AP: Obama Unlikely To Seek Torture Charges
President-elect Barack Obama's coming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogation of terrorist suspects during the George W. Bush presidency.
Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.
Two Obama advisers told the Associated Press there is little chance if any that the next president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.
The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans still are tentative. A spokesman for Obama's transition team did not respond to AP requests for comment Monday.
Additionally, the question of whether to prosecute may never become relevant; Bush could issue pre-emptive pardons to protect those involved before he leaves office.
Obama replaces Bush as president on Jan. 20.
Obama has committed to reviewing interrogations on al Qaeda and other terror suspects. After he takes office, Obama is expected to create a panel modeled after the 9/11 commission to study interrogations, including those during which waterboarding and other tactics that critics call torture were used. The panel's findings would be used to ensure that future interrogations were undisputedly legal.
The 9/11 commission studied government actions before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States and recommended changes to correct shortcomings and prevent similar strikes.
"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture," Obama told 60 Minutes' Steve Croft in his first national television interview since the Nov. 4 elections put him in line to become the United States' 44th president. "Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."
Obama's most ardent supporters are split over whether he should prosecute Bush officials.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, was asked during a radio interview over the weekend whether Bush administration officials would face war crimes allegations. "In the United States, no," Leahy said. "These things are not going to happen."
Robert Litt, a former top Justice Department prosecutor in the last Democratic administration, under President Bill Clinton, said Obama should focus on moving forward with anti-torture policy instead of looking back.
Michael Ratner, a professor at Columbia University Law School and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said prosecuting Bush officials is necessary to set future anti-torture policy.
"The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it," Ratner said. "I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable."
In the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the White House authorized U.S. interrogators to use harsh tactics on captured al Qaeda and Taliban suspects. Bush officials relied on a 2002 Justice Department legal memo to assert that its interrogations did not amount to torture, and therefore did not violate U.S. or international laws. That memo has since been rescinded.
At least three top al Qaeda operatives - including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed - were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003 because of intelligence officials' belief that more attacks were imminent. Waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning, has been traced back hundreds of years and is condemned by nations worldwide.
Bush could take the issue of criminal charges off the table with one stroke of his pardons pen. Many presidents grant pardons as a final executive exercise before leaving office, and under the U.S. Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.
Whether Bush will protect his top aides and interrogators with pre-emptive pardons, even before they have been charged, has become a hot topic of discussion in legal and political circles in the administration's waning days. White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto would not discuss the issue on Monday.
Pre-emptive pardons would be highly controversial, but former White House counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. said it would protect those who were following orders or otherwise trying to protect the nation.
"I know of no one who acted in reckless disregard of U.S. law or international law," said Culvahouse, who served under President Ronald Reagan, like Bush a Republican. "It's just not good for the intelligence community and the defense community to have people in the field, under exigent circumstances, being told these are the rules, to be exposed months and years after the fact to criminal prosecution."
The Federalist Papers, documents intended to entice holdouts to accept the Constitution in the late 1700s, discourage presidents from pardoning themselves. It took former President Gerald Ford to clear his predecessor, President Richard Nixon, of wrongdoing in the 1972 Watergate break-in and subsequent White House misdeeds.
© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.
Two Obama advisers told the Associated Press there is little chance if any that the next president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.
The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans still are tentative. A spokesman for Obama's transition team did not respond to AP requests for comment Monday.
Additionally, the question of whether to prosecute may never become relevant; Bush could issue pre-emptive pardons to protect those involved before he leaves office.
Obama replaces Bush as president on Jan. 20.
Obama has committed to reviewing interrogations on al Qaeda and other terror suspects. After he takes office, Obama is expected to create a panel modeled after the 9/11 commission to study interrogations, including those during which waterboarding and other tactics that critics call torture were used. The panel's findings would be used to ensure that future interrogations were undisputedly legal.
The 9/11 commission studied government actions before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States and recommended changes to correct shortcomings and prevent similar strikes.
"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture," Obama told 60 Minutes' Steve Croft in his first national television interview since the Nov. 4 elections put him in line to become the United States' 44th president. "Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."
Obama's most ardent supporters are split over whether he should prosecute Bush officials.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, was asked during a radio interview over the weekend whether Bush administration officials would face war crimes allegations. "In the United States, no," Leahy said. "These things are not going to happen."
Robert Litt, a former top Justice Department prosecutor in the last Democratic administration, under President Bill Clinton, said Obama should focus on moving forward with anti-torture policy instead of looking back.
"Both for policy and political reasons, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time hauling people up before Congress or before grand juries and going over what went on," Litt said at a Brookings Institution discussion about Obama's legal policy. "To as great of an extent we can say: the last eight years are over; now we can move forward. That would be beneficial both to the country and the president, politically."
Michael Ratner, a professor at Columbia University Law School and president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said prosecuting Bush officials is necessary to set future anti-torture policy.
"The only way to prevent this from happening again is to make sure that those who were responsible for the torture program pay the price for it," Ratner said. "I don't see how we regain our moral stature by allowing those who were intimately involved in the torture programs to simply walk off the stage and lead lives where they are not held accountable."
In the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the White House authorized U.S. interrogators to use harsh tactics on captured al Qaeda and Taliban suspects. Bush officials relied on a 2002 Justice Department legal memo to assert that its interrogations did not amount to torture, and therefore did not violate U.S. or international laws. That memo has since been rescinded.
At least three top al Qaeda operatives - including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed - were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003 because of intelligence officials' belief that more attacks were imminent. Waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning, has been traced back hundreds of years and is condemned by nations worldwide.
Bush could take the issue of criminal charges off the table with one stroke of his pardons pen. Many presidents grant pardons as a final executive exercise before leaving office, and under the U.S. Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.
Whether Bush will protect his top aides and interrogators with pre-emptive pardons, even before they have been charged, has become a hot topic of discussion in legal and political circles in the administration's waning days. White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto would not discuss the issue on Monday.
Pre-emptive pardons would be highly controversial, but former White House counsel Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. said it would protect those who were following orders or otherwise trying to protect the nation.
"I know of no one who acted in reckless disregard of U.S. law or international law," said Culvahouse, who served under President Ronald Reagan, like Bush a Republican. "It's just not good for the intelligence community and the defense community to have people in the field, under exigent circumstances, being told these are the rules, to be exposed months and years after the fact to criminal prosecution."
The Federalist Papers, documents intended to entice holdouts to accept the Constitution in the late 1700s, discourage presidents from pardoning themselves. It took former President Gerald Ford to clear his predecessor, President Richard Nixon, of wrongdoing in the 1972 Watergate break-in and subsequent White House misdeeds.
Popular in Politics
- IRS targeting overlooked biggest soft money groups
- For GOP, scandals could be an electoral plus - or minus 327 Comments
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington 152 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 346 Comments
- Republicans use IRS scandal to tar Obamacare
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 262 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 413 Comments
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 242 Comments
***********************************
I personally think the Bush presidency has been the worst in history, and I think that many of his policies were evil, torture amongh them.
Having said that, I think it would be counter-productive to the American people to go after them criminally. It would cause further rankor among Americans and not really solve anything. Obama will end these hidious practices, get America back on some higher moral ground, and hopefully we can move forward towards better relationships with other countries. Bush and his evil minions can just fade into bad memories.
Posted by misha128 at 04:08 PM : Nov 18, 2008
Do you have any clue how many business borrow their payroll money, borrow the money to stock their shelves, and operate on a pay/go status?
If the banks cannot continue to secure money and make those loans, THOUSANDS WILL BE OUT OF BUSINESS. Period!
What do you not understand! Because Clinton''''s criminal appointees sold bad loans to the world, NOBODY is investing! NOBODY! And the stock market is barely holding it''''s own with a few wealthy buying cheap. What do you understand that that bailout money is the only thing standing between you having a job, having food and and gas....you''''re that close to buying the bottom of the bucket, ma''''a....
Posted by Rowdydfw at 04:14 PM : Nov 18, 2008
Did you listen to the hearings where the banks were given the money no strings at half the return negotiated in the UK with no strings to require loans for the purpose you named? Bush and Paulson are just short of giving away money with no requirement to make loans.
Not to mention all the profits that will taken in taxes to pay the interest that are eventually removed from the US economy and transferred into the Chinese economy.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
Posted by misha128 at 03:59 PM : Nov 18, 2008
OK, misha, commie...suck that money back up into the government....tomorrow there are no groceries on the shelves of your stores, and gas at the stations to buy...and no clerks employed to take your money...
GOOD LUCK!
Posted by Rowdydfw at 04:03 PM : Nov 18, 2008
If the banks only buy up more banks and the like -- the result is the same as you predicted. If the money is does not leave the financial community and enter the real economy. You are advocating a lose-lose position.
Posted by misha128 at 03:18 PM : Nov 18, 2008
What a crock of krap! Get yourself real.
Posted by Rowdydfw at 03:54 PM : Nov 18, 2008
Not to mention all the profits that will taken in taxes to pay the interest that are eventually removed from the US economy and transferred into the Chinese economy.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and JUSTICE FOR ALL".
Yes you would rather have Bush borrow money from the real communists in China to give to the banks that are laying off people. So the stockholders and management can split the corporate welfare "liberated" from the US treasury. While the US economy still takes a nose dive and you, in the end, will still be in that soup line.
What don''t you understand? Where did that money go in the first place? We''re just reimbursing them for a fraction of what they "lost" i.e. stole(aprox. $62trillion in the credit default swap markets). You are one those guys who will never get it. So worried that some poor person might get a couple grand from your tax dollars, but when big corporate America takes enough money to make every person in seven states a millionaire, your mute.
Hey head in the sand. In case you didn''''''''t notice the bush finanial bailout alone is approaching $5trillion, (that''''''''s enough money to make everyone in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Alaska millionaires) this isn''''''''t even mentioning the trillions in Iraq or the $5trillion in trade debt Bush added to the American bottom line, or the spending budget for next year.
----------------------------------
----------------------------------------
------
Posted by lochlan at 02:40 PM : Nov 18, 2008
GOOD! Then he''''s pulling more money out of the control of the pinko commies and putting it in the banks so US companies can continue to write PAYCHECKS!!! That''''s where that money needs to be!
It doesn''''t need to be sucked back up into government control so the pinko commies can write WELFARE CHECKS!
Great job by Bush!
Posted by Rowdydfw
That''s what I thought. Keep it up Nazi. You''re NO AMERICAN. Your what real Americans fought against during the war. Of course, it was your lords grandpappy who was funding Hitler (even while we were at war with them. Have a look at the Traiding with the Enemy Act). Don''t call yourself American, you''re a Nazi fascist.