It's much more important to nail Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury than any others among the various sadistic flunkies!
The latter will improvise cruelly on occasion, but if their higher-ups know they have no legal cover, then this kind of abuse can never become systematic.

They probably wanted to just look forward and not prosecute anyone, but they realized today that the only way they're ever going to shut Cheney up is to put his ass in jail. Way to ruin it for Bybee and Yoo too, bigmouth! They were totally set to ride this one out.

I still don't understand why Obama gets to decide who's prosecuted and who's not.

At the same time, the Justice Department's ethics office is also prepared to offer some sharp criticism of John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury in yet another report.

Please tell me this isn't the same office that handled the Ted Stevens prosecution.

I'm glad to read that the door is ajar again. If moral hazard exists anywhere, it belongs with the issue of sanctioning torture.

There can be no impunity. If no one else, the men who re-opened Pandora's Box must be held accountable or we guarantee that we will someday have another Bush/Cheney in the White House willing to scrap all law, altogether.

Some of these acts occurred in 2002 and 2003. What is the statute of limitations for the potential charges?

Also, even if these guys aren't prosecuted I hope that at least they will be disbarred. Is there the equivalent of a statute of limitations on complaints to the appropriate bar associations?

I think it is a horrible precedent to rely on the next President to prosecute the prior administration. Where is Congress? Congress should be investigating and determining who should be prosecuted in the executive branch.

This is entirely a matter or strategy. A prosecution will inevitably be highly politicized and suck all the air out of every other issue in DC once it gets started. There are other things that must come first. And Democrats will be in much better position to manage those prosecutions once they have first successfully managed the most immediate issues facing us and consolidated their control of agencies etc. with their appointees in place. In the meantime, there are many smaller steps (like releasing these memos) that can prepare the ground without immediately prompting full-scale political warfare.

In the last year we've learned two things: if you fail, be such a big failure that you threaten to take everyone one else down with you and then you'll get bailed out. Second, if you want to do something illegal, do it from the highest branches of government so your past crimes become bygones that everyone else needs to get over.

Disbar all the lawyers involved - they are a disgrace. Impeach Bybee!

I still don't understand why Obama gets to decide who's prosecuted and who's not.

That may be one reason why the WH seems to have opened the door again. Obama is a constitutional scholar and knows the limits of presidential authority. He can't step on any investigations or actions congress wants to take. While he presides over the cabinet, I don't think he can tell the AG not to prosecute. All he can do is pardon, and that is not going to happen.

This is going to play out very slowly. There probably won't be any substantial public action until he has all of his appointments in place. Right now, there are still a lot of vacancies for work to be done, especially in the legal offices.

@ Halfdan

I've been wondering the same. There seems to be a lot of pissed off lefties, but why is this Obama's problem?

Obama has the power to release the memos, which he did. But now isn't the ball in Congress's court? I know that we've all been used to a dictatorial style of gov. over the past 8 years,in which the White House controlled Congress, but the Obama admin. seems to believe in the separation of powers. Would it even be appropriate for the White House to lead the prosecution attack? Isn't this the job of Congress? Other than make suggestions , what can the White House do?

Nothing gives me less confidence than the prospect of a Congressional investigation of this mess and for several reasons:

One of the probes will be led by my own Senator Feinstein and Diane's overall track record for wise decisions (up to and including her vote in support of Mukasey as Bush AG because "he was the best we are likely to get,") is not one which fills me with confidence.

Second, the past track record of Congress in investigating such weighty matters is abysmal. The 9/11 probe into who knew what when and what they did was a casebook in coverup. Between Pat Roberts repeatedly assuring his colleagues that his committee would provide a final detailed report and then stonewalling and Jay Rockefeller so concerned that he wrote himself a memo and then stuck it in his desk drawer, these folks don't do a great job of investigation.

Finally, when you see the stories on Pelosi and others getting briefings on torture early on and doing nothing and learning that Harmon was ready to actively try and head off a probe which could damage the Bush administration on illegal wiretaps, it is clear that too many members of Congress have their own vested interests in not digging very deeply if they take on the task.

An independent prosecutor like a Fitzpatrick is vital to really getting at what was done in our names.

Something to consider . . .

1) Conservatives, who still wield enormous power in Washington, don't consider that any of these people did anything wrong.
2) The right-wing noise machine makes heroes and martyers out of anyone the "librul" establishment attacks.
3) Republicans are bound to perpetually kiss up to the far right.
4) Democrats, in the interests of comity, are still pushovers whenever the Republicans push hard on an issue.

So, if somehow a Republican becomes president in 4, 8, or 12 years, Judge Bybee should be top of the list for the next Republican nominee to the Supreme Court!

wtf,

Congress can investigate to its heart's content, but the decision to prosecute is solely the Executive's. One problem with Congressional investigations is that they often screw up potential prosecutions by granting immunity and so on. But since the only purpose of these proposed investigations is political, namely to harass and embarrass officials of the prior administration, that shouldn't stop Congress.

But since the only purpose of these proposed investigations is political, namely to harass and embarrass officials of the prior administration

Well, yes, a person who has zero moral compass, regard for human rights, belief in the Constitution and respect for the rule of law (domestic or international) might think so. But are you sure you want to lay your total depravity and worthlessness on the table so plainly?

Mr. Obama said it was time to admit "mistakes" and "move forward." But there were signs that he might not be able to avoid a protracted inquiry into the use of interrogation techniques that the president's top aides and many critics say crossed the line into torture.

As many people have already noted, this is a strategy on Obama´s part. He is creating an environment where the public starts hearing "torture" instead of "enhanced interrogation techniques," and begin building a public case, through the release of memos, against those responsible.

By the time the congress gets to an investigation, the facts will be established and they will be established as simply facts -- without partisan bias. The only thing left for Republicans to do will be to explain how torture is the patriotic thing to do.

It´s a little bit like the Holocaust, actually. Any educated person could know it was going on, but society allowed everyone a certain amount of plausible deniability. Once the atrocities became known and accepted, even those who had highly-defended ignorance had to come out against it.

And when I say "public" here, I am of course refering to 70-80 percent of the public and not the worshipers of teh stupid.

But since the only purpose of these proposed investigations is political, namely to harass and embarrass officials of the prior administration, that shouldn't stop Congress.

Uh huh. That's like saying "But since the only purpose of these proposed investigations is political, namely to harass and embarrass the killer, that shouldn't stop the police."

Clinton was investigated for a blow job. These assholes broke the law by employing torture (they broke a number of laws, actually). Try and get your priorities straight.

So President Obama thinks we should admit to making some "mistakes" and move on. Right.

"Oh, excuse me sir, I appear to have inadvertantly stripped you naked in a cold cell and bumped your testicles several dozen times with a cattle prod - I'm terribly embarrassed"

"Think nothing of it, old chum! It could have happened to anyone who arrests foreign nationals on scant/non-existant evidence, then holds them indefnitely in 'black box' detention facilities half a world away from their homes and families, on the presumption that they are guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable! Let's just agree that it's all testicles over the dam and move on"

"Golly, thanks a lot for being so understanding! I was afraid I might be challenged to defend myself in a public court of law in which I would be afforded all of the legal rights, representation and presumption of innocence that you were denied on account of you know...you being brown and facing Mecca when you pray and whatnot. It could have been terribly awkward for me to say nothing of my political bosses"

"Perish the thought! The last thing I would want would be to be guilty, somehow, of embarrassing your leaders or of calling into question the Amercan conceit that they are so inherently good that they are surrounded in a pearly aura of virtue even when committing the most depraved of attrocities upon my person! Now, if you would be so kind as to pass me my underwear and restrain your adorably vocal pet wolf, I would be very much obliged..."

"Certainly, Abu, I'll pass them to you as soon as you do two little favors; I hope you won't mind pissing on your Holy Scriptures for me and signing this release from legal responsibility for any and all physical, psychological injury...blah..blah...blah?"

Mr. Obama said it was time to admit "mistakes" and "move forward."

But, Cheney won't admit "mistakes", "move forward" or STFU.

He's on TV, along with his flunkies, every week defended torture and attacking the current adminstration. He has even argued that all of the evidence should come out.

He honestly believes that if Americans know that torturing OBL's driver help thwart a secret plot to reveal the location of his home on ggole earth, they will support it.

I say oblige him, let ever more damaging bits of "intel" leak out over the course of the summer

Winkandnod,

I agree that former presidents and vice presidents should not criticize the current holders of those offices. That was the rule for most of the history of the Republic. And as soon as Presidents Carter and Clinton apologize for their criticisms of President Bush, Vice President Cheney should apologize for his criticism of President Obama.

If Obama treacherously refuses to preserve the constitution and laws, in accordance with his oath, then he is the enemy and it's my civic duty to fuck up his country as energetically as I fucked up Bush's. It's even easier to fuck him up now, since the country is so very fragile: defer some consumption, save some money, put my nest away somewhere safe, and before you know it he's got a depression and he's a one-term disappointment. Some GOP fascist gets in then - So what? What difference does that make in a torture state?

And as soon as Presidents Carter and Clinton apologize for their criticisms of President Bush, Vice President Cheney should apologize for his criticism of President Obama.

It's not that they can't ever criticize a sitting president, it's the fact that Cheney is doing it so soon after President Obama took office. He's not even waiting 100 days or a year like most former presidents and vice presidents do.
Besides, I thought Republicans were the classy grown-ups, but I guess it's okay with you if they emulate two year old children.
The ever-shifting Repub morality.

That was the rule for most of the history of the Republic. And as soon as Presidents Carter and Clinton apologize for their criticisms of President Bush,

Yep. Except for George H Bush's criticism of Clinton in early 1993.

Oh wait. I forgot that Republican double-standard again. IOKIYAR.

Obama and Holder still don't get that the memos came after the torture was being done...that many who did the torturing knew those being tortured were innocent and were told to get any information at all...anything.

That many who tortured enjoyed being sadistic because they hated Muslims. Like the old time "who cares if he's guilty...he's a nigger".
Starting to get the point now Mr.Obama on why there needs to be investigations and not just a blanket immunity?

The degradation of these memos cannot be forgotten or let go. Getting the ok from DoJ is no justification for torturing another human being. We defeated the Nazis without torturing anybody

I think it is a horrible precedent to rely on the next President to prosecute the prior administration. Where is Congress? Congress should be investigating and determining who should be prosecuted in the executive branch.

Uh, no, not if you believe in the Constitution, they shouldn't. Prosecution is an executive power, and it rests with the elected executive. Now, if Congress wanted to hold the previous executive accountable rather than leaving it to the current executive, they could (and arguably should) have exercised their power of impeachment, but prosecution is solely an executive power, and Congress has no legitimate role at all in deciding who should be prosecuted.

We defeated the Nazis without torturing anybody

And Iraq the first time, too.

If you are old enough to remember seeing Desert Storm on TV in 1991 you probably remember that once the ground invasion began Iraqi troops surrendered en masse -- over 100,000 simply gave themselves up. It made for very interesting television.

I remember the scenes vividly. Fully decked-out infantrymen talking to groups of several Iraqis, all of whom where on their knees begging for mercy in Arabic. Many of them had flyers that the U.S. had dropped in advance telling them how to surrender. The soldiers had been prepared for this, and were instructing them in calm, reassuring voices "You are safe. You are all right. No one will hurt you."

Just stunning.

Now why did so many give themselves up?

Because they knew a) they hadn't a prayer of defending Kuwait and b) that the U.S. would treat them humanely.

How many thousands of U.S. lives were saved in 1991 because the U.S. was trusted to follow the Geneva conventions?

You can forget that happening again any time in the near future.

Not only did the rampant torture prevent Iraqis from voluntarily surrendering to U.S. forces, it also energized a large segment of the populace that might have accepted a fair occupation regime to fight back.