Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race – and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.
Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to â€œimmediately review the information thatâ€™s already thereâ€ and determine if an inquiry is warranted – but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as â€œa partisan witch hunt.â€ However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because â€œnobody is above the law.â€
The question was inspired by a recent report by ABC News, confirmed by the Associated Press, that high-level officials including Vice President Dick Cheney and former Cabinet secretaries Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld, among others, met in the White House and discussed the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques on terrorism suspects.
I mentioned the report in my question, and said â€œI know youâ€™ve talked about reconciliation and moving on, but thereâ€™s also the issue of justice, and a lot of people – certainly around the world and certainly within this country – feel that crimes were possibly committedâ€ regarding torture, rendition, and illegal wiretapping. I wanted to know how whether his Justice Department â€œwould aggressively go after and investigate whether crimes have been committed.â€
Hereâ€™s his answer, in its entirety:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information thatâ€™s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I canâ€™t prejudge that because we donâ€™t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. Youâ€™re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think weâ€™ve got too many problems weâ€™ve got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment – I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General – having pursued, having looked at whatâ€™s out there right now – are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think itâ€™s important- one of the things weâ€™ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and Iâ€™ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law – and I think thatâ€™s roughly how I would look at it.
The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that – unlike impeachment, which heâ€™s ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility – he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding – which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past – was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.