# No criminal charges by new admin for Bush interrogators **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497 "2008-11-19T19:26:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/1 "2008-11-19T19:26:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Barack Obama’s incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency. From [here.](http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081118/D94H0S8O1.html) Good. Of course, not really what he said on the campaign trail. But good. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/2 "2008-11-19T19:29:16Z")
What’s the debate? Are we supposed to debate “good”? And I assume you have a cite for Obama saying previously that he _would_ seek criminal charges, right? (Also, “unlikely to bring criminal charges” does not mean “no criminal charges.” Different words mean different things, you see.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/3 "2008-11-19T19:35:46Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > What’s the debate? Are we supposed to debate “good”? Well, yes. As I see it, an opposite position is: “No, not good!” > [@](#): > > And I assume you have a cite for Obama saying previously that he _would_ seek criminal charges, right? Yup. [“Obama would ask his AG to “immediately review” potential of crimes in Bush White House”](http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html) > [@](#): > > (Also, “unlikely to bring criminal charges” does not mean “no criminal charges.” Different words mean different things, you see.) Sure, which is why I said “…not really what he said…” But if you seriously contend there’s no real difference between then and now in terms of the message being conveyed on the issue… I suggest you’re not reviewing the issue with an open mind. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/4 "2008-11-19T19:44:09Z")
Good why? On the face of it it appears as though you’re saying it’s good that the President is not going to encourage investigation into certain criminal act. Do I have you right? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/5 "2008-11-19T19:56:17Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Good why? > > On the face of it it appears as though you’re saying it’s good that the President is not going to encourage investigation into certain criminal act. Do I have you right? Well, actually I’m saying, “Good that the President isn’t going to investigate acts to see if they may be construed as criminal.” Your phrasing presupposes the criminality of the acts. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/6 "2008-11-19T19:57:52Z")
> [@Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr.](#): > > I know of no one who acted in reckless disregard of U.S. law or international law," said Culvahouse I really like this defense. I never disregard laws recklessly either. I usually go for ‘skulky and nonchalant’. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/7 "2008-11-19T20:01:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, not really what he said on the campaign trail. But good. Not sure I agree with this. He said he’d investigate on the campaign trail, the cited article said that criminal charges were not likely. What do I think that means? Well, if I investigated Bricker for murder, criminal charges wouldn’t be likely, right? Cause, chances are, you probably didn’t murder anybody. Maybe. Just Maybe, the same logic applies here. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/8 "2008-11-19T20:03:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, actually I’m saying, “Good that the President isn’t going to investigate acts to see if they may be construed as criminal.” Your phrasing presupposes the criminality of the acts. That’s what I meant, thanks for pointing out my mistake. Is it that you think there should not be any investigation along these lines, or just that the President shouldn’t be the one encouraging them? -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/9 "2008-11-19T20:08:38Z")
I never expected anything better; the elite always protect the elite. And the Democrats always give the Republicans what they want. No matter what he’s guilty of, there’ll be no investigation or punishment for Bush. And of course, the next President who goes into office wanting to break the law, lie, undercut the Constitution, torture and mass-murder will be that much more likely to do so knowing that he faces no personal consequences for doing so. Just one more step on America’s path to fascism. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/10 "2008-11-19T20:09:55Z")
You think there’s a contradiction between (1) Obama will investigate and (2) charges are unlikely. That means that you think an investigation would likely lead to charges. **Bricker** , you radical! ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/11 "2008-11-19T20:13:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yup. “Obama would ask his AG to “immediately review” potential of crimes in Bush White House” There is nothing contradictory in Obama’s statements. He said that he would have his AG review the torture issue, and if he found blatantly illegal actions, he would prosecute them. I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that you believe there is “little, if any chance” that blatantly illegal actions would be found. Thus, I think you would agree that based on Obama’s statement there was never any intention to charge anyone in the Bush administration with a crime. The only way that his statements could be contradictory is if you believe (a) there were blatant crimes committed by the Bush administration, and (b) Obama has changed his mind and won’t pursue those criminal activities. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/12 "2008-11-19T20:17:33Z")
> [@treis](#): > > There is nothing contradictory in Obama’s statements. He said that he would have his AG review the torture issue, and if he found blatantly illegal actions, he would prosecute them. I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that you believe there is “little, if any chance” that blatantly illegal actions would be found. Thus, I think you would agree that based on Obama’s statement there was never any intention to charge anyone in the Bush administration with a crime. The only way that his statements could be contradictory is if you believe (a) there were blatant crimes committed by the Bush administration, and (b) Obama has changed his mind and won’t pursue those criminal activities. Wow. Yes, I agree that parsing carefully, there’s nothing contradictory here. I contend that the _tone_ of the two statements, the general impressions the listener is left with, vary dramatically. Do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/13 "2008-11-19T20:22:05Z")
Let’s read his entire quote before we judge a difference in subjective impression of tone, shall we? > [@](#): > > 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 betyween 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 coverups 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. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/14 "2008-11-19T20:36:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wow. > > Yes, I agree that parsing carefully, there’s nothing contradictory here. > > I contend that the _tone_ of the two statements, the general impressions the listener is left with, vary dramatically. Do you agree? Well, I find it difficult to extract Obama’s tone from anonymous statements by two senior advisers, but no, I don’t see much difference. The clear and obvious implication from Obama’s first full statement is that a review would be conducted, but charges filed only if blatant violations of the law were found. I don’t see anything contradictory there between that statement and the fact that charges are unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/15 "2008-11-19T20:38:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Let’s read his entire quote before we judge a difference in subjective impression of tone, shall we? OK. The paragraph makes perfect sense – calm, measured approach. Attorney General investigates, weighs issues, calm and deliberative decision made. When did that stuff happen? See, THAT is why the tone is different. The message pre-election was fair but firm: we’ll look at the issue and make a reasonable judgement. But now, it’s “unlikely” that any charges will be filed. DO they know something now that they didn’t know then? If they don’t, then it seems to me it would have been fair to end that calm, deliberative paragraph by saying “…but it’s ultimately unlikely that criminal charges will be brought.” Or have they learned something between now and then that changes the picture? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/16 "2008-11-19T20:39:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Well, I find it difficult to extract Obama’s tone from anonymous statements by two senior advisers, but no, I don’t see much difference. The clear and obvious implication from Obama’s first full statement is that a review would be conducted, but charges filed only if blatant violations of the law were found. I don’t see anything contradictory there between that statement and the fact that charges are unlikely. OK, obviously the sense of different message is mine alone. No comments on the “good” part of it? Sure seems to me we had plenty of people around here saying that Bush and Cheney should go to prison at one point. ---
**Author:** ![Burger\_Time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f07891/32.png) [@Burger\_Time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burger_Time)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/17 "2008-11-19T20:45:19Z")
“Harsh interrogations”? Is thaaaaaat how it’s being covered up? Well, instead of pursuing criminal charges, the Obama administration should pursue “legal reconciliation.” ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/18 "2008-11-19T20:46:59Z")
If they now said an investigation seemed unlikely, I would understand the contradiction. Is there any suggestion that they will not not even be investigating anything? As to whether being reluctant or unlikely to bring charges is good, I think it is. Whether there is anything to charge aside, I’d rather Obama tackle AGW than GWB. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/19 "2008-11-19T20:55:00Z")
Bad. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497/20 "2008-11-19T20:58:13Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If they now said an investigation seemed unlikely, I would understand the contradiction. Is there any suggestion that they will not not even be investigating anything? This is key. According to the link in the OP, plans aren’t final so they’re not spilling the beans. But even from the quote in post #13, he seems to be saying that criminal charges are likely… he’s just saying that he’ll investigate. And now aides are also saying that criminal charges are unlikely, and apparently plans aren’t final about whether or not there’ll be an investigation. So, I see no contradiction… yet. We should all keep an eye on it and find out of he really does renege. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-criminal-charges-by-new-admin-for-bush-interrogators/473497.md?page=2)