Holder Can't Prosecute Bush Abuses Too Many Democrats Aided and Abetted Them
Attorney General designate Eric Holder raised eyebrows and a few howls when he told Utah Senator Orrin Hatch that he would not prosecute any Bush officials for authorizing dubious wiretapping. Holder has little choice in the matter. That would bog the Obama administration down in an all consuming ultimately no win factional fight with Congressional Republicans, the courts -- especially the Supreme Court which upheld Bush provisions authorizing torture, and legions of holdover Bush Justice Department and civil rights division-appointed attorneys. There were few squeals from Congressional leaders at Bush's borderline legal and constitutionally dubious executive orders that permitted the long checklist of civil liberties abuses, warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens, being one of the more glaring.
That's only part of the reason why Holder is seemingly willing to let bygones be bygones when it comes to prosecuting Bush's crew members for the blatant civil liberties abuses. The other part is that it would pry open again the Democrats dirty but hardly unknown secret. When word leaked out about the scope and complexity of the warrantless wiretap program before the 2006 midterm elections Congressional Democrats not only did nothing about it, they aided and abetted the Bush administration in the illegal spying.
The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the "Protect America Act." This put the Congressional stamp of approval on what Bush did and actually expanded his powers to snoop. The targets weren't just foreign terror suspects and known operatives but American citizens. Democrats knew this and approved it by inserting in the law open-ended wording that permitted legalized spying on anyone outside the U.S. who intelligence agencies "reasonably believed" to possess foreign intelligence information The law deliberately made no distinction about exactly who the target could be. Then there was the infamous clause that granted immunity from lawsuits to communications service providers that made Bush snooping possible. With no fear or threat of legal action against the companies, the wraps were legally off on who could be snooped on. As an added sweetener, the law also gave Bush emergency power to tap for up to a week anyone deemed a terror threat; all without a warrant. That didn't end matters.
In January 2008 then Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton flatly said that who were so troubled by the Foreign Services Intelligence Act which essentially slapped a cloak of immunity over the telecommunications companies that were the key to running the warrantless tapping. They said the Act was far too weak in providing protections against the rampant abuses in domestic intelligence gathering operations. The issue again was the virtual nonexistent controls on warrantless wiretapping and the provision that granted immunity to telecommunications companies who engaged in the reckless and borderline lawless surveillance of any and everyone tagged as a potential terrorist threat.
Clinton and Obama swore that they would not support the bill with the dangerous lack of civil liberties safeguards. Both initially voted no on cloture. Clinton kept her word and voted no in the vote on the final passage of the bill. Most of the top Democrats with few exceptions caved and backed it. Obama was one of them.
Holder told Hatch in his confirmation hearing that he didn't want to criminalize policy differences that may exist between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. He's right especially when more than a few top Democrats were knee deep in assuring that those differences were not differences at all.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is How Obama Won (Middle Passage Press, January 2009).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have great hope for the Obama Administration, but cleaning up Washington does not appear to be something we should hold our breath for. With a wink and a nod, Republicans have been reassured that looting the treasury, torturing innocent people and trashing the Bill of Rights will simply be viewed as "boys being boys" and no harm done. Am I disappointed? That doesn't even begin to cover it.
Obama showed the American people the awesome power of the grass roots when unified for change. The next change needs to be a new political party with the ethics and commitment to the Constitution that neither party seems to have anymore. Maybe the Huffington post can get busy on that. Arianna, Darling, could we start a Third Party movement for fiscal responsibility, a civil and helpful foreign policy, economic justice and social tolerance? A party that makes sure workers are not exploited, jobs stay in America, foreign trade and aid are tied to countries with democratic values ONLY, and government spending gives us a strong, efficient infrastructure, energy independence, world class education and health care and protections of human and civil rights?
Neither the Democrats or Republicans seem interested in freedom or justice anymore. It would seem in the view of both parties some people are more "equal" than others, and no one in power is to held accountable for criminal activities.
I voted for change. All I seem to be getting is a horse of a different color.
The author needs to read Bugliosi's book.
Yes, everyone needs to read the Vincent Bugliosi book, The Prosecution Of George W Bush For Murder. He makes an excellent case.
... or Gellman's. Although its focus is Cheney, it's enough to convict both of multiple felonies if the source material is admitted as evidence and the prosecutor is ... sentient and conscious.
The world still watches and cries buckets of tears
America is the beacon of hope worldwide where anyone can do any thing and become anyone well when the field is level>> not prosecuting Bush isnt making the field level
America projects it self as a leader and having "better" morals than the rest of the world>we chastise for their human rights assaults >>>allowing BUSH to torture people in the name of "protecting America" is fallacy>>there was no other way to protect AMERICA without TORTURE?? We are lacking in IDEAS and other methods that we have to stoop to the level of the TERRORISTS???
Republicans say BUSH WAS PROTECTING THE COUNTRY when he tortured people>
Bush first order of business was to uphold the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and that was long before he had to protect AMERICA>
Bush was "smart" to get cover with having Democrats in the fold> He reasoned cant investigate him without also investigathing the DEMOCRATS> BUSH GOES DOWN>SOME democrats goes with him
Now will Obama do whats right or whats in his political interest????
The world still watches and cries bucket of tears
There are easy targets that Obama can go after without implicating Democrats. Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other Republicans in the Bush White House are guilty of contempt of Congress, by ignoring Congressional subpoenas. There is no question of fact to dispute: they didn't show up. The only challenge would be overcoming the doctrine of executive privilege. Rove and Miers were no longer working for Bush when they were subpoenaed. Nixon's defeat in a 1974 Supreme Court case (regarding White House tapes) could be used as a precedent against Rove and Miers.
Bush and Guliani should be tried for their negligence in not providing adequate safeguards to recovery crews when they cleaned up the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Many of these workers now have lungs ravaged by asbestos and other contaminants they breathed in.
The fact that Democrats, especially those in the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees probably were briefed on 'torture and extraordinary rendition' as well as 'warrant-less wire tapping' does NOT mean that the new AG Eric Holder shouldn't go ahead with a Justice Department investigation of these crimes, ON DAY ONE of the new administration. Let the 'chips fall where they may'...as a nation, we can NOT condone these actions, even if Democrats are found to be guilty. The only way to truly restore America's moral standing is to PROSECUTE those responsible, Republican AND Democrat.
The world is watching and crying buckets of tears
Some say investigating Bush and his cabal would divide the country>The country is already divided with those who say only the poor and the powerless gets investgated and go to jail while those who are rich and powerful gets PARDONS and FORGIVENESS>
Does anyone remember Nixon and WATERGATE BREAKIN>Reagan and IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR and now Bush and all his malfeasences >>What do all these have in common::a republican president and increasingly illegal deeds>>
IF Obama doesnt investigate and prosecute not only is he condoning what BUSH DID (saying the crimes are against the law and doing nothing more is worthless) but Obama is inviting the next republican president to go even further and do far worse than BUSH>
The world is watching and crying buckets of tears
The world is watching and crying buckets of tears
President elect Obama campaign and won on CHANGE>SO what is CHANGE?
Bush disregarded rules and laws so will Obama?? Not to investigate and prosecute BUSH and his administration even if DEMOCRATS are involved is continuing the same philosophy of Bush: disregard rules and laws>
We cant regain our image or reputation or integrity if we dont investigate and prosecute our own who have broken rules and laws>> If I was another country I would wait to see what AMERICA justice system does to its former president who lied a country into war>tortured>politicized the Justice Department>caused the deaths of innocent people>hold people in jail without trial or evidence and the list goes on>
If the democrats are involved then they go down too>Considering our financial crisis the democrats had a hand in all the malfeasance for that they should go as well>
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW THATS CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN
The world is watching and crying buckets of tears
There is so much people implicated in this I dont see how you can investigate without having the country divided distracted chaotic at the worse possible time in its history.
Carol
He'll be way to busy busting and prosecuting potheads to worry about investing crooked politicians on both sides of the aisle.
*investigating
So what if Democrats aided and abetted? They should be prosecuted too! In fact, I'm furious over the fact that so many Dems just parroted the same nonsense and lies about the war and the many problems with it to the American public. They ALL should be prosecuted. A crime is a crime. This whole thing is unacceptable. It's one thing if they decide just no prosecutions, but NOT OK if it comes down to "it would hurt our own too." They have brought a scourge upon the entire country with their actions and NONE of them, regardless of affiliation, should be excused unless ALL are. In other words, all or none, and as I see it, laws are there so that when someone breaks them, there will be a mechanism in place to deal with the law breaker -- no matter who they are.
Ofari Hutchinson gets it wrong on some facts, as do you. If I break existing laws and you kind of know something illegal is happening but can't or won't get the information (which was apparently the situation of the Dems vs Bush), that makes you ethically complicit, and is wrong, but need not make you legally complicit. If you pass laws to make what I do legal, those laws may be unconstitutional, and you may be doing an immoral act, but passing laws cannot be criminalized under regular jurisprudence, so the Democrats, while perhaps complicit, aren't legally guilty. They might be embarrassed by exposure, but they could not thereby be tried. The Bush folks could (in theory) be tried. By eliding this difference, Earl collapses the important distcintion between prosecutable criminal actions and morally censurable political behavior. We may be mad at Dems who we disagree with, but Repubs ran the executive. Passing laws I think are unconsitutional is not a crime in the traditional sense, and acting as if there's no disitinction is damaging to the public good.
What also aids in the defense of the Democrats is that they had just received anthrax in the mail. They were under duress. There is so much evidence that points to how this administration milked the terror attack for all that it was worth. Their legislation came out just a little bit too quickly. They had already concluded who had done it before any investigation and were opposed to an investigation. They blacked out important parts of the report. A senator resigned in protest. There is only one way for somebody to milk something for all it is worth, and that is to know that it is going to happen.
So much for the depolitization of the Justice Department...someone tell me, anyone, is there any hope?
Unquestionably there is Hope. The people have been stirred by shock, and already signs of the anger that will follow are growing. People are talking to each other instead of listening to the media. The internet has become a useful tool for community organizing, and disseminating information.
One thing that is protecting the members of Congress is the Constitution, which also happens to be one of the instruments we will be using to turn things around. There is always Hope, only now Hope is being carried by action.
Thank you. That was encouraging :)
Yes, I remember, Congress did not exercise oversight.
But the Congress was told the same lies that we were about the real likelihood of a "mushroom cloud", Muhammad Atta in Praque with Iraqi intelligence, and so on ad nauseam. I don't feel guilty for being the victim of Bush and Cheney's extortionist propaganda and I don't consider Congress guilty of it. What aspect of which law obscures these self-evident truths from lifetime "professionals" of law?
The fact that what they've legalized defacto more than a little self-serving? Especially in the event we decide it's time to rise up against the tyranny of an oppressive government. The ability to spy on your subjects and use the military against them comes in handy.
Obama will do the trick this time but there's always a next time.
While there is evidence that the Republicans in Congress would have backed Bush no matter what, the fact is that ALL member of Congress were lied to and hoodwinked by Bush on the socalled "intelligence." And after 9/11, can you really blame them for being especially vulnerable / susceptible to scare tactics, and literally "terrified" into erring on the side of extreme caution.
Bush apologists always fall back on the old standby - "well, the intelligence was faulty - (and who's fault was that?) - and beside EVERYONE in every country believed Saddam had WMD - but who do you think was the main provider of THEIR intelligence?
The "Everyone believed it" defense is transparently disingenuous.
Yup, they were ALL lied to. Some Congress Critters might also have been in on all or part of it, but Cheney's false statements in the fraudulent case for the unwarranted invasion of Iraq are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We, The People, demand our day in court, for redress of our grievances against the Cheney/Bush junta.
Well, find something else to prosecute them on. Choose an agenda, an agency, a policy. Just reach into the hat and I'm sure SOMETHING will come up!
Now that Illlinois is an international "household word" - perhaps in keeping with the state / Chicago tradition (reputation) - and just do an "Al Capone" : if you can't get him (them) on the worst offenses - nail them for tax evasion - or whatever!
"the Supreme Court which upheld Bush provisions authorizing torture" ???
Huh?
One other flaky statement, aside from the farce of the "democratic-controlled congress": the vote was 60-28. As usual, no republican voted against it.
Careful with the misstatements, there, Earl.
Make that dubious statements.
Well, at least he's saying publicly what I've come to a decision about:
They'll never impeach because they were complicit.
THROW THEM ALL OUT!
Hear! Hear! The standing ovation for Ted Stevens was abysmally sickening. Get rid of all the corporatist ones. I was listening to Thom Hartman and I believe senator Barry Sanders said that there is a majority of progressive dems who never get any tv coverage, but the corporatist dem minority get all of the media coverage.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
