From CNN:
President Obama on Tuesday left open the possibility of criminal prosecution for Bush administration officials who drew up the legal basis for interrogation techniques that many view as torture.
President Obama says any congressional investigation should be conducted in a bipartisan fashion.
Obama said it will be up to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether or not to prosecute the former officials.
"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more a decision for the attorney general within the parameter of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said during a meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah at the White House.
"There's a host of very complicated issues involved there. As a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward.
"I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."
The president added that any congressional "accounting of what took place" should be done "in a bipartisan fashion outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down ... entirely along party lines."
Note: This represents a reversal for the President who previously indicated there would not be prosecutions. Clearly, Obama appears to be responding to pressure from the extreme left and the "Hate Bush" crowd. And Obama will surely embrace their view if he feels it's in his political interest to do so.
One must ask: When (if ever) will the extreme left of the Democrat party be satiated in its desire for revenge on the previous Administration and its officers? When is enough, enough?
4 comments:
There's a difference between prosecuting the agents that carried out the interrogations, and prosecuting those that told them it was legal.
Yes, perhaps. But why did Obama begin by indicating there would be no prosecutions and then begin to change his position and open the door to prosecutions?
This is a slippery slope.
What can possibly be gained by pursuing punishment against the previous administration?
Obama said he was all about hope and the future - not recriminations and vindictiveness and spitefulness over the past.
This is not a good sign.
What amazes me is the lack of accountability in government. It seems like our system is predicated on the ability of the government to build policy on the unsound foundation of plausible deniability and assurance of immunity.
Glossing over something that is expressly illegal and unconstitutional is not a way to advance America's image. I was partially stunned when North Korea used our conduct to rebuff our attempts to talk about the captured journalists they now hold. If Reagan's America was strong because of its ideals, its morality, and its inherent righteousness, then this new shift toward anything-goes policy is a catalyst for decay.
I, as an individual, go through life admitting my mistakes, learning from them, and developing into a better person for it. Our government, as a reflection of the American people, has a responsibility to act with the same convictions.
I pay dearly for my greatest mistakes. Why shouldn't our government officials, as representatives of the greatest nation in the world, play by the same rules obeyed by those that they govern?
Yes, and Nixon probably should have gone to jail, too.
But he didn't.
He was pardoned.
All I'm saying is you can disagree with the previous policy. Fine. So, you're in power now - go ahead and change it if you want.
But don't criminalize it after the fact.
It's over. It's done.
Avanti!
Post a Comment