Judiciary Committee Chairman Wants Investigation of Bush Presidency

[Admiral Piett]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090210/...usa_bush_truth

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. "truth commission" should investigate Bush administration policies including the promotion of war in Iraq, detainee treatment and wiretapping without a warrant, an influential senator proposed on Monday.


Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, urged a commission as a way to heal what he called sharp political divides under former President George W. Bush and to prevent future abuses.
He compared it to other truth commissions, such as one in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era.


"We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past," Leahy said in a speech at Georgetown University.


"Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened," the Vermont senator said. "And we do that to make sure it never happens again."


Some Republicans and intelligence officials have resisted any suggestion of broad inquiries into accusations against the Bush administration, saying it would be a distraction or weaken morale in the fight against terrorism.


"If every administration started to re-examine what every prior administration did, there would be no end to it. This is not Latin America," the Judiciary committee's top-ranking Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, told reporters last month.


President Barack Obama, who suggested shortly before he took office in January that he did not favor prosecuting Bush administration officials over their counterterrorism policies, said on Monday his administration would seek to uphold "our traditions of rule of law and due process."


"Nobody's above the law and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing ... people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen," Obama told a news conference, his first since taking office.
"I will take a look at Senator Leahy's proposal ... but my general orientation is to say let's get it right moving forward," he said.


Bush spokesman Rob Saliterman said only, "We're not going to respond to every call for more investigations."


Leahy said he had not begun to promote the truth commission idea with the Obama administration or with the Democratic- controlled Congress. But he suggested it could be formed by both Congress and the White House, and said the panel must have credibility across the political spectrum.


Issues to investigate would include the Justice Department's firings of several U.S. attorneys, which Leahy said may have been motivated by a White House aim to influence elections, policies on the treatment of terrorism suspects and other areas "where (congressional) committees were lied to."


That included the war in Iraq, he said. "There were lies told to the American people all the way through."


Bush has acknowledged that intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was wrong, but said he never lied to the public about the war.


Leahy said he wanted the Defense Department investigated for filming Iraq-war protesters, which he said came "shockingly close" to the FBI's Vietnam War-era Cointelpro operation to investigate domestic war protesters. "We fought a revolution in this country so we could protest the actions of our government," he said.
(Editing by Peter Cooney)


Thoughts? Do you feel it would be better off that we forget about the Bush years and move on? Or do you feel that he should be at least investigated to see if he really did break any laws?

[danzig]

Allow me to save money spent on this by Democrats and suggest both parties take a look at one of these as to what went on:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Viking Prince]

Partisans in Congress cannot be trusted with such a process. Let the historians sort this out. Leahy is at best dishonest in his intentions. He cannot be trusted to be fair or healing. What a load of ....

[k995]

Partisans in Congress cannot be trusted with such a process. Let the historians sort this out. Leahy is at best dishonest in his intentions. He cannot be trusted to be fair or healing. What a load of ....

yeah let the historians figure it out, so it will e quit to late to punish anyone who broke the law. good idea

Something like Pinochet from chili? Hope the US is a bit better then that you know.

[mongrel]

Partisans in Congress cannot be trusted with such a process. Let the historians sort this out. Leahy is at best dishonest in his intentions. He cannot be trusted to be fair or healing. What a load of ....

How about someone pulling a Pinochet and making a submission to an independent body, like the International Criminal Court?

[Admiral Piett]

Although I can see that there are some clearly partisian issues here, I cannot help but think how harmful it would be for this to be another Nixon incident. Someone who was clearly guilty of breaking laws and lying to the country repeatedly should be prosecuted, even if a light sentence.

I'm rather sick and tired of us as a nation not living up to the standards of the law and getting away with it or even being rewarded for it. As Al Pacino said, "Be careful what kind of leaders you are producing."

[Viking Prince]

And what do you mean by

how harmful it would be for this to be another Nixon incident

????

Nixon left office in disgrace for not seeking out those who were guilty. Are you suggesting that if the current office holders do not seek out guilty parties, they will be forced to leave office in disgrace???

btw --- it is clear that Nixon did not order or even suggest that such illegal break-in be made. He did not authorize the coverup and thought that the taped conversations in the oval office would prove him to be innocent of any wrong doing. The process backfired by the tapes being incomplete, the poor attitudes displayed, and the use of appalling language.

I cannot not see any tie in to the Bush presidency that can be furthered by bringing up Nixon.

[Admiral Piett]

And what do you mean by ????

Nixon left office in disgrace for not seeking out those who were guilty. Are you suggesting that if the current office holders do not seek out guilty parties, they will be forced to leave office in disgrace???

btw --- it is clear that Nixon did not order or even suggest that such illegal break-in be made. He did not authorize the coverup and thought that the taped conversations in the oval office would prove him to be innocent of any wrong doing. The process backfired by the tapes being incomplete, the poor attitudes displayed, and the use of appalling language.

I cannot not see any tie in to the Bush presidency that can be furthered by bringing up Nixon.

Honestly, I thought you knew a little more about that subject than you seem to. I used to do projects on the guy. Hell, he even admitted his guilt in the David Frost interview. The fact that he used federal agencies to spy on "enemies" and wiretap them alone is illegal. If you want, I can create a whole list of the things Nixon did and got away with. The American people needed a trial and a conviction, but that went away with Ford.

It's not about vengeance, it's about making an example that politicians are not above the law. Especially Presidents. When Nixon was let go scot-free, that created a bad example for future leaders. Namely Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. for getting away from prosecution for clear violations of the law.

[Viking Prince]

Honestly, I thought you knew a little more about that subject than you seem to. I used to do projects on the guy. Hell, he even admitted his guilt in the David Frost interview. The fact that he used federal agencies to spy on "enemies" and wiretap them alone is illegal. If you want, I can create a whole list of the things Nixon did and got away with. The American people needed a trial and a conviction, but that went away with Ford.

It's not about vengeance, it's about making an example that politicians are not above the law. Especially Presidents. When Nixon was let go scot-free, that created a bad example for future leaders. Namely Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. for getting away from prosecution for clear violations of the law.

I may know more than you think having lived through the process and listening to Chairman Sam each and every day of the hearings. As far as the Frost interview goes -- do not be confused with the movie.

Nixon did not go scot-free as you phrased it. The example was clear for future leadership. Resignation in disgrace for allowing those under you to go unpunished is an example of how the system should work. The "crime" was political more than criminal as far as Nixon himself was concerned. Keep this in mind when viewing the actual Frost interview and I think you will see where I am coming from.

As far as clear violations of the law with other presidents. What you seem to think is clear violation of the law is not with me. Reagan's guns for hostges deal is not a clear violation. Oliver North was grilled forever on the stands and there is no clear path to the President from the testimony or evidence presented. Clinton's perjured civil testimony is not a clear violation either since there was not conviction by the US Senate. Bush Jr. did not lie and did not do it under oath. Again the "crimes" are political and not criminal.

[Admiral Piett]

That's because politicians are professional liars and are often well versed in how to remove evidence and clean up the tracks. While I have seen the film, I have seen the end of the real Frost/Nixon debates. Just because they haven't been proven, doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

I do not agree with the mentality that if he has broken the law, that he should just be forced to resign from politics. Honestly, Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. Nixon did more serious illegal things than Watergate. No President can ever be surrounded by villains and criminals and be innocent. Things don't work like that. He is responsible for the staff who works for him.

And Reagan's Iran-Kontra affair did clearly violate a law passed by Congress banning all arms trade with them.

I don't care for the whole partisian things behind it either, I think the American people at least deserve an investigation.

[Viking Prince]

That's because politicians are professional liars and are often well versed in how to remove evidence and clean up the tracks. While I have seen the film, I have seen the end of the real Frost/Nixon debates. Just because they haven't been proven, doesn't mean they aren't guilty.

I do not agree with the mentality that if he has broken the law, that he should just be forced to resign from politics. Honestly, Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. Nixon did more serious illegal things than Watergate. No President can ever be surrounded by villains and criminals and be innocent. Things don't work like that. He is responsible for the staff who works for him.

And Reagan's Iran-Kontra affair did clearly violate a law passed by Congress banning all arms trade with them.

I don't care for the whole partisian things behind it either, I think the American people at least deserve an investigation.

Well, I kind of look at guilty until proven innocent as a bit against my personal beliefs. The same with guilt by association. As I stated, these are political transgressions and should be dealt with in such a manner. The actual crimes of those who commited the acts are a differant story and they have suffered the consequences of the criminal system when found guilty by a trial.

I noticed you did not make a comeback argument regarding Clinton. (Not that I am arguing that he committed criminal acts as President.)

[danzig]

That included the war in Iraq, he said. "There were lies told to the American people all the way through."

"Lies" Ill remind people that the congress help put forth, voted for etc. All of which could have been unraveled by a certain Clinton saying hey we just left the white house a year and half ago and this is all news to us. The lie thing is simply a non starter because there is no way they can prove the intention was to lie.

[Ulyaoth]

Just get over it. Seriously, Obama and the democrats ran on the lie that he was all for hope and looking forward to the future, obviously he'll just blame every damn problem that happens for however long(hopefully short) the democrats control the country on Bush.

[Sphere]

It's not about vengeance, it's about making an example that politicians are not above the law. Especially Presidents. When Nixon was let go scot-free, that created a bad example for future leaders. Namely Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. for getting away from prosecution for clear violations of the law.

I think the biggest shame is that there were many whistle blowers in the administration that spoke out agaisnt the use of torture. Colin Powel wrote a very strong memo to the president advising agaisnt it, but in the lower ranks simular memos were written by people in the FBI, JAG, and the State department. Several military prosecutors even resigned. If no investigations take place and no prosecutions result, what does that say to future whistle blowers within government departments? What does that say to those who might be asked to carry out simular things in the future? To me it says those who stick up for whats right should not expect eventual vindication, that the result will be the same if they speak out or not, the only thing that might be changed is their career, for the worse.

[Caelius]

How about someone pulling a Pinochet and making a submission to an independent body, like the International Criminal Court?

Would be unconstitutional.

[mongrel]

Would be unconstitutional.

Would be justice nonetheless, after all I can't see the difference between that and rendition, except the ICC would offer a fair trial.

[Hunter Makoy]

Any time spent wallowing over what Bush may or may not have done illegally will only make Obama and this congress look bad. Obama himself is against this.

[Zephyrus]

I am so ing tired of hypocrisy and elected leaders lying about their motives and actions to their populace. Its time accountability made a major comeback.

[Quadratus]

Just forget it, .

Democrats can't move on .

[Zephyrus]

Just forget it, .

Democrats can't move on .

This isn't a democratic or republican issue. This is about whther or not an elected official committed crimes for which he should be charged and brought to just. We can't afford another Nixon getting away with it otherwise the presidency will turn out to be a free ride for all the stupid little kids who want to get back at their hs tormentors in the form of legislative power. And its degrading to our Constitution and to the american people as it occurs.

Doubt they will prosecuted, he's too well protected and CNN mentions he's passed laws and orders covering himself for his actions.