For the sake of national security and national unity, President-elect Barack Obama should put a stop to efforts to investigate or prosecute Bush administration officials for anti-terror war crimes.
The motive behind such efforts is not as claimed truth or justice, but political vengeance.
Republicans hated President Clinton and a GOP House impeached him. Many Democrats hate George W. Bush with equal or even greater passion, but they demurred on the idea of impeachment mainly because the action against Clinton hurt the GOP more than it hurt Clinton.
But now Bush haters are calling for the Obama administration to investigate Bush officials for alleged war crimes and other misdeeds connected with the war on terror.
Obama should make it clear right now that he opposes such action and also that he opposes the compromise idea of a truth commission to investigate alleged Bush-era wrongdoing.
The main reason has less to do with turning the page, uniting the country and letting bygones be bygones all good Obama impulses than with preserving the morale of intelligence professionals in wartime.
If a special prosecutor were to be appointed to investigate possible criminality involved in detainee interrogations, extraordinary renditions or terrorist surveillance, its not only Bush-era top officials whod have to hire lawyers to defend themselves, but lower-down intelligence operatives as well.
The same would be true if Congress created a truth commission with subpoena power to report on Bush-era policies. The operatives wouldnt have to fear prosecution, but theyd still have to worry about their reputations.
And, when President Obama calls on the CIA to undertake a dangerous mission perhaps a terrorist snatch in the tribal areas of Pakistan or the assassination of Osama bin Laden any agent directed to undertake it would justifiably demand a legal opinion first.
And CIA lawyers, too, would err on the side of caution to avoid future second-guessing.
The latest call for a punitive action came from the New York Times editorial page on Dec. 18, but its previously been by left-wing bloggers, liberal Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and commentators on MSNBC.
The take-off point for the Times was a Senate Armed Services Committees bipartisan finding that high-level authorization of aggressive interrogation of terrorist detainees led to abuses such as those perpetrated at Iraqs Abu Ghraib prison.
The report, the Times wrote, amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Cheneys former chief of staff.
Im surprised that the newspaper did not call as others have for prosecution of Cheney himself, and possibly Bush as well.
After all, among the committees conclusions was that On Feb. 7, 2002, Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for human treatment, did not apply to al-Qaida or Taliban detainees.
Following the presidents determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity and stress positions, used in (U.S.) training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., speaks with reporters following a vote in the Senate. Gillibrand’s proposal to remove military commanders from the process of reviewing sexual-assault cases was left out of the bicameral deal on the defense authorization bill, but the senator is pushing for a vote on her plan soon.
Each year since 1990, CQ Roll Call has reviewed the financial disclosures of all 541 senators, representatives and delegates to determine the 50 richest members of Congress. This year's report, derived from forms covering the calendar year 2012, shows it took a net worth of $6.67 million to crack the exclusive club.