Thanks Steve.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) added that the idea of "criminalizing legal advice after one administration is out of the office is a very bad precedent.... I think it would be disaster to go back and try to prosecute a lawyer for giving legal advice that you disagreed with to a former president."

BULLSHIT!

If my lawyer tells me, "It's not murder if you do it on a Tuesday and do it standing on one foot," that won't keep me from being convicted of murder. And my lawyer would be -- rightly -- disbarred for offering such advice.

I don't know what Obama is thinking. He can't honestly think he is accumulating Republican good will by doing this. There is no such thing.

But what I do know is that thanks to this decision, the next time we have a Republican president, John Yoo, William Hayes and David Addington will be back with influential positions. And Jay Bybee will be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Failing to criminalize crimes is what really sets "a very bad precedent."

Precisely, and the same goes for the Wall Street execs who created and fraudulently marketed bad loans as AAA investments.

But more on point, you cannot leave a system in place that allows the OLC to replace the judicial system, changing interpretations of laws as though they are changing laws themselves, from one administration to the next. If there is any reason for optimism, it is that organizations like ACLU will do the dirty work, thus leaving Republicans without their usual "it's just partisan politics" defense.

Rahm has made it clear, then, that the Rule of Law applies only to the hoi polloi, and not the power people.

Not change I can believe in.

We need a third--or even fourth--party in this country. We are under the Rule of Men, not Law.

So much for the Great American Experiment.

Obama needs a bit of cover for his “Torturers and Murderers All Go Free� policy. Maybe he could extend tax breaks to Disneyland and Disneyworld if they added Waterboard rides to their midways? Or have hourly contests where you guess how many pounds of poop are in the diapers of the clowns and jesters manacled to the ceiling in the Hall of Mirrors? Mickey and Minnie could roam the park in padded suits, inviting guests to throw them to the ground and kick them into submission. Make it fun for the whole family. After a few years such brutality will be no more alarming than the occasional school massacre.

What a great legal defense!

You are arrested for robbing a bank -- "Hey, lets look forward, not backward."

You shoot up your school -- "Hey, lets look forward, not backward."

Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

This torture issue, the financial bailout, (with the same old people in charge) and FISA.

We WILL be fooled again and again and again.

Hell yes, I'm disappointed.

Is there some reason why Obama can't change his mind later on?

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but why can't he act like he's playing ball now, and in the meantime gets the economy back on track, universal health insurance finally put in, etc.

Then, when he rolls into his 2nd term, turn around and say "Ok, I was kidding about the 'no prosecutions' bit. Let's go!"

Is there some reason why he can't do that? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just trying to understand why, if he does want to do prosecutions, he has to announce his intentions RIGHT THIS SECOND.

I think part of the problem here is due to the extreme incompetence of the mainstream American media, which seems unwilling or unable to cover more than one story at a time.

Any trial of Bush administration figures would immediately scuk up all of the attention, for as long as it was going on (and considerably longer). The right-wing Wurlitzer would go into overdrive, and all the media exposure that could be spent talking about EFCA, health care reform, etc., would end up getting spent in a rehashing of the Bush administration. Democratic policies are currently supported by the majority of Americans. However, that's only if they understand what the policies are. The circus that would inevitably surround any such trial would make the job of educating Americans much more difficult.

I'd like to see the Bushies prosecuted for their clearly criminal behavior, but I also think the Obama administration needs to choose its battles carefully.

"I'd like to see the Bushies prosecuted for their clearly criminal behavior, but I also think the Obama administration needs to choose its battles carefully."

And what, pray tell, battle is worth fighting more than this one????

I was an enthusiastic Obama voter, but enough is enough....to the streets! Only massive public pressure can reverse this.

Are we even pretending to be country of laws anymore??

May 1 is traditionally Law Day in the U.S. Maybe it's time for an An-tea Party to protest the failure of this administration to go after those who wantonly debased our laws and are now walking free and, in some cases, serving as judges or teaching in law schools.

I simply don't buy the argument that we need to look forward on this matter -- these people need their day in court.

I wondered in a blog if these memos would be Obama's moral "Bay of Pigs" equivalent, testing whether a young president would either listen to his so-called experts or listen to his on internal counsel.

Myself, morally, I had bet heavily on the young man to restore the rule of law in this country and the world, and to be the leadership necessary to face up to and undo all those uncomfortable tasks.

I am now resigned to say that Obama is not the man I believed he was. He is no Lincoln although he tries to emulate as much, by having us put all the past behind us. Lincoln had the moral obligation and conviction to believe this was a nation of laws rather than men, that the Constitution was paramount and had the strength to go to civil war to protect the Constitution and its ideals. Sadly, Obama is no such character.

As of this weekend, for me, Obama is a shameless coward, expedient rather than experienced.

All the lawyers associated with this fiasco should be tarred and feathered. Then disbarred.

They are a disgrace to their profession, their country and the men and women who serve it. Keep the heat up and they will eventually suffer the consequences.

As Glenn has pointed out several times, this is also a violation of the Geneva Convention. And the UN agrees with him.

The administration has two very simple choices. They can prosecute. Or they can break from the Geneva Convention and say that the US no longer recognizes that treaty. There is no third way.

Who knows why Obama has taken this stance. We can speculate, or we can call members of Congress and write letters to our local newspapers (where we still have them), and lobby for investigations.

We all knew the incredible damage Bush/Cheney did and we also knew 4 years of having a Democrat in the WH wasn't going to correct it all.

Maybe Digby is right. Maybe Obama doesn't think he has the political cover to do this and is in effect saying 'give me the cover and make me do it.' His latest remarks make me doubt that, but what else do we have?

Information like this is uncontainable and once out there will have unpredictable effects. The exact path between today and the eventual criminal proceedings against the torturers is not clear, but I think it will eventually happen. It is not Obama's choice only.

Exceedingly disappointing.

Hopefully this is a clear statement to the Spanish, so that they can move forward, since the matter won't now be investigated in a US court.

The sad part of this is that the rest of the world is watching us to see if we attempt to correct what is wrong with our society and we have failed. We are the "fatandstupid" Americans who let corruption reign in our government.

If we are to accept that Justice is equal under the Law.......and we are to accept that those in power are no longer accountable under the Law, then what might Mr. Obama's reply be to a unilateral declaration, made by not only myself, but as well by many other American citizens, that we---both individually and collectively---refuse to accept this "edict" concerning the prosecution of war crimes, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, to which we, as a Nation of, by, and for the People, are signatories?

Are we free to embrace the mantra of the Mob, seizing these criminals, dragging them from their homes, and forcibly transporting them to the Hague; equally-in-measure free as this current administration now claims to be in rejecting those very same Conventions?

Are we free to form our own militias against a Government that, for the sake of expediting a "national self-esteem", refuses to comply not only with international treaties that it participated in the creation of, but likewise its own Laws?

Should it be acceptable to the Citizens of this nation, when its Government in general, and its elected Administration specifically, promotes "friendship" with the other nations of the world, and yet turns its back on those same rank-and-file Citizens when it comes to the prosecution of State Crimes?

I have, most apparently, been under the delusion that we had removed Bushylvanianism from power. Clearly, the only remaining path to "Change We Can Believe In" must now come from acts of open resistance---Passive, or otherwise....

There's a huge cockroach in my KoolAid.
Mr. President, can you get that crap out of there if you want me to drink this?

Despite winning the election by 9 million votes and having substantial majorities in the house and Senate, Presidednt Obama's chances for passing his legislative agenda are still almost zero. If he were to go ahead with prosecutions, that would, in effect, end his presidency - nothing else would get done. "The will of the people" has no meaning to an opposition party that is bent on destroying everything perceived as the liberal agenda. IMO, the only "cover" Obama will get to pressecute war crimes is 1) more than 60 Democrats in the Senate and 2) the blessings of the the military high command.

Yeah, Obama sucks so lets go back to having presidents that actually commit torture. This is why Obamabots don't like to criticize Obama even when he deserves it.

On a different note, why is this Obama's decision at all? If it's the president's decision to prosecute or not, that guarantees that justice will be politicized. You can't truly have criminal accountability unless there's a broad national consensus to punish criminal politicians, and I just don't there is in this situation. All you have to do is shout "National Security" and people will be willing to excuse anything.

All of this bullshit I am hearing is the same bullshit the defendants at Nuremburg used.

A refusal of the Obama administration to deal with the torture issue will have immediate and long term repercussions, both domestic and internationally.

Domestically and in the short term, Obama may avoid having to expend political capital, but long term a precedent would have been set. And if Obama believes that his half-hearted repudiation of what the Bush II people did would represent any obstacle for a future administration, he is sadly mistaken.

Internationally, the US would damage its ability to argue towards other countries that they are obliged to follow international laws and conventions even further. Not that this has always been such an all powerful argument in the past, but the US will learn of its value when the riposte to such demands will consists in the single word hypocrites.

Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon and Bush I pardoning Caspar Weinberger even though both clearly subverted the rule of law remained purely domestic events, but Obama allowing the criminal offenses of the Bush II administration against international torture conventions going unsanctioned won't be.

Long term, the country will deplore Obama letting this slide. And when Obama gets to the point of thinking about his legacy, so will he.

I'm reminded of something my father told me a long, long, time ago ... "If you're gonna steal, steal big. Otherwise, you'll never get away with it."
Between the Wall Street bankers & MIC theft of the Treasury, and BushCo's theft of our national Honor, we're in extremely deep shit.
If you're rich enough, you literally can do anything and get away with it, eh?
I'm trying to be optimistic amidst all this, but it's beginning to seem like "SSDD" in DC.
Ford pardons Nixon, and the Watergate/Iran-Contra crowd makes its triumphant return. They get another "pass" on all this from the ongoing DC establishment? It's not just Pres. Obama who has failed us here, it's the entire clique in congress as well. There are just no adequate words to express my disappointment. Welcome to the New World Order, Inc.

Yeah, Obama sucks so lets go back to having presidents that actually commit torture.

This is stupid. Obama's actions give a green light to every torturer and to every lawyer who would like to give a legal cover to the government agencies who wish to engage in criminal activities. We cannot just assume that the Obama appointees are so moral and above board that they will be able to resist the temptation to act in these ways.

If Obama cannot prosecute those in the previous administration for committing such crimes, how can he with a straight face bring charges against the people in his own administration should they choose to engage in such actions?

There are some issues on which there is no middle ground, much as Obama would like us to believe. He is ultimately going to meet the fate of Clinton if he continues to make decisions like this.

I wrote a blistering letter to Obama's campaign during the primaries telling him to "go Cheney yourself" after he caved on telecom immunity. And now this? What a bastard! You can absolutely count on the GOP to flaunt the constitution. You can absolutely count on the Donkeys to capitulate. There was an interesting post at Think Progress the other day. Maybe charging Obama with a crime will change this? Works for me.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/19/obama-violated-int-law/

Given the timing of today's blockbuster leak story - of Jane Harmon, and Obama's magical reversal on FISA in 2007, the slamming shut of the door is becoming more obvious: blackmail/coercion of key Dems, up to and including Obama. Let's see what Feingold/Whitehouse/Leahy/Waxman/Conyers have to say.

I have a feeling that as the calls for prosecution increase in frequency, intensity and gravitas from around the globe and here in the states, that more and more rats will implicate their co-conspirators so as to muddy the already roiled waters and provide themselves with the best legal cover and defense.

NIH has just issued a request for proposals to study the response of the human respiratory system to simulated drowning as a part of the plans to spend the stimulus money. The agency is really interested in the mechanics of water flow in a cloth and how the design of the piece of cloth that is put over the subject’s mouth and nose can be Pareto optimized so that the subject’s sensation of drowning is maximized while at the same time the possibility of any physiological harm is minimized.

He can't go after these bastards brcause the Democrats are into this torture regime up to their teeth. The National security Council was apprised of the content of those memos and agreed to moving forwatd with their contents. Even if Jay Rockefeller & Co. loathed them, they gave their tacit approval via not resigning their position on that committee and letting the MSM firgure out why they did.

So if Obama goes after Bushit and his cronies there are big name dems that are going to prison too. He has no support from the Democrats to do this. They all know who would fall and are unwilling to put pressure on him to go after and hang these perps. Where was the outrage from the do-gooder Democrats after Sunday's point was drilled home that he wouldn't prosecute? They are colluded. Up to their torturous teeth. Nauseating...

April 20, 2009

Day 5 of Obama renouncing his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and our laws.

It may be politically expedient, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong!

The comparison of the torture policies to robbing a bank is oversimplified and, frankly, just inapt.

I fully agree that the torture policies were abhorrent and probably illegal. But I also believe that, as bad as the prior administration was, they acted in this regard out of a genuine, if misguided, desire to prevent further terrorist attacks; this wasn't "corruption" in the traditional sense.

There is some criminal behavior that one doesn't seek to punish through the criminal justice system. Sometimes, the reason for forebearance is equitable; in this case, it is political. Obama is absolutely right in not pursuing this. To do so would not only make the current excessive partisanship in the political system worse, it would only encourage the Republican Party in seeking similar retribution against the Democrats when, as is inevitable, the Republicans gain control again (whenever that may be).

Criminal prosecutions of lower-level and mid-level CIA operatives would undoubtedly do serious damage to our intelligence establishment, at a time when we can't afford to undermine it. Criminal prosecutions of senior officials of the prior administration would so enflame the Republican Party, as well as large numbers of independents and moderates, that it would likely cripple the Obama Administration's ability to enact meaningful progressive legislation.

Criminal prosecutions would also drag out interminably, and the outcome is by no means assured.

As seems to so often be the case, I believe that Obama wisely has his eye on the longer-term and he knows that we can't afford the political consequences of going after senior officials of the prior administration.

Just as Gerald Ford was viewed, in retrospect, as acting wisely in pardoning Nixon, Obama in retrospect will likewise be viewed as making the right call here.

(By the way, I think that officials of the prior administration who were responsible for these policies should be subject to non-criminal consequences where possible. For example, I think that Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez, Addington and others should be disbarred; let's tell them that they have lost their privilege to make a living as lawyers. I also have no problem with Bybee being impeached.)

"...Failing to criminalize crimes is what really sets "a very bad precedent."

The precedent was *already* set when individuals in this country weren't held accountable for the war crimes upon which this country was formed! Crimes and abuses were perpetrated upon Native Americans which have never been addressed. The passage of time shouldn't make these any less deserving of the law.

"I'd like to see the Bushies prosecuted for their clearly criminal behavior, but I also think the Obama administration needs to choose its battles carefully." Posted by: lone1c

It is not 'choosing a battle' to uphold the law. You either believe in and uphold the law or you concede to lawlessness for the rich and powerful.

"If he were to go ahead with prosecutions, that would, in effect, end his presidency - nothing else would get done." Posted by: bcinaz

If it requires the 'end of his presidency' to uphold the law then our laws are meaningless.

"We cannot just assume that the Obama appointees are so moral and above board that they will be able to resist the temptation to act in these ways." Posted by: gregor

And even if we do, we can expect future administrations to believe that 'it is legal if the president does it'.

"So if Obama goes after Bushit and his cronies there are big name dems that are going to prison too." Posted by: Stevio

This would be a good thing!

marty: "Are we even pretending to be country of laws anymore??"

marty. Were we *ever* "a country of law?" Get serious. War crimes are in our founding. We've never addressed that.

Otolarux: "...Obama who has failed us here, it's the entire clique in congress as well. There are just no adequate words to express my disappointment. Welcome to the New World Order, Inc..."

Yes, this is "The New World Order"...but it began several hundred years ago when the first Europeans set foot on the continent, not today.

Count me among those who are not surprised.

Obama's vote on the FISA bill told us everything we needed to know.

Anyone who still thinks of Obama as the second coming is severely disillusioned.

The inescapable fact is that the U.S. is morally deeply corrupt and it is there for all to see.

It just goes to show that good old American exceptionalism is alive and well: because the U.S. is good whatever it does must be right. The fact that basic moral considerations are waved aside with a casual "look forward, not backward) and the rest of the world says "WTF?" are of no consequence.

It's almost as if they think that there's some sort of other branch of government with some sort of oversight role that ought to take care of the matter for them.

For those currently in a self-righteous lather: not to worry--given the passage of enough time, everyone from conservatives to progressives yawns at war crimes and human rights abuses.

Anyone who still thinks of Obama as the second coming is severely disillusioned.

You're right. So let's just have a do-over of the 2008 election, so all of you disillusioned Dems can vote for some hopelessly unelectable third-party doofus.

Then President John "Get Off My Lawn" McCain and Vice-President Elly May Clampett could finish what Bush-Cheney started. Not only would America not renounce torture, it would build a second or a third Gitmo to keep up with the intensified demand.

Oh, and then we could get our war on with Iran and North Korea. Wouldn't that be a barrel of fun?

When the whole story finally comes out we'll find that a lot of prominent Democrats were in on the whole scam -- from the fake justification for the Iraq occupation to the approval of torture to the to the domestic spying. And it would be a great surprise if Emmanual were not one of those Democratic leaders who was fully aware of the scam.

Yeah, what is it with all of those angry district attorneys get all up in peoples' grills about murders, rapes and kidnappings??? Why can't they just stop looking back with a sense of anger and retribution and look forward to a future of rainbows and butterflies and bunnies that can be ours if only we would let people who break the law let bygones be bygones?

BTW, now that the Obama administration has legalized torture on the part of people who deliver electric currrent to other peoples' nuts "in good faith", anyone want to guess how long it is before domestic police start playing with the nuts of American suspects? I mean, as long as it's "in good faith" and they're only "following orders", what harm could possibly come of it?

On a completely unrelated note, anyone know how to contact the family of Hermann Goring? I think we owe them an apology.

Here in Massachusetts, today is a state holiday observed as "Patriot's Day" to commemorate the Batlles of Lexington and Concord.

How ironic...I'm having a hard time recalling any day that I have felt less patriotic than I am today.

"The comparison of the torture policies to robbing a bank is oversimplified and, frankly, just inapt. ..."
Posted by: drf on April 20, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Interesting. It wasn't a comparison at all. It's an additive comment. Steal the Treasury + steal our National Honor = we're all the more bankrupt for it.

Oh, and your "political expediency trumps the Law" objections don't cut it for me either. Looks like I'm not alone in feeling that way, eh? SSDD in DC.

Nice try though.

PowerOfX: "...It just goes to show that good old American exceptionalism is alive and well: because the U.S. is good whatever it does must be right. The fact that basic moral considerations are waved aside with a casual "look forward, not backward) and the rest of the world says "WTF?" are of no consequence..."

We were founded on it--did you forget?

On second thought, this isn't the Executive's call at all.

Isn't this up to Holder and the DOJ to decide whether prosecutions are going to happen?

Or do we all think that Holder is just like Gonzales was; i.e., a puppet of the Executive (Bush), always doing what he was ordered to do?

If it is up to Holder, maybe that would be how Obama could get out of this from a political standpoint - "We didn't want to do this, but the DOJ has decided that they are going to pursue an investigation of the torture memos," or similar. That way, Obama and the Executive can then say "well, since Justice is a separate but equal branch, we have no control what they decide to do or not do." Assuming that DOJ is not as it was in BushCo, that is.

Hmm...

There is one of these legal weasels who is not immune from being taken to task by someone other than the Obama Administration.

Impeach Jay Bybee.

Well, if the Dems in Congress were complicit with all this, (and after the Harmon revelations, that's not so hard to imagine) then we probably can't even get Congress to Impeach Jay Bybee.

Does an Appeals Court Judge have to be a member in good standing of the Bar?

Then Disbar Jay Bybee.

Isn't it true, Obamacrew will still consider hitting at those who acted in "bad faith" and made associated errors about covering up, overreaching even beyond what legal memos said, etc? I hope so.

Obama's a better poker player than anyone gives him credit for.

Obama's a better poker player than anyone gives him credit for. ~ Posted by: Mahnkenstein on April 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM

No, to the contrary, that's the one thing in all of this that I still cling to. They guy is sharp, and I give him credit for what he IS doing. I cling to the hope that we haven't yet seen his End Game in all of this, so it's a "wait and see" game at this point. I don't regret my vote for him yet. ;-)

Cheers!

But we're not just dealing with an instance of bad legal advice; we're talking about high-ranking administration officials establishing and justifying a system that permits war crimes.

No, we're talking about a deliberate coordinated action by high-ranking officials to commit torture (which is both an independent violation of international law subject to universal jurisdiction akin to piracy, and, when done to detainees in the context of an international armed conflict, a war crime subject, as such, to universal jurisdiction), largely by directing others to commit war crimes, and to shield themselves from future (domestic, at least) legal liability for those acts.

This action by the Obama administration is, at best, an abrogation of the U.S. non-derogable obligations under the applicable international treaties, particularly the Convention Against Torture (etc.)

I fully agree that the torture policies were abhorrent and probably illegal. But I also believe that, as bad as the prior administration was, they acted in this regard out of a genuine, if misguided, desire to prevent further terrorist attacks; this wasn't "corruption" in the traditional sense.

No, it was torture and war crimes in the traditional sense; these acts are usually done out of genuine, if misguided, desire to protect the security of the country and win the current war, nevertheless they constitute crimes that, like piracy, the entire civilized world has declared to be categorically unacceptable, inexcusable by any extenuating circumstances or noble motivation, subject to universal jurisdiction, and subject also to a positive obligation on every nation to prosecute fully when the wrongdoers come into their hands.

If the U.S. is to stop being the rogue nation it was under the previous administration, it must not merely stop torturing, it must hold torturers to account. There is, quite simply, no other alternative. And, furthermore, to fail to do so is to encourage and license such acts in the future, even if the present regime does not engage in them itself.

cmdicely: "...If the U.S. is to stop being the rogue nation it was under the previous administration, it must not merely stop torturing, it must hold torturers to account. There is, quite simply, no other alternative. And, furthermore, to fail to do so is to encourage and license such acts in the future, even if the present regime does not engage in them itself."

It is amazing that so-called progressive people who live and function generally quite comfortably in a nation founded on *unprosecuted and unrectified* human rights abuses--including genocide, war crimes, slavery and torture--seem to think being a rogue nation began under the last administration, and that the death of the republic occurred in the past few days!

Among other things, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that President Obama is leaving himself some room to do what's necessary in prosecuting his various "overseas contingencies" and responding to various "man caused disasters." Good for him.

It is amazing that so-called progressive people who live and function generally quite comfortably in a nation founded on *unprosecuted and unrectified* human rights abuses--including genocide, war crimes, slavery and torture

Whatever they were morally, most of those were not crimes under international or domestic law, and certainly not violations of accepted international norms that made the perpetrator hostis humani generis, at the time.

(This is, of course, its own kind of outrage, but the first step to dealing with those things is for society to condemn them in general, as by making them crimes; that has since been done. Once they are, however, to not make those declarations meaningless, it is further necessary to punish those who violate the general proscriptions, and that is where the present regime is failing.)

--seem to think being a rogue nation began under the last administration, and that the death of the republic occurred in the past few days!

There is nothing more pointless than distracting from what people say to try to discuss what they "seem to think". Let's just note that on the only point which has any remote connection to what I said, you seem to have trouble reading. A reference to what is necessary for the US to stop being "the rogue nation it was under the previous administration" is not the same thing as saying that the US was not a rogue nation prior to that (though it certainly, and deliberately so, implies that it the US's status as a rogue nation was notably different in kind or degree under the previous administration than that which it has had at other recent times.)

It is amazing that so-called progressive people who live and function generally quite comfortably in a nation founded on *unprosecuted and unrectified* human rights abuses

Among the more ridiculous straw men routinely tossed out in political forums is the one that says that the sins of men dead for 200 years render living men and women ineligible to make moral descisions.

What is the philisophical basis for this claim? Something to do with Karma? Original sin? Punishment inflicted by the deity unto the fourth generation? Any sort of rational argument you could share with us?

Much as I believe in rehabilitation, it seems obvious that not punishing criminals at all encourages them to commit further crimes. The administration doesn't help its case by referring to calls for the acknowledgement and punishment of criminals as "retribution," as though this were some personal squabble. It isn't like Obama to insult his supporters with such a patronizing term. Trivializing the opposition was a preferred tactic of Cheney and Rove, etc., but they supposedly lost the election last fall.

cmdicely: "Whatever they were morally, most of those were not crimes under international or domestic law, and certainly not violations of accepted international norms that made the perpetrator hostis humani generis, at the time..."

I knew this was coming...discussion of the current situation involves deliberate parsing of the law by the previous administration to cover activities that are morally reprehensible. Citing deficiencies in 'the law' to excuse equal consideration of past abuses is then a bit hypocritical. My point is that what is occurring now is really part of our political, social, economic continuum, and that progressives are not immune to avoiding inconvenient truths. I think the torture should be prosecuted, but I can see that it's really more about getting Bush for many progressives, rather than addressing human rights abuses by the U.S. in a more general and long-term and fundamental sense, and that cheapens it, IMO.

discussion of the current situation involves deliberate parsing of the law by the previous administration to cover activities that are morally reprehensible.

No, discussion of the current situation does not involve that. Nor, in fact, does the current situation involve that. It does involve laughable and transparently dishonest deliberate misrepresentation of the law used as part of a campaign to get people to go along with clear and unmistakeable violations of the law, but that's not at all the same thing.

Citing deficiencies in 'the law' to excuse equal consideration of past abuses is then a bit hypocritical.

No, its not. There is a huge difference between the existing of clear law banning something and the absence of any law on the issue. The fact that exceptionally dishonest people can deliberately lie about the former to try to blur the issue does not make the situations analogous.

The fact is that it was widely accepted until fairly recently that, while many moral authorities had opined that it should be different, there was, in fact, no law banning a wide range of things that have, since the late 1890s, have been increasingly codified into international law, but only since the end of WWII begun being considered not merely as part of the law of nations to which nations are bound, but also part of the law to which individuals are bound, with nations being bound not merely to act in accordance with the proscription, but to positively enforce them against individual wrongdoers.

While we might rightly judge a nation as morally reprehensible for choosing as a matter of policy to engage in any of those things even when there was no law, a nation can only be judged (at least, by people who believe that respect for individual rights necessarily means that individuals cannot be held legally accountable for things for which there are no laws) for its failure to criminally prosecute those personally responsible for those actions where laws exist. Therefore, while slavery, genocide of the native population, etc., were clearly great wrongs when committed, the obligations of following administrations with regard to the punishment of those involved were not the same as the responsibilities of the current regime with regard to torture and war crimes committed recently, because the latter are subject of both national laws and international obligations to enforce international laws.

I think the torture should be prosecuted,

Really? You don't seem to show it very much.

but I can see that it's really more about getting Bush for many progressives,

Your attempts at mind-reading and references to unspecific masses whose minds you claim to have read are unconvincing.

rather than addressing human rights abuses by the U.S. in a more general and long-term and fundamental sense, and that cheapens it, IMO.

Bull. "Addressing human rights abuses ... in a more general and long-term and fundamental sense" requires a number of things. First, it requires establishing what constitutes "human rights abuses" and establishing that they are unacceptable; this is a matter of creating law, national and international. In regards to the particular abuses at issue, that has already been well-established. Torture and war crimes are prohibited by international treaties to which the US is a party, and by the domestic criminal laws of the United States. Second, it requires taking effective action to punish those that violate the prohibition, serving all of the general purposes of criminal punishment (incapacitation, general deterrence and specific deterrence/rehabilitation); this is generally only obligatory or acceptable where law exists at the time of the offense, because the right to be held accountable only to law existing at the time of a claimed offense is itself a human right. But where it is acceptable because law exists, it is also obligatory for these types of offenses, because failure to do so creates license, and undermines the prohibition. This is where the current administration is failing, and by so failing is encouraging and enabling future abuses.

Well then I look forward to seeing Rahm and Barack in the war crimes dock with Addison, Yoo, Bybee, Cheney, and Bush. I'm sure that Isreael will issue Rahm a cyanide filling to bite down on.