pursuing criminal prosecutions: But many of us do not want criminal prosecutions which would be almost impossible to achieve since most of the evidence (e-mails, et al) has been “lost.” We simply want the facts about torture, illegal spying, habeas, etc. made public so the next time a President seeks to break the law, he will think twice.
Ruth Marcus: That’s a different question. I’m more agnostic on investigation in a non criminal sense. What I’d like to know is, What needs investigating that has not already been investigated? What information that could reasonably be made public has not already emerged? But do you really think the prospect of investigation would have deterred Bush? Didn’t seem so.
This is insane, in my opinion. Don’t investigate because it wouldn’t have deterred Bush anyway.
I liked this question too:
Re: investigations: You write “People can reasonably disagree about the importance of pursuing investigations without amping up the hyperbole this way.”
I agree completely. Why people would get so mad about something like torture is beyond me. I mean, it’s not like Bush had an affair with an intern or anything, right?
Ruth Marcus: I’m going to keep trying here. It’s possible to find torture abhorrent, as I do, without thinking that there is much to gain, and a signficant amount to lose, by pursuing criminal prosecutions.
Update: I may as well add that I have no idea how feasible it is to prosecute anyone for torture. But I just can’t see how anyone could think it shouldn’t at least be investigated. I may as well also add that I asked the second question up there and I am shamelessly pimping my own question here. Sorry.
Also, don’t forget the real reason Obama shouldn’t investigate: this is still a right-center country and right-center people love torture.