Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Will We Get Accountability? Obama's Reply to Blogger Bob Fertik's Special Prosecutor Question

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

As Bush gives his final press conference today, lamenting the "mistakes" of his presidency, some are wondering if he and other members of his administration will get a chance to tell such tales to a special prosecutor.

"History will look back,'' he told reporters, most likely hoping the next administration's Justice Department will solely look forward. Judging from the most recent comments from his successor, that may very well be the case.

It all started when Bob Fertik, progressive writer and co-founder of Democrats.com, posed this question to President-elect Barack Obama:

"Will you appoint a special prosecutor -- ideally Patrick Fitzgerald -- to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"

Fertik submitted the question to Change.gov, the official transition Web site for the incoming Obama Administration. The site has a forum called "Open for Questions" where people can post items of particular concern for the Obama team to review. Fertik's question got so much attention and approval from other users on the site that it made its way to the top of the Change.gov list and onto the Sunday talk shows, finally garnering this response from Obama when George Stephanopoulos asked the question directly:

"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

Obama also signaled a degree of independence for Eric Holder, his nominee for attorney general, saying that "his job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not to be swayed by day-to-day politics. So, ultimately, he's going to be making some calls."

Fertik said the popularity of the question he posted did not surprise him. In a phone interview with BuzzFlash, he said that while "there has not been a lot of passion for accountability on some of the bigger blogs," it is "ordinary citizens who have been waiting for" this issue to come to the fore.

Fertik has seen the interest in prosecuting Bush Administration officials for various crimes grow recently. His site hosts a petition addressed to Holder calling for investigation and prosecution of Bush Administration officials. Holder responded to the hundreds of e-mails generated by the petition, writing to the group, "I hear you."

Part of the recent public outrage surrounding this issue has been that White House officials have been talking openly about their violating the law.

"It's been an open secret. George Bush admits that he authorized torture. Dick Cheney admits that he authorized torture," Fertik said. Obama, however, has been less forthright on the subject. Fertik was frustrated by the president-elect's response on ABC's This Week.

"It was a dodge.  It was evasive," Fertik said. He said that, judging from what Obama said, the best case scenario is that Obama will let Holder make the decision of whether or not to appoint a special prosecutor. The worse case scenario, he said, is that Obama will pull Holder aside and tell him not to pursue the issue.

While some progressives may be holding out hope that Obama is simply waiting until he gets into the Oval Office to declare his support for the appointment of a special prosecutor, Fertik says people can take Obama at his word.

"Obama does not play poker; that's not his leadership style," Fertik said. "If you want to know what Obama will do, look carefully at what he says. He has no intention of appointing a special prosecutor, but he might let Eric Holder do so."

Obama said in his interview with Stephanopoulos that he feared an investigation may make some in the CIA "feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering." Fertik has an idea of a good way to ensure that doesn't happen.

"Start at the top. The people who are most deserving of prosecution -- Bush and Cheney -- will not be working in the CIA after Jan. 20th," he said. "[An investigation] will not interfere with the CIA... all the professionals within the CIA do not want to work alongside torturers."

Without a declaration from either Holder or Obama on the subject, some are looking at the incoming White House staff for a clue. Some progressives refer to the appointment of Dawn Johnsen as head of the Office of Legal Council as a positive sign for this movement. Earlier this year, Johnsen wrote this on the topic, "How do we restore our nation's honor?" for Slate.com:

"We must resist Bush Administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists... We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure."

Fertik said he is heartened by Obama's pick of Johnsen, but said that "it's offset by other appointments," namely John Brennan, whom Obama has chosen as his top counterterrorism advisor. Brennan has been the target of criticism for his support for forced rendition and other controversial CIA tactics.

Obama‘s final word to Fertik (via Stephanopoulos) was this:

"When it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

All this talk of looking forward warrants a look back. In the last-minute pardon scramble of President George H.W. Bush's final weeks in office, some saw an opportunity for a reemergence of justice by calling for accountability in the White House. Others, including incoming President Bill Clinton, saw an opportunity for bipartisanship. The GOP, of course, shared neither view.

"Bill Clinton's decision not to pursue the Iran-Contra scandal did not help him achieve the support of the Republicans. They were at his throat from the day he took office," Fertik said. "That's the danger; that's the precedent that all of us are focused on."

By focusing on lessons from the past, Fertik says, they are looking to the future.

"These people who committed these crimes will come back in the next Republican administration," Fertik warned. "We're the ones who are looking forward by demanding prosecution."

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

What will it take to get Democrats to listen to calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor? Join the discussion here, and/or share your ideas with Bob Fertik and the rest of the team at Democrats.com


Plan B

What if Obama and his justice department decide not to prosecute the Bush Administration criminals?

There are literally millions of us who demand justice and accountability. We need ways of leveraging our superior numbers to pressure the Obama Administration to do the right thing.

One possibility is for Congress to do it. What else? (Comments and ideas are welcome!)

We need to plan for this NOW for two reasons:

1. So we have effective action plans in place when needed, and
2. The existence of plans will show that covering up the Bush-Administration crimes will have consequences. This may tip the scales in favor of prosecuting these criminals.

Patience, PLEASE!!!

Just a few months ago, these liberal pages were full of speculation that Bush/Cheney would arrange a national crisis as an excuse to declare martial law, and stay in command forever. Obama hasn't been sworn in yet; there is still that possibility.

Obama is very careful what he says. (The "bitter" comment was notable for being a rarity.) Remember his energy policy statements included "safe nuclear" and "clean coal?" McCain echoed him on "clean" coal, but left "safe" out of nuclear. Obsma is aware that there is no "clean" coal power, and no "safe" storage of nuclear waste.

He's speaking politically about investigating Bush' crimes. First things first. Get into the Oval Office. Get Holder confirmed. Begin scrubbing the politicization from the DoJ. Appoint Special Prosecutor. In that order.

It is imperative that the Rule of Law and the Constitution be restored, and the Professor of Constitutional Law knows that. He also realizes that the administration he's replacing is full of desparate people. It's better to let them think they will get away with their crimes, for now.

Good comment!

You may be right. I hope you're right.

Message to Obama: Failure to demand accountability is complicity

As a nation, we MUST demand accountability and punishment for at least the most egregious offenders in the outgoing administration, or as night follows day, these people (or their spawn) will return, more virulent than ever. After all, the Bush Crime Family and their cohorts (Cheney et al.) have made even Nixon seem benign by comparison.

Now is the time, Democratic Party, to reinvent yourself as a party of principles. Don't think that those who voted for Obama--out of desperation--have infinite patience with your history of enabling the other party.

Ya look forward...

Look forward to the next time the Rethugs get into power and further abuse and destroy our Constitution and the Geneva Convention due to the lack of accountability placed on Dubya Dickie and the rest... Look forward to the World Court doing what our country should be doing, prosecuting the true Axis of Evil for war crimes, and in the process look forward to the further denigration of our once great country in the eyes of the world.

I was looking forward when I voted for Obama, looking forward to the hope of a return of Constitutional Law and America returning to a place where we weren't a joke in the eyes of the world. I'm sure that a number of voters feel the same, and given a failure to demand accountability for the last 8 years from Dubya and friends, I question what the result will be when our hopes are denied.

My hope now is that Obama is sticking to this non-committing statement so as to prevent Dubya from issuing blanket pardons for all involved. I hope that when he FINALLY becomes our president in 7 days 10-1/2 hours and counting he'll lower the boom on all involved.

What should Obama do

I think the official approval of torture is the worst crime of the Bush administration.
However, Obama was not elected to be a prosecutor. Being a leader, a president is a different
job, with different responsibilities. Even Nelson Mandela, for whom torture was not just a political crime but one he himself suffered from in years of imprisonment, did not put the previous regime on trial in South Africa. Was that a mistake?

The crimes in South Africa were not ignored or forgotten but were public aired and discussed in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Obama has not said that the Justice Dept will not prosecute crimes of torture. He has only said that he himself is looking forward and not back. He has said explicitly that he will ban torture. It's not lost on the world that Bush and Cheney and John Yoo and...and...approved torture. These are war crimes and crimes against humanity. It may be that many members of the Bush administration will never be able to travel outside the U.S. again lest they be arrested. Further, is there any reason that Congress cannot decide to investigate the crimes of the last 8 years?

Not every crime gets prosecuted. Martha Stewart went to jail for "insider trading." Bernie Madoff is just confined to his huge Manhattan apartment and has sent out millions of dollars worth of baubles to his family. At least 2 big financiers have killed themselves. Will Madoff ever get sentenced? Is there any way a system of justice can adequately punish him for destroying lives?

Those who write that Obama is already a "huge disappointment" should let the rest of us know who realistically could get elected who will be better. Henry Kissinger still walks around scott free even though he was responsible for bringing destruction to Cambodia. Also prolonged the Vietnam war for several years and also had a hand in the policies that led to the slaughter in E. Timor. See "The Trials of Henry Kissinger." And who ever prosecuted Nixon?

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

Torture Logic

<> That really depends on who you torture. If you were to torture Bush and Cheney for instance, and if I were on the jury I'd be willing to write it off as "Justifiable" perhaps even adding, "They were asking for it." Of course... if you were to waterboard the two of them, then no jury could find you guilty seeing as Cheney himself says that waterboarding isn't torture.

Obama's statement is B.S.

I'm sure there are plenty of drug dealers, rapists, tax cheats, etc. that don't want to be looking over their shoulders and lawyering. Why prosecute them? If Obama wants to overlook the criminal actions of the Bush administration, he is no different than George Bush. The laws should apply equally to everyone. Bush and Cheney and their minions are ordinary people, just like the rest of us. If they can commit torture and not be prosecuted, can I do it too and expect it to be overlooked? I seriously doubt it.

It is time to put an end to special treatment for the rich and powerful.

If Obama doesn't instruct Holder ...

to appoint a special prosecutor, don't call it cowardice or incompetence. Call it what it is: corruption. To not prosecute the entire Bush Administration for every war crime and violation of the constitution is, in itself, obstruction of justice. We democrats need to hold Obama's feet to the fire on this one. Refusing to fulfill his constitutional duty makes him an accomplice after the fact. It's sad to hear Obama resign himself to such an unconscionable act and make himself a criminal before he's even in office.

Bob Fertik is an American Patriot

Bob Fertik deserves an honest response from President-elect Obama. It was Bob Fertik that has continuously railed for impeachment of Cheney and Bush after release of the Downing Street Memo. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

They have gotten away with it far too long

Reviewing history, it is clear that the way to get away with a major crime is to end up the overwhelming victor over the victim, plus be strong with respect to any higher authority. It is bad enough when a bigger party fails to step in. E.g., take the theft of CPM code to make MS-DOS by Microsoft. This case was settled many years later for a pittance relative to the profits earned, but no criminal charges were ever filed. (Compare that to someone caught selling a few hundred pirated DVDs at the flea market.) It is worse of course, when the victor gets away with repeated mass acts of terrorism, to the tune of 10 to 30 times 9/11, but in this case it was the victor who did so: the US and UK in WW2.

Unfortunately, the US record is exemplified by the end of the War Between the States, where the key leaders responsible for treason and the deaths of over 600K US citizens were forgiven. The guilty were on the losing side! Even now, one of these traitors is a hero to the cadets at West Point. No wonder the US military is far more loyal, not only to itself, but to the world wide brotherhood of the professional military than it is to the people it claims to serve.

As long as criminals get away it it based on their status, the criminal justice system is a joke, and threatens to cause a revolt. After all, that is the way it was done hundreds of years ago.

Torture only one of thousands of crimes of Bush administration

To overlook the criminal history of the Bush administration is to overlook the history of the Bush administration; they are one and the same. This administration committed crimes virtually ever day it was in office. The list is so long it defies credulity, until you understand that criminality is the modus operandi of the Bush Crime Family. For the new administration to ignore this sends the wrong signal on the rule of law.

Enough Said

"... and I don't believe that anybody is above the law." -- Barack Obama Quote. Case closed, Mr. President Elect. Now, back your statement up!

PS:

And if you don't back up your statements, I have a closet full of old shoes you might have to dodge.

If Democrats don't look to the past, Republicans will

And they will see a Presidency that got away scott free with murder, torture, lawlessness and historic theft. Expect more of the same. To expect less is to be stupid. Hell, why don't we just close the prisons and let all the murderers and rapists run free?

"We're still evaluating how

"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." Interrogation? How about calling it torture? Obama will take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States on January 20th. That oath will require him to look backwards far enough to prosecute the entire Bush crime syndicate. "Looking forward as opposed to looking backwards" my ass.

"I hear You?"

If Mr. Holder is to become the next A.G. and he says "I hear You", and President Obama says he will have "some independence" (to make his own calls), then I will maintain a small level of optimism.

I Don't - Holder's More Into Promoting Internet Censorship

than prosecuting high-level criminals.... (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/internet-censorship-and-ag-eric-holder-0 , http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/26/now-espn-is-reporting-dirt-on-eric-holder/ for video of Holder speaking of the "need to regulate 'free speech'"!)

He's also cheek-by-jowl w/Morality in Media founder Paul McGready (http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/obamas-ag-pick-has-a-censorship-goon-past/ ).

If you use Bittorrent, to him you're a "pirate", period paragraph - to the delight of those fine gentlemen in the RIAA and MPAA (http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/3501942-1.html ; http://www.benton.org/node/19079 ).

Oh, and Heaven help you if you're a casual potsmoker - he's a BIG War on Drugs proponent, too (http://www.realcrash.com/eric-holder-obama-and-drugs/5/ )!

Frankly, he sounds a LOT closer to Alberto Gonzalez than Archibald Cox to me....

Obama--

---is not yet in office. And he has a big head start on being a colossal flop. His main headline was 'change', followed by 'hope'. It seems to me we are going to be left with 'hope for a change'. What I thought the nomination process showed was an Obama v. Hil--where Hil represented all the old nearRepublican things which would cling on perpetuate in a Hil administration and that Obama, by saying almost nothing would be the 'hope/change' every sane person wanted-- contest and that by winning the nomination Obama with overwhelming enthusiasm and support would come out in a form which shouted, "You elected me and I will not disappoint you". Don't know about you but it seems I am disappointed on an almost daily basis. Not that I want my vote back, a Pug, any and all of them should be voted out and many were. But, to me Obama is doing an impossible Fosberry Flop and knocking the bar down in the process is tragic. Did we elect Obama or Oh Bomba?