From Glenn's link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/22/723297/-4-Star-General-Calls-for-Probe-of-Bush-White-House):

Having said that, it's almost an out of body experience to me to listen to this debate going on [whether these techniques were torture].

We should never as a policy maltreat people under our control, detainees.

We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during a course of that, both by the armed forces and CIA. [Releasing the memos] was the right thing to do.

I wonder what Brian Williams thinks?

Specter has said he will vote no on Johnsen, but he hasn't said he will filibuster. He is pro-choice, so he doesn't even have the abortion fig leaf as a reason for opposition. The political calculus right now is that he needs to show some bona fides to the left to head off a primary challenge. So I find it very strange that he might vote no on cloture (i.e. for Johnsen proceeding to a vote).

Also, might not pro-choice, moderate R's Snowe and Collins vote to allow a vote (or perhaps even vote for Johnsen)?

And Nelson (the most rightwing Dem) has said he'll vote no on Johnsen. But he hasn't said what he'll do on cloture. And his history would suggest that he will allow a vote (i.e. yes on cloture, but no on the final vote). He has seldom voted against cloture even when he opposed the nominee.

I wonder if as Glenn suggests Reid wants to "lose" this one for some reason. Shades of telco immunity.

WaPo:

[T]hose who relied on the memos and shaped their behavior in the good-faith belief that they were following the law should not be subject to prosecution.

That can be read as only saying those who followed the memos in good faith should be exempt from prosecution. Alternatively, it can be read as implicitly asserting that those who relied on the memos necessarily acted in good faith. I agree with Glenn that WaPo is more interested in promoting the latter view. Still, FWIW, the gutless ambiguity may be intentional.

Of course the real issue with the piece is the dog that didn't bark. They don't even raise -- even to dismiss it -- the possibility of prosecuting the memo authors and the administration officials who sought that faulty advice.

@bamage, you can definitely post comments at WaPo. I posted the following:

But what about those who may have relied on the memos in bad faith? Should some interrogators who may have stayed within the four corners of the memos be investigated to determine if they may have known they were acting on specious legal opinions?

And what about the authors of the memos themselves?

The bar is rightly very high for prosecuting people who acted in accordance with legal advice. But not infinitely high. Even for military personnel, "I was following orders" is not an absolute defense if those orders are illegal. Proving bad faith is hard (but not impossible, especially in this day of email) and as always there is a presumption of innocence. So pressing charges may ultimately not make sense as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. But shouldn't this be investigated?