As I see it, there are now four categories of criminal actors involved in torture: (1) The Principals - Rice, Cheney, and the rest of the group that in coordination with the CIA decided that they would resort to torture for detainees, (2) the group of attorneys that honored the request for legal cover, (3) the agents that carried out the torture, and (4) members of the new administration engaged in the coverup of the crimes.

I wonder whether any of the commenters here have thoughts about which category would be easiest to go after in terms of drumming up public support for a prosecution. You would have to consider the different theories of liability, the likely forum for claims against the separate groups, etc. I.e., where is our best chance of success in terms of having some accountability for what happened here? Having participated in several Congressional investigations, I don't believe the Villagers are our best bet for any category.

Attorney General Holder attempted yesterday to preemptively extend federal immunity to category (3) extending a “legal advice” version of the Nuremberg Defense – and also guaranteed that the federal government would “provide legal representation to any employe . . . in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee [or] in any international or foreign tribunal." I wonder what authority he has to appoint counsel to employees in foreign tribunals, but I digress...

In terms of the Obama administration, if it weren't for different theories of sovereign immunity etc., the conduct so far would amount to being an accessory after the fact: May I

18 U.S.C. §3 – Accessory After the Fact: Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender[s] in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by an Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment . . . prescribed for the punishment of the principal . . .

Where's the weak link? And what kind of case do we push for?

I see this story differently. Many on this website had often wondered why so many Democrats went turncoat and voted for the FISA immunity. Complicity was I think accurately suggested as an explanation for the Democratic leadership's behavior - the ones who got the briefings. Others wondered whether the NSA or CIA had "dirt" on the turncoat Democrats by way of wiretapping that might "discourage" them from taking on the intelligence community.

Public outrage has little to do with it. The eavesdropping may not be rolled back until we don't have compromised representatives anymore. What this story makes me wonder is how many Harmans were there? How many FISA cheerleaders were subtly induced by the Administration to flip? Do you believe this was an isolated incident?

Couldn't agree more, I just believe that the current crop of congress count too many of the corrupt or compromised among them for any legislative change, or a toothy (as opposed to toothless) investigation.

As for the rest of the post, you're preaching to the choir, believe me. :)

The re-outing of Nancy Pelosi (a ham-handed effort as Marcy Wheeler points out) as being aware of the torture is part of the multi-faceted P.R./CIA campaign to derail the investigations and/or prosecutions of torture.

It's a relatively well coordinated effort: in just the past two weeks we have seen editorial after editorial pushing the don't investigate meme (see my diary on John Bolton's last one in the Post), the "re-discovery" of Nancy Pelosi's complicity and/or tacit approval, the neutralization of Jane Harman, who contemporaneously objected to the torture program (coincidence is simply too great for me to ignore), and just yesterday Lamar Alexander literally threatened Eric Holder with a prosecution himself for his involvement in Clinton-era rendition if he even thought about prosecuting the Torture Council.

As far as I'm concerned this has become a classic example of fogetting history and being doomed to repeat it. By passing the Patriot Act and allowing the CIA to wiretap anybody, we have essentially resuscitated J. Edgar Hoover's ghost and given the CIA the keys to everyone's closet. In exchange for allowing itself to be used by a corrupt administration, the CIA regained the power to get dirt on everyone and pull the strings of government. Harman and Pelosi are being subjected to a very old trick.

Judge Silberman once wrote an article talking about his task of having to go through J. Edgar Hoover's secret files. He wrote:

"The House Judiciary Committee demanded I testify about those files, so I was obliged to read them. Accompanied by only one FBI official, I read virtually all these files in three weekends. It was the single worst experience of my long governmental service. Hoover had indeed tasked his agents with reporting privately to him any bits of dirt on figures such as Martin Luther King, or their families. Hoover sometimes used that information for subtle blackmail to ensure his and the bureau's power.

I intend to take to my grave nasty bits of information on various political figures--some still active. As bad as the dirt collection business was, perhaps even worse was the evidence that he had allowed--even offered--the bureau to be used by presidents for nakedly political purposes. I have always thought that the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends."

What's happening now is that the CIA is flexing its muscle, and making clear that it intends to fight back if the march towards investigations and prosecutions continue. There Will Be Blood.