We need a special prosecutor

Barack Obama's cabinet choices have begun confirmation hearings before the Senate, and aside from their personal qualifications, there is a lot of well-deserved attention being paid to how they plan to solve the myriad problems they are poised to inherit from the current administration. The main cabinet official I'm concerned about is Attorney General-designate Eric Holder. I'm concerned about what happens at the State Department, the Treasury, the Pentagon, and so forth, but Justice in on top of my list. I take that position because the Justice Department has the greatest potential, in my mind, to demonstrate that the United States has repudiated the Bush administration and its criminal modus operandi. Tim Geithner, Obama's appointee for Treasury Secretary, is the protégé of President Clinton's highly business-friendly Treasury Secretaries; Hillary Clinton is more hawkish than I'd like our diplomats to be; Robert Gates is being kept of as Secretary of Defense from the Bush administration. All three of those appointees are somewhat disappointing insofar as they are less-than-total breaks from the current administration's methods. There's no question that Eric Holder will be a drastic departure from the John Ashcroft/Alberto Gonzalez scheme at Justice. What I am less sure about is whether Holder will be aggressive in pressing criminal charges against former Bush administration members. There has been discussion of an extensive examination of President Bush's signing statements, in which he explains how he will interpret and sometimes blatantly contradict laws passed by Congress, as well as the dubious legal theories practiced by the Gonzalez and Ashcroft Justice Departments. I get the sense that Obama's Justice Department will overturn many of the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzalez abuses of power, but decline to press criminal charges against any of the officials involved in unlawful behavior.

Signing statements represent the most widespread dereliction of duty by the Bush administration, but there are some specific abuses that also merit investigation. No-bid contracts and other sweetheart deals for contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to a multi-billion-dollar swindle of American taxpayers' dollars. The most prominent war profiteers have been Halliburton and Bechtel; they and anyone else who have been involved in ripping off the public need to be reviewed for criminal liability.

More specific to the Bush administration, the Justice Department should examine Vice President Cheney's involvement in selling the Iraq War to the public. There have been numerous reports that Cheney exerted undue influence on intelligence agents to manufacture the case he wanted for going to war. Whether or not he can be prosecuted for this activity, it deserves to be brought to light and entered into official records. Additionally, Cheney admitted in an interview last month that he personally approved the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammad, a terrorist mastermind. Since waterboarding has long been prosecuted as a war crime, this admission seems to build a rock-solid case against Cheney. This cries out for prosecution.

President-elect Obama has downplayed the possibility of such prosecutions, telling ABC "my orientation’s going to be to move forward" rather than to focus on the past. There is no doubt that the new administration has a variety of crises to deal with, and Obama's attention will necessarily be divided between them. But I don't want Obama's time or energy to be devoted to prosecuting the previous administration. He is a partisan, and these prosecutions must be non-political. The politicization of Justice Department business is one of the more obviously criminal abuses of the Bush administration, in fact. But we need a special prosecutor, a non-political appointee who will conduct a legitimate criminal investigation rather than a partisan witch-hunt.

I'm looking forward here as well. I'm worried about the precedents we are setting for posterity. If no effort is made to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes, we will be subject to more lawless behavior in the future. A blatantly partisan investigation, even if it produced convictions, would only protect future wrongdoing by creating a negative perception of such prosecutions.

To my knowledge, such an effort is unprecedented. I have never read of any attempt by one administration to investigate crimes committed by an earlier administration. There have been contemporary investigations and impeachments by Congress, but I am fairly sure no president has ever done what I'm calling for here. I think it is incumbent upon us at this point to call for investigations because the level of criminal behavior under the Bush administration has been unprecedented. We need to show that we have a low tolerance for criminal behavior, preferably a lower tolerance than Americans in years past. We only get one chance to do this right, and we owe it to future Americans to try our hardest. That would be change we can believe in; anything less would be a betrayal of the spirit of Obama's campaign.