Obama transition advisor: Obama's advisers feared "revolt" if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes

Looks like the State knows how to stand up for itself, even against an incoming president (my emphasis everywhere):

President-Elect Obama’s advisers feared in 2008 that authorities [sic] would “revolt” and that Republicans would block his policy agenda if he prosecuted Bush-era war crimes, according to [UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley, Jr.,] who served as one of Obama’s top transition advisers.

There's a old joke that goes like this:

The new president gives his inauguration speech to wild applause, then retires with his transition team to the Oval Office to begin work. Soon one of the top career CIA officials, a man who has been in office for decades, comes to his side and whispers: "Mr. President, may I have a minute? There's something I'd like to show you."

He leads the president to a small room off the main hallway, where a DVD player and television are set up.

"Have a seat, sir," he says. "This will just take a moment."

The president sits and the CIA official starts the DVD. The president watches as the Kennedy assassination is played — shot from an angle never seen in public. It's over in minutes, and the TV screen goes black.

"Any questions, sir?" asks the CIA man.

The president returns to his office to prepare for his first day of administration.

Of course that's a joke; it's been around since Clinton days. Now back to the real world, and Naked Capitalism.

This story has a lot of angles, since Edley is dean of the faculty which includes John Yoo, Bush II's notorious torture-justifying lawyer. Another angle is — hey, this story is old; the exchange reported occurred in September 2011. Where's the press coverage? So please, go read.

I'll give you just one more snippet, about the aspect covered in the headline. Keep in mind, this information came out only because an activist asked the right question during a Q&A at a 9/11 presentation at which Dean Edley spoke. The article's author says:

The story arose because Susan Harman, a California resident opposed to torture, asked Edley a question Sept. 2 at his forum and mailed his comments to me, among others. ...

Here’s Harman’s account of her actions at the Boalt Hall forum, which focused on such goals as human rights and the rule of law:

I said I was overwhelmed by the surreality of Yoo being on the law faculty . . . when he was single-handedly responsible for the three worst policies of the Bush Administration. They all burbled about academic freedom and the McCarthy era, and said it isn’t their job to prosecute him.

Duh.

Dean Chris Edley volunteered that he’d been party to very high level discussions during Obama’s transition about prosecuting the criminals. He said they decided against it. I asked why. Two reasons: 1) it was thought that the CIA, NSA, and military would revolt, and 2) it was thought the Repugnants [sic; Harman speaking] would retaliate by blocking every piece of legislation they tried to move (which, of course, they’ve done anyhow).

Harman says that she approached Edley privately after the forum closed and said she appreciated that Obama might have been in danger but felt that he “bent over backwards” to protect lawbreakers within the Bush administration. She recalled, “He shrugged and said they will never be prosecuted, and that sometimes politics trumps rule of law.”

Thus we are where we are today. Rule of Law — We of the 99% have more than our share, and the 0.01% seem to have lost theirs.

It's important to note that this "fear of revolt" is not attributed to Obama himself, but to his transition team:

Edley confirmed to me in an exclusive email interview Harman’s quotations, and provided additional information about the transition team’s concerns. Among his important points is that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a revolt.

There you have it. Just the messenger, folks — though it does suggest that the State has its own momentum, doesn't it?

(For longer pieces on the same subject by the same author, go here or here.)

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

DOJ eyes Apple for price fixing of e-books

No, no, no. The price of books (or music or video) just happens to all be the same because like minds think alike. Everyone knows that Apple loves consumers so would never, ever do anything to mistreat them or anyone else.

The Justice Department is investigating whether deals Apple cut two years ago with the quintet of major publishers - when the consumer electronics maker launched its iPad tablet computer - were done with the intent of propping up prices for digital books, sources have said.

As part of those agreements, publishers shifted to a model that allowed them to set the price of e-books and give Apple a 30 percent cut of sales, the sources have said.

Talks between the Justice Department and some publishers had been proceeding, with settlements expected as soon as this week, one of the two sources familiar with the matter said on condition of anonymity, because the discussions were not public.

Reagan judge freaks out in court over President's criticism of "activist" judges on HCR

Kevin Drum has the background. It's next to impossible to excerpt his post without stealing the entire thing. Just take a minute to read it, it's worth it, and short, then come back.

A few points.

1) The President was having a little fun turning the Republicans' "activist judges" rhetoric around on Republicans, and Republican judges, who seem to have no problem becoming activists when it comes to overturning health care reform or putting George Bush into office (Obama didn't mention Bush, I did).

2) It's really inappropriate for a judge to show that he's pissed off, in court, over anything the President has said.

3) It's actually kind of bizarre that the judge thought the President was saying that judges can't find laws unconstitutional. Though it is funny that when Democrats, or Democratic judges, deem any laws unconstitutional, such as those banning gay marriage or sex between gay people, conservatives are more than happy to cry "activist!"

The judge is appeals court judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee in the 5th circuit.

I wonder where Judge Smith was a few years back when judges were being shot while Republicans in Congress were gleefully demonizing the entire bench. I'd like to think that Judge Smith was dutifully chastising President Bush and Republicans in  Congress for their incendiary rhetoric while judges were dying.  But sometimes you don't get what you like.

Some examples of times when I'd be curious if Judge Smith spoke out:

The time when a man offered $50,000 for the assassination of the judge in the Terri Schiavo case after conservatives savaged the judge. Any word from Judge Smith?

Things got so bad during the Schiavo affair that Supreme Court Justice O'Connor warned that the conservative rhetoric against judges could lead to violence.  Did Judge Smith speak out then?

When threats against judges surged in 2005 and 2006, just as Republicans like Frist, DeLay and Cornyn were demonizing judges left and right, did Judge Smith speak out?

When a GOP member of Congress talked about putting judges on the "endangered species list," did Judge Smith say a thing about it?

One wonders if the only thing Judge Smith is really worried about is Mitt Romney's sinking chances in November.

More from NY Magazine.