I hear a lot of rumbling lately about the Congress possibly going after Bush Administration officials for egregious various abuses of power, but it seems to me this would be somewhat counter-productive as there are other more pressing issues at hand re the economy etc.
What are the real world chances (in your estimation) that the Congress will call Bush officials to account?
Zero.
The chances are exactly zero but I have to denounce the argument that “there are more important things to be done” which is used by many people of all stripes and specially by those with Bush stripes.
As some English duke remarked when someone said hanging a man for stealing horses seemed too harsh a punishment:
America is always adamant that no bad deed against Americans go unpunished when done by foreigners but is very understanding with its own. Anyone harming Americans must be punished, not so much to punish the deed, but so that the world will know you cannot do evil and get away with it.
But now that statement is not important. Nothing we do now will undo the damage and it is better to move on, etc. Not worth it. Why was it that at Nuremberg the judges did not say the same thing? Nothing will bring back the dead so let us just move on…
The world takes good note. America committed egregious crimes and pardoned itself. Not only did America not accept any responsibility for what it did but it pardoned the leaders and instigators, Bush, Congress…
I did not and do not expect anything else.
Why would they go after Bush officials now, instead of when it could have actually made a difference?
Why go after a murderer at all if it will not bring back the dead person?
To show America and the world that evil has its just reward?
Exept that the Congress and, indeed, America, were accomplices in the crimes. That is why everyone wants to turn the page. Fuck the dead, the tortured, the destruction, America’s reputation. Fuck all that and let us turn the lage like nothing ever happened. If only the rest of the world were so kind.
That is the real reason Congress should not go after them, along with the fact that Bush and his administration did nothing illegal anyway. If “crimes” were committed, were not Congress and the voters complicit?
I don’t think any crimes were committed.
So you think torture is legal, or should be ? Invasion and conquest on false pretenses ? Lying to Congress ( where ARE those fleets of WMD drones that the Bushies told Congress about ? ) Spying on our own people ? Harassing people for such crimes as being in the ACLU or a Quaker ? Looking the other way while California gets gouged by his energy industry buddies ? And on, and on, and on.
If what Bush and friends did was legal, then the law’s a joke. And undeserving of respect.
Congress SHOULD go after them, but it won’t. Because it’s composed of cowards and suck-ups. And because Americans as a whole are just that disgusting; we as a people don’t really care if torture and murder has been done in our name.
The discussion of whether or not Congress should aside, the answer that there is zero chance that they will seems a bit of an overstatement. Pelosi wants
Does she have the ability/power/backbone to do it when Obama has signaled clearly that he’d like to not open that box up? I don’t know, maybe not, maybe even probably not, but I’d out the odds of it better than zero.
To make sure they never come back, like Cheney did after serving in the Nixon WH.
Why should Congress? Why not just appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and let him file charges if illegal acts are discovered? Take the politics right out of it.
Maybe this has something to do with it?
It’s a shame we’ll never convince them to pass a law enabling a sort of general federal version of the Citizen Review Board some police jurisdictions have. If they knew they’d have to face a panel of people who aren’t beholden to them in some way and are empowered to punish wrongdoing, they’d straighten up a little.
Aw, nuts. Thanks for the info. Still, Obama could appoint a SP and wash his hands of it from that point on, could he not?
What are the odds Congress will go after Bush officials for abuses of power?
I’d’ve said pretty low a few days ago, there are advantages to letting the past slip away and starting fresh. But now Republicans have drawn a line in the sand over waterboarding not being torture:
Republicans delay Holder for a week
Despite the GOP’s well known penchant for torture, I don’t see how the minority party can win on this. The majority disagrees with them, and having had the issue thrust in their face, I think it unlikely the majority, particularly the new attorney general, will ignore the letter of the law.
My sister asked me a question last night that, embarrassingly, stopped me right in my tracks.
I know about the possible illegalities with the appointment of federal prosecutors, vaguely.
But in an ideal world, a world in which the Administration would be called to account for the worst of their crimes, what laws would they be charged under?
I’m not asking for general descriptions of their crimes (approving and ordering torture, lying our way into a war, signing statements that undermine laws, and so on). I want to hear about specific laws, with names or numbers, that the administration arguably violated.
Daniel
When Congress tried to investigate Bush in the past, administration officials refused to answer their subpoenas. When Congress asked the Justice Department to enforce the law and compel them to appear, the Justice Department said that it would be unethical for them to investigate Rove etc… for breaking the law, because the Justice Department had advised them to break the law.
Now, Congress can issue subpoenas, and if Rove etc… ignores them they could end up in jail.
However, there is still a DOJ Office of Special Counsel, which has some political independence of the Admin, as Patrick Fitzgerald has demonstrated.
Specifically toward the politicalization of the justice department only? The one they spoke about was the Civil Service Reform Acts, which “prohibit discrimination in the federal work place based on, among other things, political affiliation. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.”
The most thorough investigation I’ve heard of so far is the Inspector General’s investigation into the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The report can be found here. Their conclusion:
“The evidence in our investigation showed that Schlozman, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General and subsequently as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General, considered political and ideological affiliations in hiring career attorneys and in other personnel actions affecting career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. In doing so, he violated federal law – the Civil Service Reform Act – and Department policy that prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations, and committed misconduct.”
They also found that he perjured himself repeatedly to Congress.
And here’s the catch, they referred it to the DOJ for prosecution, and, shock of shocks, the Bush administration refused to prosecute. Go figure. Holder has said he will take another look at it.
As to the firing of the 9 US Attorneys, the OIG also conducted an investigation. The report can be found here Warning, 3.56 mg pdf file. It concluded that there was not enough information (because of the stonewalling of the White House), but recommended further investigation.
Last I heard, a special prosecutor has been appointed to see about possible criminal charges. Nothing from them about possible criminal charges. The charges I heard that were possible were, of course, perjury and contempt for lying to Congress, obstruction, and violation of the Hatch Act.
As was referenced in my link and quote provided. As were the limitations of that set up.