The Daily of the University of Washington

Left, Right and Center: Should Obama prosecute members of Bush administration?

January 27, 2009


Conservative

By John Fay


There was once a politician who became president by focusing on a cleavage social issue that divided the American people. He led our nation into a long, bloody war that many thought was unprovoked, illegal and immoral. At home he used the war to justify taking away many civil liberties. Abroad he was seen as an ill-educated western bumpkin and America’s image during his presidency was notoriously bad. Even during the war itself he was accused of incompetence and failed to face reality. Indeed historians have a hard time thinking of any president who was more unpopular during his era than Abraham Lincoln.

President Obama is self-consciously trying to lay claim to the Lincoln legacy. However, if he is clever, he may begrudgingly admit that in many ways Lincoln has more in common with fellow Republican George W. Bush than he does with Obama. Bush left office with a 32 percent approval rating, so by any measure he was unpopular. Unpopularity, of course, is not a crime, which then begs the question of why exactly anyone would seriously contend that he or his administration should be subject to prosecution. The reality is most of those clamoring for such actions are not doing so because of any specific Bush policies. People were already calling Bush the worst president in history in 2001, before anyone had heard of Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act or other supposed “crimes.”

Bush stands for democracy. A democracy is a society where people of different opinions get together to politely discuss their differences in a mature manner. Calling for Bush’s prosecution is evidence that many of the former president’s critics no longer believe someone has the right to respectfully disagree with them. To their way of thinking, the very fact that Bush worshipped openly, opposed abortion and gay marriage and embraced a more aggressive military policy meant that he had to be evil. His real crime, in short, was a crime of thought. As president of the United States, Bush dared to think differently — an unforgiveable act. Now his opponents are out for revenge.

President Obama has not hesitated to be a vocal critic of the Bush administration for the past two years, so for that reason people here might be misled into thinking that he is likely to prosecute Bush for his “crimes.” In reality, however, Obama will prove too smart for that. He knows, as the examples of both Lincoln and Bush demonstrate, that popularity is a very fleeting thing. He knows that when he leaves office he may very well be just as unpopular as Bush is now and that his political opponents will take advantage of any precedent he set by prosecuting Bush to justify prosecuting him.

Obama is particularly vulnerable to a loss of popularity, since as president he will need to make decisions rather than issue platitudes. When he does, the American people will discover the vast difference between his lofty rhetoric and his less idealistic policies. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.

Liberal

By Greg Ryan


Torture committed by the previous administration was illegal and those responsible must pay the price. Obama is backing away from the issue, but there is hope yet.

Amid all the pomp and optimism of the inauguration there is a steadily growing anxiety among all Americans who value the continuity of our government under the rule of law.

These same Americans have been overcome with pride in their country and a renewed belief in the efficacy of the democratic system.

The president’s executive orders to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year, to halt all terrorism trials pending review and to stop all torture by U.S. personnel have renewed our collective sense of justice.

Closing Guantanamo and not torturing anyone else from this point forward represents an important and profound change for the better, but this can’t really be described as justice.

Serving justice requires that those who committed injustices — and broke U.S. law — be punished. It is now apparent that Obama’s campaign promise to “look forward and not backward” may have been sincere. Covering up or ignoring war crimes is neither bipartisan nor civil.

Eric Holder, the incoming attorney general, has gone out of his way to make clear to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will fiercely prosecute any crimes surrounding terrorism charges, but has given no mention of prosecuting equally heinous American war crimes.

The day after the inauguration, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee put a one-week hold on Holder’s confirmation because they want him to promise not to prosecute past torture. If the rule of law is to continue on this continent then those who defied it must be brought to justice.

Obama is clearly worried about the political and cultural nightmare of prosecuting Bush administration officials. This explains his resistance to crusade on the issue. It does not, thankfully, preclude investigations taking place.

After all, Obama was a constitutional law professor and is an American citizen. He must feel in his gut the assault to our way of life. He’s also a smart politician. He knows how to get results in Washington. He knows that if his justice department were to prosecute any previous administration officials it would have to do so with bipartisan credibility.

If it appears Obama and Holder are chomping at the bit to throw Donald Rumsfeld in jail from day one, they will inevitably fail.

But if more and more whistleblowers slowly come out of the woodwork — like the post-Inauguration revelations from former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice — and if more and more damning testimony is painstakingly gathered on the record in low-level investigations and plea deals, they may be forced to act.

Then and only then can the desired crescendo of justice be achieved. So the left must keep up the fight and not let up on the indignation at these perversions of justice until they are remedied. We should likewise not give up hope on Obama’s sense of justice or the strength of our democracy to triumph over even our own evils.

Reach columnist Greg Ryan at opinion@dailyuw.com.

Moderate

By Katie Paff


As Obama settles into his role as the 44th president of the United States, the global economic crisis will take center stage for the foreseeable future. As the unemployment rate mounts and increasing numbers of Americans join the unemployment lines, passing some sort of economic relief package is priority one for the new presidential administration.

Talk has been buzzing around Washington, D.C. as to whether the Obama administration is likely to prosecute members of the Bush administration for alleged misconduct; however, I do not believe this will happen, nor that it should. For one thing, according to Atlantic Monthly’s top political blogger Marc Ambinder, President Obama’s administration has indicated that it doesn’t intend to prosecute intelligence officers or former administration officials for their conduct during the Bush years. Instead, they may form a commission to investigate what went on without necessarily going forward with a formal prosecution; in my opinion, this is a much smarter idea.

Ambinder writes: “Dawn Johnsen, the incoming head of the Office of Legal Council, has called for a Truth Commission-esque accounting of everything that’s gone on. Obama’s nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, pointedly would not tell Senators whether he would prosecute intelligence officers. ... The continuum is long: the administration could do nothing and say nothing and let things be, hashing out their differences in private as all the facts come to light.”

Ultimately, Ambinder notes that the Intelligence and Judiciary committees in the Senate will have intellectual jurisdiction over Obama’s decision making process.

While prosecuting former Bush administration officials now may have been a top priority a few years ago in better times, the dire economic climate that we’re currently in requires 100 percent of Obama’s attention at the moment — our new president must look forward as he works to bring our country out of a recession many compare as being close to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

I am sure most of the country would agree, especially those directly affected by the recession through job loss, or whose savings have disappeared. To focus on prosecuting former Bush administration officials at a time like this would most likely be an outrage to the majority of the American people who are hurting because of the recession.

This is not to say that the actions of certain members of the Bush administration weren’t reprehensible, as they were. However, in order to lead the nation out of this, Obama really must be completely forward-looking. He must take swift action to put the unemployed back to work, do whatever it takes to save the remaining ailing banks and insist that Congress put a working economic stimulus package on his desk by February. Now is not the time to focus on the past.

Reach columnist Katie Paff at opinion@daiyuw.com.


22 Comments

#1 Greg R.
(Seattle, WA)
on January 26, 2009 at 10:35 p.m.

Torture is illegal John. So is holding people without charge, wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, and using the DOJ and U.S. Attorneys for politically motivated prosecutions. Illegal.

#2 Nick J.
(UW Campus)
on January 26, 2009 at 11:19 p.m.

Greg, you need to do some research, and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

First of all, you never got wiretapped and I never got wiretapped. In fact, we don't know of anyone who got wiretapped, so stop acting as if you have knowledge of what Bush did and to whom he did it.

Secondly, terrorists don't get rights under our Constitution nor under the Geneva convention, so you can stop all your whining about torture (to liberals, torture is playing music too loudly in their prison cells), and holding them w/o trial.

#3 Kristin C.
(Seattle, WA)
on January 26, 2009 at 11:56 p.m.

To characterize the actions for which George Bush might be held responsible as "worshipping openly" or "opposing abortion" is disingenuous. Like quite a few on the Right you seem to believe that some people are calling for Bush & Co.'s accountability for disagreeing with them, but (once again) you have missed the mark by a mile.

The only any of this is going to get anywhere is if people stop with the straw men and red herrings and be truthful with themselves.

True, time will tell, as it did with Lincoln, whether the activities in which the former president's administration participated were wrong-headed, immoral, or criminal. But you have either intentionally muddied the issue by saying that those calling for accountability are whiny baby pee-pantses, or you really just don't get it.

#4 god
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
on January 27, 2009 at 2:30 a.m.

a suggestion for john fay:

kill yourself.

#5 Lucas A.
(UW Campus)
on January 27, 2009 at 11:57 a.m.

John,
I'll admit that I am not on your side, but you could have easily made sound, well constructed arguments against prosecution. Instead, you put out a mediocre testament to Bush's "legacy", filled with cliche sayings and ideas.

You didn't prove anything before your claim on unpopularity, so your use of "begs the question" was not only wrong by definition (begs the question /= raises the question), it was rhetorically wrong as well. Unpopularity is clearly not the main or only issue.

Stands for Democracy? Thinking differently? Democratically, we elected Bush to represent America on a global scale, and to hold true to the "thoughts" on the issues he won the presidency with. On multiple occasions, he did neither, and the crime is then against the American people.

If you would have focused on reasoning like you started to use in the second to last paragraph, the article may have had more believability, and be less open to partisan criticism.

#6 Lucky Jim
(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
on January 27, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.

You know John, I finally get you. You're a parody of right-wing columnists, like Jonah Goldberg or Bill Kristol. The type that thinks they're intellectuals even though they have absolutely no understanding of the topics they're talking about.

My hats off to you for your amazingly accurate parodies. Keep up the good work!

#7 Will
(UW Campus | Unverified Name)
on January 27, 2009 at 5:05 p.m.

How can Natalie Sikavi read "the reality is most of those clamoring for such actions are not doing so because of any specific Bush policies" and not question Fay's continued publication? Surely in the entire University there is at least 1 conservative writer who isn't too dumb to even get the premise of this question- torture. That's why Eric Holder's nomination is held up, that's why Senate Republicans want a pledge from him not to prosecute Bush Administration officials. That's why this question is being asked!

It's like Fay realized he had a report due in 20 minutes for a book he hadn't read, so he just tried bluster to cover for his ignorance.

#8 George B.
(Lakewood, WA | Unverified Name)
on January 27, 2009 at 8:03 p.m.

john fay is one of the greatest minds this generation

#9 Nick
(New York, NY | Unverified Name)
on January 27, 2009 at 8:23 p.m.

Of course we shouldn't prosecute the Bush administration. Whether you like what they did or not, it is doubtless that at worst they are in a gray area according to our law. Most likely they haven't done anything technically illegal. It sets a bizarre and dangerous precedent to punish the administration after it leaves office with criminal prosecution. Grow up, you won the election and Bush is gone. Find someone new to hate.

#10 Kristin C.
(Seattle, WA)
on January 27, 2009 at 9:05 p.m.

Will @#7:

That seems to be the way John Fay writes. I did happen to notice that the two counterpoints to this article were up on the site for several hours before Fay's article landed. It lends a little support to that theory of yours.

#11 Matthew Z.
(Location Unknown)
on January 28, 2009 at 12:36 p.m.

Mr. Fay, I think that you might benefit from learning how to use logic and evidence. You've certainly put yourself at a disadvantage as far as trust is concerned, which requires that you make a somewhat greater effort to be taken seriously.

George B. hit the nail on the head, though.

#12 NOt again
(Bremerton, WA | Unverified Name)
on January 28, 2009 at 2:26 p.m.

OH fucking great, John Fay is back. What the hell man? I thought this dumbass went to hell already.

#13 Rohan S.
(Seattle, WA)
on January 28, 2009 at 3:21 p.m.

#2: "Secondly, terrorists don't get rights under our Constitution nor under the Geneva convention, so you can stop all your whining about torture..."

Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

unalienable: adj.: Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable.

5th Amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

person: n.: A living human.

Note how the 5th Amendment is not limited by the citizenship of the person, or where they were captured or where they are being held.

#14 Nick
(New York, NY | Unverified Name)
on January 28, 2009 at 4:15 p.m.

Doesnt that just depend on what the due process is in the particular situation. There is a long history of not requiring prisoners of war to be tried in a court of law in order to be held until the end of hostilities. Can't you liberals ever disagree with something without insisting that it is unconstitutional.

#15 That depends.
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
on January 28, 2009 at 8:55 p.m.

Can't you conservatives ever DO anything without it being unconstitutional?

#16 Rohan S.
(Woodinville, WA)
on January 29, 2009 at 3 a.m.

#14: I disagree with a lot of things that I don't think are unconstitutional. I also try to debate in specifics, not with generalizations about "you liberals" and "you conservatives".

I absolutely agree that due process is different in different situations. I was disagreeing with your original point that alleged terrorists "don't get any rights under our Constitution", allowing them to be held indefinitely and be tortured.

#17 Nick
(New York, NY | Unverified Name)
on January 31, 2009 at 10:28 p.m.

Different Nick... That wasn't me. The fact remains that there is no real basis for prosecuting the previous administration. They have committed no actual crime and it sets a really bad and dumb precedent.

#18 Nick J.
(None, None)
on February 1, 2009 at 11:22 a.m.

So we have three different Nick's commenting on this article, haha? Wow.

#19 Russ W.
(Redmond, WA)
on February 2, 2009 at 1:01 a.m.

Comrade Holder! Doubleplusungood unperson Gonzalez needs to be sent to the gulag!

Criminalizing policy differences is the path to madness.

#20 indi
(Redmond, WA | Unverified Name)
on February 2, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.

I think the worst "crime" being committed by any president was having oral sex with an intern in the White House while talking on the phone with a foreign leader(just picture it!). I remembered a mother being interviewed said that she was glad to have Clinton as a president because she could teach her children to be NOT like him. Do you think the US can ever preach any moral standard to anyone in the world since then?

#21 Really.
(Olympia, WA | Unverified Name)
on February 4, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.

Are you SERIOUS, Indi?

In one corner, we have activities called torture by many. The point is rarely argued whether these things actually happened but whether terrorists had the right not to be subjected to them. Waterboarding. Abu Ghraib. All that.

In the other corner . . . oral sex.

DUH DUH DUNNNNNH!

Ugh. Seriously? That's what it's come to? I see now - of COURSE Republicans can't let up on reproductive rights or interfering with what people do in their own sex lives -- because how else would they vilify Bill Clinton and say that oral sex is worse than WATERBOARDING?

Again, ugh.

#22 johnfayisgay
(Portland, OR)
on February 7, 2009 at 6:25 p.m.

for all you john fay fans out there, check this out. he must be in the closet still:

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-a...


Post a comment

You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.

If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.

1 Comments

#1 Max W.
(Seattle, WA)
on February 27, 2009 at 9:51 p.m.

Nicely done sir. Nicely done


Post a comment

You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.

If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.

0 Comments


Post a comment

You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.

If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.