"DEAN: ...he told Will Bunch earlier this year, that immediately upon becoming president if he were elected, he would have his attorney general investigate this very question as to whether these war crimes are just stupid policies or very serious and egregious crimes. A commission is far away from that. A commission is passing the buck. And I've got to tell you also, Keith, in the unraveling of Watergate, we had many high level discussions about how to make it all go away without anybody having liability. We considered many times a commission."

---------------

We might just as well have a truth and reconciliation commission. If we know going in that no one will be accountable, at least we can try to get as much of the truth out there as possible. Such commissions have been set up in the past in countries emerging from periods of intense conflict, corruption, etc., and the US, likewise, is ripe for a public correction of the historical record, at the very least.

I have a big problem with the way Obama posed the question in bold. Is there anyone who believes the actions of this administration can be excused as mere "stupid policies"?? Why even start with the rhetorical option of "unfortunate but excusable" in there? Why isn't the question more like, "where did these war crimes originate and what will the consequences be for those responsible"?

But as Glenn said to Moyers, the Democrats have been guilty of acquiescing, or worse, in many of these lawless policies and actions, so even if Obama really has the will to do justice, his hands are tied. And his behavior regarding FISA seems to indicate just how much will he has.

From "Will War Crimes be Outed?" in The Nation:

-----

A growing body of legal opinion holds that Obama will have a duty to investigate war crimes allegations and, if they are found to have merit, to prosecute the perpetrators.

In a December 3 Chicago Sun-Times op-ed, law professors Anthony D'Amato (the Leighton Professor at Northwestern University School of Law) and Jordan J. Paust (the Mike & Thersa Baker Professor at the Law Center of the University of Houston) ask whether president-elect Barack Obama will have "the duty to prosecute or extradite persons who are reasonably accused of having committed and abetted war crimes or crimes against humanity during the Bush administration's admitted 'program' of 'coercive interrogation' and secret detention that was part of a 'common, unifying' plan to deny protections under the Geneva Conventions."

They answer, "Yes."

"Under the US Constitution, the president is expressly and unavoidably bound to faithfully execute the laws." The 1949 Geneva Conventions "expressly and unavoidably requires that all parties search for perpetrators of grave breaches of the treaty" and bring them before their own courts for "effective penal sanctions" or, if they prefer, "hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party."

The statement is particularly authoritative--and particularly striking--because Paust is also a former captain in the United States Army JAG Corps and member of the faculty at the Judge Advocate General's School.

Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights says that one of Barack Obama's first acts as president should be to "instruct his attorney general to appoint an independent prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation of former Bush Administration officials who gave the green light to torture."

...[but]...

Asked if Bush administration officials would face prosecution for war crimes, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy flatly said, "In the United States, no," but he does intend to continue to investigate Bush administration officials and their interrogation policies. "Personally, I would like to know exactly what happened. Torture is going to be a major issue."

-------------

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/brecher_smith?rel=hp_currently

I wonder if anyone asked Leahy why he thinks it is OK to let these crimes go unpunished, and what exactly he thinks his job is.

Glenn writes: "Obama's 'inclusiveness' mantra always seems to head only in one direction -- an excuse to scorn progressives and embrace the Right."

Exactly. And Obama is delusional if he doesn't realize that he is dealing with scorpions here.

And, is this part of his plan for greatness? --to use "pragmatism" (which is, fundamentally, a way of avoiding the big struggles that must come to anyone who has strong convictions) in order to make himself palatable to the knuckle-draggers so they won't go after him like they did Clinton? To appear as the magnanimous, all-embracing leader by Othering our most passionate, politically aware citizens?

Of course, he is counting on the majority who voted for him to go to political sleep now and let him get on with things.

Bill Maher.

No, I am not kidding. All of Obama's rhetoric about inclusiveness deliberately overlooks what The Nation has found to be nearly one quarter of the population (atheists, agnostics, apatheists, non-church-goers, etc.) for whom "God" has either a minor or no meaningful place in our lives.

What about us? WTF?

I agree, it is a strange thing to say. It's not like Obama is our father and we are in danger of losing his love, approval, whatever. I am not sure what kind of metaphorical relationship to invoke from Sullivan's words other than that.

And politicians, in any case, have to be thick-skinned creatures, or they wouldn't be able to tolerate the job.

If Obama has plans that are in our interests, and he changes them because of some (rational) criticism over this religious homophobic antifeminist wingnut, then he doesn't have the strength of his convictions, in which case, there is nothing there to "throw away."