically motiviated to stem Federalist opposition; Adams violated the principles that he once defended and it bit him in the rear, and rightfully so.— Publius
- Comment removed.
- Effen hilarious. (1) Will asks Obama if he'd investigate potential criminality. (2) Obama says he would, with a sensitivity to how it might be viewed as political. (3) The "law and order" Attytood Republican sycophants whine like little girls. Effen hilarious— Talking point sleuth
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
