When George W. Bush and his cronies went on their crime spree, they used the “institution of the presidency” first to grab unlimited powers and they then used those powers to shield themselves from any obligation to disclose the truth.

nicely done

it was VERY alarming to me when I heard the president wanted to protect presidential power, as if the president has ANY power more important then they other branches of government

I for one want congress to NOT bargain for rove’s testimony, I want his supeona enforced and I want him to invoke any priviledge he claims and THEN I want obama to bargain for what is or is not in this nations best interest

congress dropped the ball, they need to simply jail rove and force him to invoke his priviledge in person

same thing with meirs

I agree with you and I’ll go a step further.
We know the repubs are just waiting for an opportunity to impeach Obama. If he forces Congress to back off of investigating *possible* bush administration crimes, he will have few allies from the Dem and Indy voters who are calling for investigations.

great post jim. thanks.

digg it

DUGG and recommended.

Thank you, Jim.

I hope the Rove subpoena results in an up-front determination from Holder one way or the other on this.

In the words of another, I would also like a pony.

” For the second time in less than a week, lawyers from the Justice Department headed by Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder have embraced the Bush administration’s pseudo-legal argument that the “state secrets” doctrine bars civil lawsuits challenging the methods used in its so-called “war on terror.”

” On February 13, Walker denied the Obama administration’s request for a stay. He explained that his January 5 order “would prioritize two interests: ‘protecting classified evidence from disclosure and enabling plaintiffs to prosecution their action,’” while at the same time “making it possible for the court to determine whether plaintiffs had been subject to unlawful electronic surveillance.”

Walker ordered the government attorneys to inform him by February 27 how they intend to comply. “

http://atheonews.blogspot.com/…..block.html

If no one is above the law, then the President isn’t above it either.

Investigate Bush and Cheney, and if warranted, indict and charge 9or impeach, if iyou can convince Congress to get off their self-important rear ends adn do their jobs).

I think President Obama is going to walk each one of Bush’s vaguely legal* arguments through the court system.
Show there is no/barely legal standing for BushCo arguments/actions and the whole equation changes.
Getting a legal record means that if someone else tries to twist the system again, they cannot use Bushs arguments as presidential cover.

Alas, Congress has no shown no inclination that they have an “obligation to protect their institution” at all (truth not even entering into consideration). Congress is no longer an independent entity. It is merely a holding pen for Dems and Rethugs raising money for the next election.

The problems with that methodology are that there are some courts who would be thrilled to have the chance to uphold some of W’s power grabs; and that if the Obama Administration had any qualms about any of those shiny new powers, then they would not likely be continuing to rely on them in their current litigation — but they have been doing exactly that.

You’re essentially right regarding Congress Critters drive in life, but at least Senator Whitehouse is keeping the fire stoked. He & Dodd (BFD) want the OFP report on Yoo % Co released and want assurances from the authors that the report isn’t altered for political expediency. We need to push Congress and ObamaCo to understand they stand culpable in failing to meet treaty obligations. To bad there’s no mechanism (other than elections) to force them to enforce to US law.

TPM: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..ure_op.php

An “obligation to protect the institution of the presidency”? What about the obligation to uphold international law? The International Commission of Jurists recently conducted a three-year global study that found:

many states used the public’s fear of terrorism to introduce measures.

These included detention without trial, illegal disappearance and torture.

It also said that the UK and the US have “actively undermined” international law by their actions.

It concluded that many measures introduced to fight terrorism were illegal and counter-productive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7892387.stm

There is no “obligation to protect the institution of the presidency” when crimes have been committed, both domestic and international. Well, actually there is. By bringing the criminals to trial. Letting the Bush government go free will forever leave a black mark on the “institution of the presidency”.

Maybe Obama should sort of get the ball rolling by getting the US to ratify the ICC statute. Certainly there are a couple of GOP senators who will agree to uphold the rule of law, right? Right?

Excellent, thought-provoking post, Jim.

Hmmmm, do I perceive the collision of a number of ‘back’ stories or myths?

We are, now, to ‘believe’ that the d’s want ‘accountability’?

O—–kay:

Some months ago, it was an often-encountered ‘belief’, here at FDL, that the d’s would have gone after Bu$h CO , hammer and tong or tooth and nail …BUT (Oh Dear!) they were being blackmailed on a level unprecedented in history.

A current ‘belief’, prominent here at FDL is that President Barack Obama is engaged in playing the most incredible (and inscrutable) three-dimensional chess-game that any politician in modern times, if not in the entire sweep of history, has ever played.

Now, if the ‘blackmail’ scenario is to be vindicated, we distant observers can well-imagine that the d’s in Congress would like to have us learn the ‘half of it’ that Pelosi assured us we did not know (and of course, have not yet got to ‘know’).

If the multi-layered, multi-leveled and magnificently splendid chessboard is in play, then we must assume that we won’t know (in fact, can’t know) anything until Obama decides that he wants us to know.

Now there is one added ‘twist’, and that is that Obama may well feel more allegiance to the office of the presidency, with ALL its perks and privileges (including those tacked or hammered on by his immediate predecessor) and his sense of obligation to pass it on, intact, to the next ‘winner’ of the ‘game’ than he does to the passing ‘fashion’ of this momentary ‘interest’ in unbecoming and rude, ‘accountability’.

The most pressing concern for all the BIG players, however, is that ‘things’ do not devolve into chaos or, in any manner, reduce their respective (if not respectable) powers.

Had we not the specter of world-wide economic depression to distract us, it is conceivable that the collision of political ‘interests’ (which universally seek, always, to diminish or avoid ‘accountability’) that is, perhaps, to play out, would be one of the most interesting dramas, or kabuki, if you prefer, that has ever been witnessed in this fair land.

Isn’t this exciting?

Fair enough, but it is evident that overall Congress has no institutional pride. Congress has fractured along party lines to the extent that members of Congress act in the best interests of their party (or more accurately, the next election cycle) — not in the best interest of their institution, much less governance.

FWIW, I find Cherlin’s comment about their obligation to the institution of the Presidency deeply offensive. The only obligation the President or members of Congress have is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere is there an oath obligating them to “protect their own institution”.

It appears Charlie Savage will have to add a few chapters to his book on the Imperial Presidency in a year or two.

mmmm.. i dunno .. when i look at what’s confronting the nation .. and try to imagine what i’d do if it were my job to deal with it .. i’d put dealing with the crimes and criminality of the bushie a bit further down the road .. sincw there is no statute of limitations on prosecution for war crimes .. BUT .. for the sake of the people’s faith .. i would at the least make it plain i did/do intend to get to the issue as soon as we have all the big fires tamped down a bit ..

i think all of us know the oh-so-loyal opposition are going to throw the mother-of-all-hissy-fits if/when we start investigating their crimes .. mush less punish them ..

so maybe obama and co. are wanting to get a few more pieces of important legislation passed befire throwing the lid off pandora’s box …

Maybe the new Gitmo brutality revelations will provide a toehold for investigations to start, and then widen.

You too are correct. I meant to include Presidents don’t want to give up power gained from prior Presidencies, how ever corrupt they may have been. Obama is the same, but of course his Regime will claim he will use it sparingly, and only for the good, and not cross the Rubicon into misuse. Trust us.

In other words, Obama is no Gandalf ; ) He’ll take the ring of power and tuck it in his pocket, just in case ; )

Great post Jim.

On a side note, Did you notice that Mr. Conason has still not corrected his story but that someone has closed the comments section?. I’m afraid I’m not as generous as Glenn, I think Mr. Conason deliberately fudged those numbers in the poll to help make his point hoping that no one would notice. And when we did notice, instead of correcting it and making an apology he got ticked off at us for pointing it out. Have you heard anything from him? Have you heard anything from Joan?

We won’t know will we. That’s the whole point, secrecy, possible extra Constitutional actions, then plausible deniability. Only a few, a very few in our political area are in it for the public good.

have you seen this video: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring of Free Trade? if not, you might enjoy it (warning: anarchist perspective)

No word from anyone, yet. It’s getting harder and harder to believe the “sloppy accident” line, but I’m doing my best to wait until either Conason or someone in authority at Salon makes a statement of some sort.

I don’t know if I can wait.

How about that, the article just got edited. First paragraph now reads:

More than 60 percent of Americans believe that alleged abuses and atrocities ordered by the Bush administration should be investigated either by an independent commission or by federal prosecutors. In a poll released yesterday by the Gallup Organization, 38 percent favors criminal sanctions against officials who authorized torture or other outrages in the “war on terror,” while another 24 percent favors an investigation without criminal charges. At the same time, 34 percent prefers that the Obama administration simply leave its wayward predecessors be.

Unfortunately, I have to run. Could someone please alert them in the threads over at Glenn’s post for today? Thanks in advance.

Oh but we will know. Keep an eye on the court proceedings and the negotiations with Congress about testimony. We will know very soon indeed whether or not Obama latches on to Precious or chucks it into the fire of Mt. Doom.

Here is the biggest reason NOT to do a Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are done when the victims and the perpetrators are citizens of the same country. Their mission is to knit the country back together, so they give immunity from prosecution to those who testify truthfully. The overwhelming number of victims of torture under the Bush administration are not Americans. Americans have no right to decide that these victims cannot seek justice.

Standing for justice and accountability,
For Dan,
Heather

That was a hoot — thanks selise : )

It looks like an OPR report on the torture memos will soon come out whether Obama and Holder want it to or not. What that will mean is anyone’s guess at this point, but it will probably be abundantly clear afterward that the DoJ was more interested in serving the President than it was in upholding the law.

In any other time, that would be a scandal, I’d think.

I got it Jim.

Here’s what I posted at Greenwald (yes it was a little snarky):

Evidently Accountability is Not Joe Conason’s Thing

Joe Conason has finally corrected the glaring error about the USA/Gallup numbers in his last column. However, there is no explanation or apology, just a change in the piece itself. If you weren’t looking for it you’d never know there had been an error and subsequent correction. In addition, the comments thread has also been closed. So readers will not have an opportunity to ask about the error or why it took so long to fix.

I find it very ironic that in a piece where Mr. Conason argued against accountability for Bush officials that he would, by his own actions, reveal that he also believes that he shouldn’t be held accountable either.

Thanks. That was very well done. I think snark is entirely in order here.

It looks like the Obama folks need a little more time to tie off the top of the bag. From McClatchy:

The Obama administration is asking for two more weeks to weigh in on whether former Bush White House officials must testify before Congress about the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Two more weeks to decide whether they are a Dept of Justice, or a Dept of Injustice ??