Meet The New Boss ...
Obama DOJ affirms Bush’s state secrets position in extraordinary rendition lawsuitWhich in turn explains this:In federal court today, the Obama administration signaled it would uphold the Bush administration’s state secrets position in a lawsuit regarding Bush’s use of extraordinary rendition. Five men who say they were victims of extraordinary rendition — including current Guantanamo detainee and torture victim Binyam Mohamed — sued, but the case was thrown out last year after Bush declared it to be a matter of state secrets. In an appeal today, the new administration took the same position:
A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn’t changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.
Last Wednesday, Britain’s High Court of Justice revealed that the U.S. had threatened to stop sharing evidence with Britain if it disclosed evidence of the torture Binyam Mohamed has endured.
Obama signals he isn't interested in 'truth commission' to investigate Bush abuses(More here)
President Barack Obama gave a cool welcome at his Monday night press conference to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) call for a "truth commission" to probe alleged abuses under George W. Bush, offering a fresh signal that the new president may not be interested in investigating President Bush.
Obama claimed at the first press conference of his presidency that he had not seen the proposal from Sen. Leahy and would have a look at it -- "but my general orientation is to say let's get it right moving forward."
But "my view is also that nobody is above the law. And if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen," Obama said.
(...)
Obama, who has come under heavy pressure from his predecessor's Republican allies to forswear prosecutions of US intelligence personnel who used controversial interrogation tactics, declared that "generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards."
"I want to pull everybody together, including, by the way, all the members of the intelligence community who have done things the right way and have been working hard to protect America and I think sometimes are painted with a broad brush without adequate information," he said.
Guess who must be quietly chuckling approvingly these days?
Looks like it will be Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss indeed ...
Change?
Yours truly is beginning to doubt it ... hard.
WIBDI, anyone?
(Cross-posted at TWWL)
I can think of a few good reasons for Obama not to go after Bush.
ReplyDelete1. It's a distraction from more serious matters.
2. It makes him look vindictive.
3. He plans to be an ex-president himself one day.
Every president is going to make some bad decisions. I doubt Obama wants to set a precedent where the incoming president automatically goes after the preceding president.
Rabbit: you *are* a true comedian, aren't you?
ReplyDeleteHilarious you are.
Simply hilarious.
Now, next time someone steals from you, or assaults you (or anyone you know), make sure to follow your own advice and not report anything to the police.
Why - then they would have to follow through with an investigation, determining a suspect, bring up charges, and then there will be a trial which could take a while ...
Yup. Too much a distraction and a vindictive one at that. It would definitely prevent you from "moving on" and all these sorts of things ...
So I guess you are one of those "soft-on-crime" folks I thought were just a myth cooked up by the Right, eh?
Or ... you are indeed just a comedian.
Mentarch:
ReplyDeleteYou are assuming that Bush is some big criminal who would be relatively easy to prosecute.
I doubt that this is true. The courts would go out of their way to extend the president "executive privilege". Such a proceeding would be a legal/constituitional quagmire that would drag on for many, many months, and tear the U.S. apart.
If you think American politics is polarized now, try what you're suggesting.
"You are assuming that Bush is some big criminal who would be relatively easy to prosecute."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo et al. ... do you know why?
"I doubt that this is true."
Obviously, you don't know why - and most likely because you haven't been paying attention (or rather: because of your apparently highly selective information filter). Guess what? Bush, Cheney et al. have been overtly saying "we did it" through their (still ongoing) public "confessions" in their incompetent (and pathetic) attempts to justify their crimes.
"Such a proceeding would be a legal/constituitional quagmire that would drag on for many, many months, and tear the U.S. apart."
Here's that typical fearmongering excuse (sorry: justification) again ... so, you are essentially saying that the rule of law doesn't matter because should anyone be found guilty it could create an uproar, or divisions, and the likes?
What assinine, self-serving illogical clap trap!
And to think that the Right touts itself as the one and only "tough on crime" lot - haha, charade you are.
"If you think American politics is polarized now, try what you're suggesting."
Once again, pure fearmongering b.s. - you know why? Because the Right will always be polarizing on everything and anything, regardless. That is in their nature.
The only definition of "bipartisanship" in the warped brains of those on the Right is "my way, or the highway". We all bore witness to this dynamic in action yet again in these past 2 weeks, with regards to the stimulus package put forth by the Democrats (and Obama) ...
That is all primitive minds can do.
That is all they do.
So, rabbit - are *you* a primitive mind? Or merely an intellectual sloth-driven, rightwing-talking point regurgitator?
Or simply a comedian?
Interesting questions, eh?
Reading the comments on the Raw, it seems that the majority are more adamant than yours Mentarch. They don't want Bush et al to be let off the hook.
ReplyDeleteI think the economy is viewed as the focus right now and once it looks as tho there is some positive trend in the stimulus and they feel a bit relaxed, they will take up this issue. Not sure of the time factor tho'.
It is to be hoped, Oemissions. It is to be hoped indeed ...
ReplyDelete