Congressman Nadler: Obama Violating Law by Not Investigating Bush

Saturday, August 22, 2009

s-OBAMA-BUSH-large

New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, tells the Huffington Post that he believes President Obama would be breaking the law if he decided to oppose launching investigation into the authorization of torture.

According to Nadler:

“If they follow the law they have no choice. [AG] Eric Holder was strongly inclined to support a special prosecutor. But not for the lawyers who wrote the memos justifying the torture, and not for anybody who acted within the scope of those memos; only for some local level guy who acted beyond the scope of those memos, who waterboarded with too much water or whatever.”

Nadler understands the politics of such prosecution:

“If you start prosecuting the Bush people, you know what is going to be said? What’s going to be said is, this is politically motivated payback for the Clinton impeachment. That is what they are going to say. And you know that if you do this, there is going to be a tremendous pushback starting with Fox News and everywhere else. Who needs that? So from a political point of view it is the last thing you want to do. From a point of view of reestablishing justice in this country, it is essential.”

Congressman Nadler is correct. If President Obama follows the law and pursues criminal prosecution against the Bush administration, there will be tremendous push back by FOX News. But if the president fails to act, we will be a nation not governed by laws and principles but by Rupert Murdock.

This entry was posted in George Bush, News, Politics, President Barack Obama and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Congressman Nadler: Obama Violating Law by Not Investigating Bush

  1. Douglass Lewis says:

    Piling on, if healthcare tanks, now the Republicans can add that to the blame-game they would claim is behind the Obama administration targeting former President Bush and his team.

    I will be shocked if Obama does it.

    His plate is full and I think we’re discovering he isn’t the tough, Southside Chicagoan we were led to believe.

  2. Mauigirl says:

    I’m afraid we’re already a country governed by Rupert Murdoch. It may be too late to save it…

  3. I can’t believe you all have forgotten about the proclamation of the late, great Nixon.

  4. Brigadoon says:

    If President Obama is afraid to stand-up to that GOP douchebag, Sen. Chuck Grassley, I seriously doubt he has the courage to go after the Bush junta. These are genuinely evil men and women and from what I’ve seen so far, the president will walk on the ceiling to avoid a conflict.

  5. Bob Baker says:

    I’ve not been following this thred but I shall now. I just read:
    “By Christopher di Spirito
    “If you start prosecuting the Bush people, you know what is going to be said? What’s going to be said is, this is politically motivated payback for the Clinton impeachment. That is what they are going to say.”

    Chris is completely wrong about this. This is no kind of payback! On it’s own merits, the invasion of the wrong country based on totally established lives and the murder of thousands and thousands of innocent men women and children, allowing Cheney to authorize the rape of children to extract information from their parents etc.,etc., etc. is not in the same league with getting sexual with a female aid and abusing a cigar!

    Bush must be held accountable for what he has done to those people. No if ands or buts.

  6. bradfrmphnx says:

    I don’t think Christopher is wrong. He didn’t say it was a payback, he said that the right would say it was a payback. And he is further correct in stating that Faux News will take the ball and run with it.

    But I will grant you, Bob Baker, that Bush must be held accountable for his actions, and the actions of those underneath him. This is the first time I have heard of a child being raped to extract information from the parent. Even for Cheney’s dogs that seems hard to believe. Who could do such a thing?

    I doubt if Bushy will ever be brought to justice. Wish he would, but he won’t.

  7. Bob Baker,

    If go go back and reread what I posted and what you wrote, you will see what you attributed to me is from Congressman Jerry Nadler:

    “If you start prosecuting the Bush people, you know what is going to be said? What’s going to be said is, this is politically motivated payback for the Clinton impeachment. That is what they are going to say.”

    I believe Nadler is correct — there will be blow back if President Obama prosecutes the Bushites. But I went onto say:

    “If President Obama follows the law and pursues criminal prosecution against the Bush administration, there will be tremendous push back by FOX News. But if the president fails to act, we will be a nation not governed by laws and principles but by Rupert Murdock.”

    I stand by this statement. We are either a nation of laws and principles, where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is enshrined and upheld or, we are a nation governed by Rupert Murdock.

  8. R.J. says:

    I think Obama is smart enough to wait until he gets re-elected in ’12 to start prosecuting the Bush administration. Even if he loses re-election, he’ll still have ten weeks to start the prosecution process.

  9. VicoDANIEL says:

    Prosecuting the Bushies will be unavoidable after the previously banned CIA torture report hits the news which reveals the degree of criminal abuses and human rights violations that took place during Bush’s time in office.

    If the Obama Dept. of Justice refuses to act, then the Senate and House Judiciary Committees will act respectively and prosecute these people.

    Nevermind restoring justice to the damaged USA, I think this is a national security matter.

    vicodaniel1987@yahoo.com

  10. libhomo says:

    Nadler’s opposition to impeachment during the Bush regime pretty much discredited him as far as I’m concerned.

  11. Idaho Librul says:

    I am no expert on the machinations of Federal government but is it necessary for President Obama to approve or sign-off on a criminal investigation of former Bush people?

    Why can’t the House and Senate just act?

  12. Well, Nadler gets a point for being consistent. I was upset when he was against impeachment, but he said investigation should be had after the administration was out of power. I thought that it was unlikely that an investigation would happen given this congress, but it sounds like he is standing by his word. I just may have to vote for him in 2010 [Note: I’m a constituent who did not vote for him in 2008 because of his position on impeachment.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s