So, how does a new president pragmatically deal with the high crimes of the prior regime?

[JackRiddler]

There are those who still defend Clinton's 1993 strategy of letting the Bush Sr. administration and its cronies get away with high crimes involving illegal covert operations, drug dealing, and bank fraud, although this historically paved the way for the later Bush Jr. regime, which recruited nearly all of its key policymaking personnel directly from the worst of the Iran-Contra circles and 1980s banking scam perpetrators.

One famous DU denizen once argued to me in person that, after all, Clinton couldn't do anything! He was only the president, not a prosecutor.

Now we'll hear that if Obama doesn't follow the same strategy, he'll be seen as a partisan, stuck in the past, etc. etc.

Which is bullshit, I'm sorry. Because what I would expect from a president committed to the law and the necessity of punishing crime is simple -- albeit NOT easy -- necessary, legal and right:

1) Appoint a few prosecutors who think government crime is a very high priority.

2) Don't stand in their way. Give them what they need when they ask for it.

3) Appoint Inspector Generals who think government crime is a very high priority.

4) Don't stand in their way. Give them what they need when they ask for it.

5) Ditto with key investigative agencies like the SEC (where the corruption is so awesome you probably need to fire everybody current as well as triple the personnel, but never mind the specifics...)

6) Adopt a policy of proactively releasing stores of information relevant to government crime as these are found. See to it that such revelations get talked about. (This isn't difficult, and it hardly need be done from the presidential pulpit.)

7) Ease up on the FOIA restrictions and such -- pursue sunshine policy.

8) Whenever the controversies relating to the criminal acts of the prior regime come back to the president in a question, he can say that truth, openness, accountability and justice are the highest values, but of course he's only learning about these cases and waiting to see where they lead, like everyone else.

9) Don't take up rhetorical bandwidth with meaningless feel-good bullshit about "moving on." It's not that you attack the idea of it, it's that you don't promote it, that's all.

10) When the criminality of the departed regime has become universally obvious and stirred universal revulsion, appoint a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the South African model. This awards varying degrees of immunity in exchange for testimony, with the main goal of assuring that the full, unvarnished truth about all regime activities comes to light and becomes a part of a historical record.

Put committed upstanding people of courage in place, give them support when they need it, let the critical mass be achieved. Understand that exposure, education and history are just as important as punishing at least some of the perpetrators as examples to posterity.

[ecstatic]

1. Good ideas, but my concerns would be about the cost

and the taking away of resources that regular Americans desperately need. Don't get me wrong, Bush committed crimes and belongs behind bars... but the American people are really suffering and should get priority.

Is there a statue of limitations of how long we can wait before trying BushCo? Can we wait until the economy is a little better?

[DCKit]

14. The Republics thought nothing of spending $500 million persecuting Clinton...

We should be willing to pony up at least that amount. And it's not as if we don't know what crimes they committed. Ken Starr was grasping at straws, so knowing what we're looking for should decrease the cost drastically - the Constitutional crimes and treason alone should preclude any further action.

It's a bargain at any price!

[northernlights]

25. what's the cost of *not* doing it?

It will employ a bunch of lawyers, legal assistants, detectives, and IT people.

And the costs can be mitigated by de-funding unnecessary and harmful projects, eg R&D for new nuclear bombs and WMDs.

[90-percent]

2. Costs?

The USA is the most incarcerated nation in the world. We already got the infrastructure to try and jail over 1% of our entire population. The cost to prosecute these war criminals is already built in to our prison industrial complex.

The cost of prosecuting all the White House Traitors is insignificant and should not be part of the argument.

If we care about the future and what America will be like in 50 years, we owe it to our heirs to prosecute these bastards to the full extend of our millions of laws!

-90% jimmy

[JackRiddler]

4. About 1% of what you'd save by ending or even just scaling back the "drug war"

and releasing a few hundred thousand non-violent drug "offenders."

What's the cost of a system that rewards treason, plunder and tyranny?

[glitch]

5. About $14 Trillion some have projected. May be low ball. nt

[JackRiddler]

10. Not a bad guess for the ballpark or scale of it...

It's inestimable, but yeah: lots of trillions. Unknown costs for Iraq when you include all consequences probably around $2 trillion so far, says Joseph Stiglitz (who for some reason is not the new Treasury Secretary). Trillions in assets literally "missing" from the Pentagon and other agencies, with no clue of how much was stolen, how much accounted falsely. You don't know what the $7 trillion in Treasury and Fed money so far committed to the bailout actually means. Even if all of it comes back (cough *bullshit* cough), it was still a heist, they got bridge money that you or I would never see (proportionately speaking) if we bankrupted ourselves by engaging in plainly immoral, probably illegal and certainly reckless scam activities.

ETC ETC ETC

But keep it simple, focus on top-level: the Iraq war architects, the Halliburton/Blackwater Pentagon contractor complex, the War on Terror torture facilitators, the Treasury plunder crew (start at the SEC itself and the ratings agencies) ... and let that lead to covert ops as these are revealed.

Oh well. Nice fantasy, right?

[glitch]

19. I like it, from Stiglitz as Treasury Sec to keep the focus simple for prosecutions. Initially. nt

[JackRiddler]

20. Well, Geithner may actually go down...

and truth to tell, of the various highly distressing Obama cabinet picks, he's the one I'd send packing first. Even before Gates.

So you can always dream about the progressive lottery you're about to hit with Paul Krugman.

Ha. ha. ha.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Agreed.

Obama should empower objective/politically nuetral investigations, but he should stay above the fray. Let the facts take us where they lead us. If we don't do this, we, as a nation, will be doomed to relive the same mistakes - and, next time, there may be no reversal from them.

[Hydra]

6. Obama is the one steering the ship

Will he steer toward greater secrecy and support people getting off for treason, or will he steer towards accountability and the daylight you mentioned?

Time will tell.

[bvar22]

7. K&R

Let the chips fall where they may.
:dem:

[Vincardog]

8. I am with you till you get to #10. Their lies and treachery are already in the historical record

The commission should have at it's heart the prosecution and conviction of criminals and traitors.

[JackRiddler]

12. Do you really know that?

Even if you think you know every crime they committed, or at least the major ones -- and I bet we don't! -- surely you see it's different to the people when you or Vincent Bugliosi says it or even proves it in a book, and when one of them actually confesses to it on TV.

Anyway, it's the strategy of prosecutors writ large: Give immunity to those who talk so you can round up the rest and put an end to the criminal organization.

[suston96]

9. Fuggedabout it. The term for this is "utilitarianism".......

....Where should the efforts be made within time and monetary constraints? The past, sordid and criminal as it might be, or the future, in fact - the present - with all its dangers and vital necessities.

What would be more useful, if not vital to the nation and its citizens.......dealing with the past or concentrating on what is happening right now?

[JackRiddler]

11. Sorry, the term for that is "insanity"

Letting the same thing happen again and again, always pretending you don't know how you got there.

"What is happening right now" is the consequence of the past, in this case of demonstrable past crime. Learning about it is the best thing that could happen to the nation and its citizens, it will free them to prevent future crime, and possibly even to secure the return of some of what has been taken from them materially.

Your apparent logic: "Oh, sorry your son was shot, Mrs. Smith! But let's not dwell on the sordid past and bother you with an investigation. You have dangers and vital necessities to deal with, like next month's rent, and we have limited resources. (As for the murderer... he doesn't even exist. He was like, a force of nature, and now thank god he's gone, you know?)"

A government can accomplish more than one thing. I doubt you even read the OP, by the way, as it emphasizes that the main thing is to appoint serious personnel in the key law enforcement positions of prosecutors and inspectors general, and let them do their jobs.

Thanks for playing.

[TheKentuckian]

13. Appoint competent people that follow the law (letter and spirit) and get out of the way

What else can you do? Even if you wanted to stay away from the entire subject, smirk and sneer keep going on national TV and admitting to their crimes and defying justice.

[DCKit]

15. Cheney's claim of Executive Privilege while claiming to be apart from the Executive...

still gets me. That level of arrogance should be illegal in and of itself.

[JackRiddler]

16. Yeah, there ought to be a Court of Logic with no-appeals sentencing power.

[kenny blankenship]

17. It depends on whether you want these crimes to recur in the future

If you don't want this to happen again you must prosecute. If you would like to see the same crimes in the future, or you just don't give a damn, then you should turn a blind eye to what your predecessor did, and move on for the sake of letting sleeping dogs lie, and maybe committing a few crimes of your own. In that case you will definitely see the same things happen again, only next time, if history is any guide, it will be worse.

[JackRiddler]

18. Yes, there's always the possibility...

that you're one of them, looking to join them, or just plain not willing to rock the boat or risk yourself.

[Prophet 451]

21. Simple way to deal with it

Investigate, prosecute, imprison if required. No-one is above the rule of law.

[JackRiddler]

23. "No one is above the rule of law" - the Republican line...

when they were going after Clinton personally for bullshit that had nothing to do with politics for eight years. It counts for lying about a blowjob, apparently, but not for lying to start a war that kills a million people.

And they will try to do the same with Obama or his cabinet choices or whatever they can get started, with much help from the corporate media. So it's not a choice between prosecution of war crimes or "moving on"; it's a choice of whether the focus on the past will be on the crimes the Bush regime actually did, or on bullshit accusations raised to handicap the Obama administration.

[Prophet 451]

24. I actually believe in it

I thought Clinton did deserve to be punished for perjuring himself. Although I thought that impeachment was excessive and blatantly politically motivated, some kind of slap on the wrist (as it was a fairly harmless lie) was probably justified.

The Bushmen must answer for their crimes. If Clinton had to answer for what was a fairly minor crime (although still a crime), then BushCo must answer for their far more egregious offences. If they think their actions were justified, fine. Give them their day in court and let them try to justify themselves.

[JackRiddler]

27. Yes, of course, you have to believe in it...

And we're in agreement. Just pointing out the awesome hypocrisy of the way those words used, by roughly the same group who will now benefit from "move on."

[JackRiddler]

22. kick

[Malikshah]

26. The cost of not pursuing the investigation and prosectution far outweighs any

political pragmatism.

It is not about "how history will look at us" as much as it is about, "how will we be able to function in the world now"? if we allow the criminals to walk.

End of story. Nothing easier.

[JackRiddler]

28. I agree, and therefore it's important to take away the

lie that letting crime pay = "pragmatism" or "realism."

It's not.

[JackRiddler]

29. The "Bush is a good guy" kick (Obama already ditching Step 9 above)

[JackRiddler]

30. The Bush preparing to pardon the whole cabal, maybe, kick.

[JackRiddler]

31. I forgot the most obvious step, of course...

Quietly tell Reid and Pelosi to GTFO of the way of Kucinich, Conyers, Waxman, possibly Kerry and others in Congress who are halfway serious about investigations. Give them what they need, don't stand in their way, let them fulfill their Congressional oversight function finally.

[Still Sensible]

32. I generally agree with the OP and have three concerns

for those that are hell bent that jailing Bush and his minions must be the primary goal of the new administration:

First, our courts at both the district and circuit levels are now flooded with Bush appointees. I suspect any success would be limited to very specific deeds--we're not going to get broad brush prosecutions. Further, it is a good bet that the Bushes and Cheneys and Rumsfelds have enough layers of protection that it would only be sacrificial underlings that get nailed. And if the slam-dunk evidence against Bush is that he admitted to authorizing the torture of man who confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks... doubtful you'd seat a jury willing to convict for that.

Second, I wonder if we really want to set a precedent that each new party administration devotes itself to criminally prosecuting the one before it. Were laws broken--both domestic and international? Even if you believe they were, this precedent could have had Abe Lincoln prosecuted for suspending habeas corpus, or FDR prosecuted for the internment of Asian Americans, or Harry Truman for authorizing dropping the A-bomb. Revenge is a powerful motive, but I don't like the precedent.

Finally, if the Rove GOP has managed to hammer home one point to the persuadable electorate in the last eight years it is the "...it's just politics" meme when wrongdoing allegations come to light and the shit starts to fly. IMHO, the last thing the new Obama administration needs to do, with all that is obviously on its plate from day one, is to look like they are busy playing revenge politics while Rome burns.