Prosecuting The Previous Administration Doesn't Fly...Yet

Hot Air (emphasis mine):

If Barack Obama hoped to convince America that Dick Cheney was wrong about Obama making America less safe by releasing the interrogation memos, the latest Rasmussen poll shows he badly miscalculated.  Despite his own high personal approval ratings and Cheney's low scores, 58% of respondents believe that Obama endangered national security.  Only 28%, far below the numbers of his own party, believe it helped America enhance its image abroad (via Power Line):

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration's recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America's image abroad.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters now believe the U.S. legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights when national security is at stake. But 21% say the legal system is too concerned about protecting national security. Thirty-three percent (33%) say the balance between the two is about right.

If anything, Rasmussen gives the poll an optimistic spin for Obama. The crosstabs are devastating.

• 58% said the Obama administration should not investigate the Bush administration on interrogations, while only 28% wanted investigations.  Democrats split evenly on the question, 42%-42%, and only 22% of independents wanted investigations.  Only self-professed liberals approved of investigations, and only by a 58%-31% majority.
• Similar numbers appear on whether Obama damaged or enhanced American security with this release.  Democrats actually lean towards damage by a tiny margin, 41%-40%, while independents overwhelmingly believe Obama damaged national security, 65%-23%.
• None of the age or gender demographics give Obama an approval rating on these two questions above 37%.  Every single age and gender demographic believes by a wide majority that Obama damaged national security and should not conduct investigations into torture allegations from the previous administration.
• Only the under-$20K demographic has a majority believing that Obama should investigate the Bush administration.  Every other income demographic believes otherwise, by solid majorities.  Every income demographic believes by significant majorities that the release of the memos damaged national security except the under-$20K demo, which holds that view by plurality (39%-35%).
• Americans in every demographic are more inclined to believe that the US legal system worries too much about individual rights rather than national security.

Prior to the release of the memos, Obama could have just ignored Cheney and let his accusations fade.  Instead, he decided to tackle him head on, and turned Cheney's accusation into a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It's hard to imagine how a President with personal approval ratings in the mid-50s could score so badly on this, unless Americans have concluded that Obama's doing real damage to national security.

Americans revolted at the idea that Obama should allow prosecutions of members of the previous administration by more than 2-to-1.  Even Democrats were independently split on it.  The numbers show that concerns about national security taking a hit for purely political purposes are even worse.

Even more than the overall numbers, there's one thing that leaps off the page at me when I read this.  What about you?  For me, this is it: the 'under-$20K demographic' is the only one that breaks from all other demographics on these questions.  Translation: people who are dependent upon government.

Allow me to bloviate a bit.  This demographic looks to be blindly following Obama because he has promised to give them the world (remember this or this?); at the very least, it is reasonable to say their views are radically out of synch with the vast majority of their fellow citizens (though sadly they are apparently in line with his).  I think it's also probably fair to assume that most of this demographic is, in some measure or another, dependent upon the government for daily services and assistance given the income level involved.  Thus, this is precisely the problem with where America is headed under Obama when we talk about the tax tipping point: those who are most dependent are also the most likely to follow blindly wherever Obama leads.  That's why he wants as many dependents as possible.  When he gets to that magic 50.1% majority, his 're-making' of America is virtually guaranteed.  Just so you know, right now we're hovering in the low 40s, so it's not far off.

Anyway, the idea that Obama will allow prosecutions against members of the Bush administration is vastly out of step with the American people and suggests a willingness to go where most Americans find inherently repugnant and wrong.  And there's danger there.  I think Peter Kirsanow pinpoints the core of the issue in his illustration of this 'galactic double standard':

Bush administration officials who may find themselves in legal jeopardy because they authorized the use of enhanced interrogation methods must be bewildered by the double standard being applied to them — one even more unbalanced than the media's usual double standard for conservatives and liberals.

 

Whatever one's position on the propriety of the enhanced interrogation methods, there's no evidence that the use of the methods resulted in the death of a single American. On the contrary, several credible sources maintain that the methods kept Americans from being killed. Nonetheless, some partisans assert that those who crafted the enhanced interrogation policy should be imprisoned.

 

Contrast that with the position of those same partisans regarding the governmental officials who crafted the famous pre- 9/11 "Wall" — i.e., the Clinton-era policy that separated criminal investigations from intelligence operations, thereby impeding counter-terrorism investigations.

 

Among other things, the Wall prevented counter-terrorism investigators from accessing the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, days before 9/11. At the time one FBI investigator said, "Someday someone will die — and, wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems."

 

The Wall went beyond what was legally necessary and indisputably rendered Americans more vulnerable to terrorist attacks (whether removal of the Wall would've prevented 9/11 can only be a matter of speculation). The Wall was kept in place by government officials who were on notice that terrorists planned to kill Americans. It was kept in place even after terrorists had succeeded — pre 9/11 — in killing Americans. Maintenance of the policy was reckless and inexcusable — some might even argue that it was criminal.

 

Will the partisans who demand the prosecution of those who kept America safe also demand the prosecution of those who endangered America?

 

I'm not holding my breath.

The big problem here -- one that most Americans understand -- is that it is one thing to disagree with the other side's philosophical or political views, even vehemently so, but it is entirely another to criminalize those disagreements.  That's precisely what is going on here.

This is not new - Obama has been using his power and influence to silence those who disagree with him throughout the campaign.  Now that he is in office, he is taking it one step further and moving to actually criminalize such dissent.

Big Brother would be proud.

Hope!  Change!

There's my two cents.