Let me preface this by saying that I agree with Mr. Greenwald completely: It is absolutely proper that our political leaders be held to the same laws as the rest of us, and if being held to the law is found to be too constraining for them to execute their responsibilities in high office, we must either change the law or change our expectations of high office, difficult though this be. Ignoring the law, easy as it seems, encourages additional lawbreaking and assures the decline of Constitutional Rule.

I really think we should move forward with these prosecutions. But let's look at what that means.

On extraordinary rendition, you could make a good argument that Bush and a large part of his administration, and at least a few members of Congress who were so-briefed, and a significant portion of the CIA and perhaps military, are guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment, torture, and, because some of the detainees died, murder while in the process of committing a secondary felony (which, here in Louisiana is automatically capital first-degree murder). Even those who did not order renditions and did not participate in them, if they offered material support (such as working in a White House job that had security clearances that allowed knowledge of the renditions) could be guilty of conspiracy, or aiding and abetting, or both.

This was, in part, the argument that Vincent Bugliosi put forward in his book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder", though he was focusing on Iraq War dead, not rendition-dead (similar arguments apply, of course).

So, to be morally consistent and treat the band of criminals in government the same way you'd treat any other band of criminals that conspired to kidnap people, torture them, murder some of them, and then cover up all evidence, you'd really have to launch a major arrest sweep that would cover giant swaths of Capitol Hill. Let me reiterate: I am TOTALLY in favor of this. Would it cause total chaos in Washington? Yes. Would it lead to incredible recriminations were such a thing to be attempted, or even seriously proposed? Yes. Could it even lead to a breakdown of civil government and some sort of an attempt at a military coup? If you're proposing indicting the Joint Chiefs for capital murder, yes, I think you have to accept some possibility of that.

In other words, you're proposing something akin to a general revolution, led by prosecutors, in which significant portions of the Executive and Legislative branches--and military--are accused of multiple, capital offenses.

There's a tendency when "demanding investigations" to assume that we'd have a few people convicted of obstruction or perjury (a la Scooter Libby), or if we were lucky, an impeachment. But at least in this case, that isn't remotely true. To ask for morally consistent prosecution of the Bush administration and its enabling government actors (which again, includes scores of willing Democrats, perhaps ALREADY including Obama due to his time in Congress, I'm sure Glenn can comment on that) is to ask our government, specifically our Justice Department, to throw a huge amount of itself in jail, much of it for life, some of it facing the death penalty.

Is there a pragmatic "third way" that straddles "totally ignoring the Bush crimes" against "declaring open prosecutorial war against the government"? Some sort of amnesty offer? Some moral compromise? How far does a pragmatist propose taking these charges?

I'd go all the way, but I'm not a pragmatist, which is probably why I'm neither a holder of office nor a blogger.

The term "Truth Commission" sounds incredibly Orwellian. It's an interesting idea in principle; perhaps a less chilling name could be devised.

I agree with you about the "blood tide" that would come, were we to hold our government fully accountable to the laws they subject us to. In the face of shocking corruption and rampant lawlessness, a strict call for justice is exactly equivalent to a declaration of war. I probably wouldn't have the luxury of demanding such a thing if I had children to protect, and even so, it's daunting. People are free to disagree, but I personally believe that insisting that we hold the Bush administration accountable for their crimes is just as dangerous as demanding the mafia be held accountable in Sicily. You're asking for all kinds of trouble, because you're challenging the very foundation of power, illegitimate though it is. Citing a higher power, like the Constitution, provides moral justification, but not physical protection.

Perhaps a pragmatic amnesty for the vast majority of offenders, in return for full cooperation in the prosecution, would be an acceptable middle ground. I like the word "amnesty", too, because it semantically highlights that these were arguably war crimes. Just a little bit of connotation, but a favorable one.

Anyway, these are just the musings of comment-spewers sinking deeper and deeper into the discussion well of a popular blog. I'd be curious to see what a real legal scholar thinks would be the most effective, most useful, and least disastrous route.

Remember that just a week or two ago, just hours after Senator Ted Stevens had become only the fifth Senator convicted of a crime (all seven counts) while in office, he said

"I have not been convicted. I have a case pending against me, and probably the worse case of prosecutorial ... misconduct by the prosecutors that is known."

How much worse can the abuse of the poor English language get than that? I have a nightmare scenario where Bush and Cheney are impeached, convicted, and imprisoned, and the power elite simply chooses to say that this never happened. "No, they haven't been convicted of anything. This is all a partisan witch hunt. The President is voluntarily residing at Fairview Correctional Institution, which is not a prison, until the political climate improves and he can return to Texas."

Hmm. Why did I read that in my mind with Sarah Palin's voice?