Pelosi Is Coming Around

I don't know if this is some cover your ass rhetoric or not by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi but the woman who infamously said upon taking her post two years ago that "Impeachment is off the table" instantly earning herself disgust and scorn from liberals, centrists and progressives in the Democratic party might actually be changing her tune. This morning on FoxNews Sunday she not only said that prosecutions of Bush administration officials might still happen, she went further and said Congress might have a legal obligation to do so. I have learned not to get too excited over this kind of pronouncement but I have to say it does give me hope that those involved in abuses of office might see justice after all.

From FauxNooz:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said.

snip

She hinted that the law might compel Democrats to press forth on some prosecutions, even if they are politically unpopular, adding: "That's not up to us to say that doesn't matter anymore."

"We cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed," she added. "I want to see the truth come forth."

A full throated endorsement of prosecutions it isn't but at least its a start.

Update: Glenzilla points out with support from Hilzoy that investigation and prosecution of torture is an obligation according to law, not something that can be selectively ignonred. An excerpt:

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan):

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . .

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution

snip

All of the standard excuses being offered by Bush apologists and our political class (a virtual redundancy) -- namely: our leaders meant well; we were facing a dangerous enemy; government lawyers said this could be done; Congress immunized the torturers; it would be too divisive to prosecute -- are explicitly barred by this treaty (i.e., binding law) as a ground for refusing to investigate and prosecute acts of torture.

This is also why the standard argument now being offered by Bush apologists (such as University of Chicago Law Professor Eric Posner, echoing his dad, Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner in Chicago) as to why prosecutions are unnecessary -- namely: there is "prosecutorial discretion" that should take political factors into account in order not to prosecute -- are both frivolous and lawless. The Convention explicitly bars any such "discretion": "The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall . . . submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution." The principal purpose of the Convention is to remove the discretion involved in prosecuting acts of torture and to bar the very excuses which every torturing society proffers and which our own torturing society is now attempting to invoke ("we were dealing with real threats; there were 'exceptional circumstances' that justified it; we enacted laws legalizing the torture; our leaders meant well; we need to move on").