Establishing a policy which punishes lawyers for rendering a legal opinion could easily lead to an erosion of liberty. Legal opinions are not law...they are interpretations which should always be given with the caveat that it is only a legal opinion. The ultimate responsibility for action always rests with the perpetrator--in this case, Cheney and Bush, who used the opinion to go beyond international limits on torture. Interestingly, the legal opinion does not protect either Cheney or Bush completely but it does probably make it impossible to convict them in the courts. The lawyer giving the opinion is somewhat shielded unless it can be proved that he/she did so for reasons which are unlawful, something very, very difficult to prove. Many ambitious attorneys would jump at the chance to please the president or vice-president and while it is reprehensible in this case, it is not clearly illegal or punishable. It is an aspect of law which is a double sided sword—it can furnish the culprit with a partial legal out; on the other hand, it does otherwise allow for some flexibility in the law which sometimes provides for very good, healthy results. The law is not black and white and it should remain that way. Perhaps Bybee should be hauled up for an ethics violation...he should answer to his peers. Prosecution would wind up with the country embroiled in a nightmare and very little else would get done. Obama is smart to stay out of it!!!!!

What baloney! Bush and Cheney pushed the Iraq intelligence by demanding compliance from the CIA in its investigations...both of them were all over the CIA, particularly Cheney who showed up on more than one occasion. There is also evidence that the Iraq incursion was in the works even before 9/11. It is outrageous to find excuses for these two rogues who lead the US into a costly, totally unnecessary war bringing on world scorn and even more hatred of the U.S.

History will not vindicate them...it will expose them for taking the U.S. into torture, for invading a sovereign nation on false pretexts, and being the knee-jerk ideologues they are.

This diatribe sounds like a permanently suspendable offense to me. Just how egregious does it have to get before these hate mongers are purged from our air waves by their greedy station owners!

The New Republic is not my favorite publication nor do I trust their opinion on anything after their willingness for us to commit to the Iraq incursion. Talk about not too smart!

Geico has had such clever, entertaining ads but the goofy eyes are terrible...I agree...they must go! And I could do without the Viagra ads, too, but they should not be stopped unless Congress wants to curtail big pharma from advertising all their prescription drugs. I am convinced these ads are driving up the costs of prescriptions...there are zillions of them...it is bound to have a huge impact on what we pay.

Prejean appears to be just like all the other hypocritical conservatives who live in a world where they criticize everyone else for their sexual conduct while they do just as they please. These people live in logic tight compartments making it convenient. I don't how they can keep a straight face when they open their dishonest mouths but they seem to blithely go on with their merry little deceptive ways as if everything is hunky dory!

I'm sure Limbaugh will run his mouth off this week and all the Repugnants will froth at the mouth as usual. They turn wrong side out over anything and everything anyway. What difference does it make!

With all the precedent, I don't think Obama has any choice about including it. I don't like it either, but there are practical, political considerations in this decision. I think he will be judicious about including religious concerns in his policies. It will probably only be a token involvement just as it was under Clinton.

The term, anal poisoning, is as disgusting as its creator...it shows where his mind is. Just how do the Republicans "know" that Pelosi is lying? Were they privy to CIA records on the subject and were Newt and Rush present when she was briefed? If not, then it is obvious that their comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't think Cheney is in any danger of being loved by the American people. We despise him, Rush, Bush...the whole despicable lot! Of course, if the media wishes to give Cheney some accolades, including this article, then I can't predict whether the people are going to turn on Nancy. It seems to me that Panetta should keep his mouth shut unless he is gong to release the records; otherwise, he is just another entrenched stooge with a bureaucratic ax to grind.

Probably, Obama decided that the 13 defendants who will be tried by military tribunals should not be simply let loose on the world which is what would happen if they were tried in civilian court because they were tortured---the fact that they were tortured at all makes all the evidence against them tainted. I’m glad I don’t have to make this decision...Obama has to live with the fuck-up’s of the Bush Administration and politically speaking, letting these enemy combatants loose (which is the only legal thing to do) is a political bombshell for the president. He has obviously decided that the defendants must be tried and I truly believe that is what the American people as a majority want. It is not a perfect solution...but it is politically necessary!

Because these defendants were tortured, all evidence against them would be considered tainted in a civilian court. We don't know the rules of the military tribunals which have been set up to try these people. Obviously, they will make a distinction between evidence gained through torture and "other" evidence.