Recent revelations that the president and his top cabinet members “discussed and approved” specific interrogation techniques, including torture, has renewed speculation about possible criminal activities in the Bush White House. Highlighting the president’s admission about personally approving the discussions, the Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin noted, “If you consider what the government did to be torture, which is a crime according to U.S. and international law, Bush’s statement shifts his role from being an accessory after the fact to being part of a conspiracy to commit.”
Of course, even a preliminary investigation is a fantasy, at least as long as Bush is office. It’s impossible to imagine Attorney General Michael Mukasey mulling over whether the president, vice president, and top cabinet members should be subjected to a criminal probe.
But what about Bush’s successor? Eight years ago, Pat Buchanan used to joke that, if elected, his first act after having been sworn in would be to turn to Bill Clinton and say, “Mr. President, you’re under arrest.” It’s unlikely either of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates would make a similar pledge, though Will Bunch, referencing the torture revelations, spoke to Barack Obama about the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials for possible crimes. Obama said:
“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 between 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 cover-ups 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.”
Interesting. As far as I know, this is the first such comment from Obama or Clinton on the subject.
It’s not quite the reaction I expected from Obama. One of his rhetorical staples is his desire to “turn the page.” He frequently emphasizes reconciliation and moving beyond tit-for-tat partisanship. I suspect Obama, if elected, would be anxious to get started on advancing an ambitious policy agenda, especially in his first two years, when he’s likely to have strong Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. Obama would probably want to overcome Republican obstructionism by reaching out to the GOP, or at least the portions of it that he thinks he could win over.
The notion that he’d say, “Before we turn the page, I’d like my Justice Department to start investigating my predecessor’s criminal activities,” seems a little far-fetched.
Not that I wouldn’t love to see it, of course, just that it never struck me as likely.
But Obama’s comments to Bunch were, in this sense, encouraging. I’m not sure how willing he’d be to follow up on this, but as a basic legal principle — “nobody is above the law” — Obama’s sentiment is the right one.
Digby makes a compelling case for skepticism.
I’m glad he has agreed to have his Attorney General look into the matter. But setting the bar that high — that they had to “knowingly and consciously” violate the law — means that there will be no investigation and they will probably be exonerated. The Yoo memos were written for that very reason, after all. (Powell is already using the excuse that they were operating under official DOJ legal findings.)
I don’t think it’s useful to mention the difference between lawbreaking and “really dumb policies” in the context of torture. Torture is clearly not a dumb policy, it’s an illegal and immoral policy. And at this point there’s really no doubt that the Principals sat around the white house discussing how to torture prisoners. Regardless of whether they can excuse their behavior because some authoritarian hack in the Justice Department told them it was ok — it was not ok.
Perhaps Gibson can delve into this a bit more with him as well and get him to clarify his position a bit. I don’t think we can afford to care if the Republicans perceive pursuit of these issues as a partisan witch hunt. This is really, really bad stuff. They escalated so hugely this time that they’ve actually created a national security crisis and made this country less safe as a result of their actions. This regime must be repudiated in no uncertain terms.
Maybe this is a subject the candidates can explore in a little more detail. It may not be as sexy to reporters as “bitter” voters in small towns, but it has the benefit of significance.