I find the use of the word "political" to be a little too mushy in these discussions. Not all prosecutorial considerations outside of the guilt of the putative defendant are "political," or if they are, then not all "political" considerations are, to my mind, equivalently improper. Any concept that purports to sweep up not only Nixon's interference in the Watergate prosecutions (to cover up his own crimes and that of his associates) and the Bush DOJ interference with US Attorneys (in order to promote prosecution of Democrats) but also Obama's position on prosecuting CIA agents is too broad to be meaningful. Yes, in some sense all of these are "political" interference, but failure to recognize any difference among them is shortchanging what is, to me, a more difficult and nuanced discussion about Presidential prosecutorial authority than your posts seem to recognize.

Here's my questions for you, GG: Setting aside the merits, which I'm sure you wouldn't agree with and which frankly I don't agree with either, assume for the moment that Obama genuinely believes that the prosecution of CIA agents who acted in good faith on OLC authority -- even though they clearly committed the crime of torture -- would have such a negative impact on our intelligence services that the harm to the country outweighs the benefit to be gained by those prosecutions. This is, after all, what appears to be his stated position -- Obama himself is certainly not saying explicitly that he's looking out for his own political agenda, even if others (like you) suggest that's what he's really doing (and you may be right).

Would that be a "political" decision? And if so, is it really not one that the President can make? And if so, do you actually have any authority to support your position? That's a genuine question, not a challenge -- you've stated that the President has no role in prosecutorial decisions, but I've yet to see you do anything other than assert it. I would like to know where that position comes from.

What's the "Chris Rock joke"? I'm mortified at the thought that Eli Lake, of all people, might be more up on pop culture (and Chris Rock at that) than I am. Help!

Isn't it true that the evidence in question was actually seen by the HIgh Court in making its earlier ruling in Mohamed's favor? That is, the issue here is not that Obama has attempted to preclude the courts from viewing the relevant evidence, it's only whether it can be made public or not, right? If so, then is it really fair to say that this is a violation of the CAT? And courts here redact sensitive material all the time, why is this so different?

That's a fair point, though the original issue before the British court was whether Mohamed should be able to access these documents as part of his defense to the charges against him. They were summarizing what was done to him as part of their decision holding that he had that right.

OK, but let's be clear here: The opposition to allowing Mohamed's lawyers access to the evidence itself all came from the Bush administration. By the time Obama came into office, all issues about access to the evidence and Mohamed's ability to use it in his own defense had been resolved. The only issue that Obama has taken a position on is whether a summary of that evidence should be made public in the British court's ruling.

Court proceedings are open to the public. There has to be some compelling reason to keep them concealed. What is the compelling reason for keeping concealed evidence of what was done to Mohamed in custody?

Yes, court proceedings are presumptively public. Whether UK law takes the same strong view of that that US courts typically do, I don't know, although I'll assume they do. I don't know the compelling reason -- I haven't seen the evidence (nor have you). Maybe there's no good reason other than avoidance of embarrassment, that may very well be true. Let's assume that's true. Still, the sin of Obama then is, essentially, over-classification in this instance. That's not to be taken lightly. But it hardly rises to the level of interfering with fundamental justice or our obligations under the Convention Against Torture (and I refuse to believe it actually constitutes a crime under UK law until and unless someone knowledgeable, other than Mohamed's lawyer, says so.)

I guess what I'm saying is, your suggestion -- and yes, I know you didn't say this precisely, ok? I do think implications matter -- that Obama's actions amount to disrespect for the rule of law and our treaty obligations, and a further attempt to "thwart Mohamed's day in court" are a little over the top. Does it amount to an inappropriate attempt at secrecy? Probably. Do I wish Obama had taken a different view? Yes. But it's hardly a crime.

The ACLU FOIA suit was filed in 2004. Can you imagine if the government had just followed the law then and released the photos? They would have been absorbed in the initial wave of bad publicity, but we'd be long past it by now. The Bush/Obama fight to suppress them is just making sure that once released they will be a far bigger deal than they would have been otherwise, no?

The coverup is always at least as bad as the crime.