Those warnings are issued with an eye towards the events they know full well are imminent: debates over how legally restrained the CIA should be in its interrogation and detention powers; demands that light be shined on what the CIA spent the last eight years doing at the behest of Dick Cheney...

Yes, although I don't hold much hope that Obama will seriously tackle these issues. But I wonder if the intelligence community doesn't have good reason to be concerned that invstigation and any potential punishment might be as selective as it was in the case of torture in Abu Graib, and torture generally as conducted by US military. In that instance, we saw people at the very lowest levels punished, and the policy-makers completely left off the hook. CIA might rightly see the same thing happening here--a search for lower-level scapegoats to take the fall for Cheney, who has railroaded intelligence since he took office. This whole story, imo, may be laid at Cheney's feet, to the extent that he 'forced' them in many areas to do things they otherwise would not have done, and now they fear they will take the fall for him.

I'm not attempting to defend CIA activities, but rather understand their current perspective.

I always enjoy seeing Greenwald battling with his Inner Adnoto.

"In the certitude of ethical heaven, you needn't worry about such things."

Your scenarios are constructed in ethical heaven, where knowlege is absolute. As you say, we don't live there. In fact--there is no "there".

So regardless of how one would answer your question, it has no bearing on the programmatic use of illegal torture here--in this world--of flesh, blood, dogs, darkness, and feces.

He's definately in our future, at least as a candidate, isn't he.

On the positive side, if Jeb does run (and win) in 2016 as a 'moderate and pragmatic centrist, then perhaps Mrs. Obama could run for Gov. or Senator in Florida at that time, to fill the 'Jeb Gap'. But only after former president Clinton turns the job offer down.

However, she did note that the Manual could be altered by Executive Order [I'm surprised it is that simple] which could leave a loophole for another Bush or Cheney to incorporate techniques which could be called torture.

Future congress or president may well issue law or order that run contrary to the constitution or signed treaty, but they can be brought to court if they do it.

But then there's that damn 'standing' thing.

Q: Would you cut your leg off, with a hacksaw, if it meant finding a cure for cancer.

Q: Would you dismember your mother, or spouse, or child, to point of death if it meant solving global warming and the certain rescue of the human race.

These are questions anyone can answer for him/herself as a moral/ethical exercise, but they have no relation whatsoever to the current practice of torture here or elsewhere in the world. They are totally unrelated questions.

Threat of Punishment Works, Study Suggests

..."The new study shows that over the long term, punishment gets ingrained in people's psyches in a way that causes them to fear getting into trouble."...

http://www.livescience.com/culture/081204-crime-punishment.html

Absolutely true, imo. I'd add that there is no way to capitulate in secret. It is simply impossible. Regardless of how carefully crafted a media release may be, clear changes of position can not be obscured.

It will be seen for what it is.

Horton is also a discussant in that DN segment with Goodman. Well worth watching or reading transcript at link provided.

"Matthew Alexander", author of How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/3/us_interrogator_in_iraq_says_torture

Two senior interrogators have recently gone public that I know of, with remarkably similar messages to americans: that torture is morally and legally unsupportable, and that it is ineffective.

Bowers was great, regardless of the REM. His thoughts on media requests is also insightful. Evolution of the netroots, including Open Left, are every bit as interesting and important as what's happening in the transition beltway.

Agree on all points, and my comment was not directed at your writing. More a response to the seeming ubiquitous sentiment that it is simply too early, too potentially harmful and damaging, to be critical of the moves Obama is making now.

It's not premature at all to criticize Obama for his 'establishment-soothing appointments' because this is what he did -

I agree it's absolutely appropriate to evaluate and be critical of his appointments. And one would expect that this is going to be SOP not just for Obama, but for all presidents from now on. Not because of anything the POTUS has done, but rather because of the evolution of the netroots. Things are going to be looked at much more closely, and by many many more people, than has been "usual". And this is all to the good imo.

But I don't think he's making these appointments in order to soothe anyone in particular. It's simply that he's a centrist and all his picks are from, and in, that hugely diverse and varied Center. Why, the sheer scope of the diversity, the multi-faceted nature of it, it's beyond description.

Yeah, that's it.

He's keeping his powder dry.

As Pelosi and Reid are doing.

Where's all that powder?

They must have Himalayan sized mountains of it by now.

This reminds me of an argument here in the comments section Long Ago, to the effect that Pelosi really hadn't taken impeachment off the table, that she was just keeping her powder dry and would spring the impeachment on Bush/Cheney when the time was right.