Prosecutorial discretion is a corner stone of American Jurisprudence. There are any number of reasons not pursue a prosecution, and I am sure that several can be drummed up in this case. -- Clockwork Smurf

The issue of prosecutorial discretion was addressed upthread. Ondelette indicated that the details of our legal implementation of the Geneva Conventions cannot reverse or mitigate the treaty's requirement -- that prosecution is not discretionary in regards to torture.
I would like to see more written about this, by lawyers familiar with the Geneva Conventions and their historic application in this country and abroad. However, it is not clear that prosecutorial discretion is available for this particular crime. If evidence of the crime of torture exists, indictments may be required.

I suspect that this has long been well understood by the men who've been advising Bush, which would account for their efforts to re-define practices such as waterboarding as "not torture" -- despite the fact that we treated it as such in the aftermath of WWII.

You can [...] embarrass Obama for his back door pardon of these men and women. But if he takes the stance that this is not an issue worth dredging up your at a political stalemate. -- Clockwork Smurf

Possibly. Time will tell.

"making them pay" will only serve to glorify the perpetrators in the eyes of their followers, and lead to the establishment of their actions as precident. -- Clockwork Smurf

Yes, but you likely over-estimate the staying power of said "followers". We don't have all that many remaining segregationists in America, despite the vitality of their movement 50 years ago. Pro-torture zealots have an equally unappealing core issue to contend with. 20 years hence, when most normal, middle-aged politically engaged Americans no longer have any emotional connection to this era -- who will find it sexy?

Rest assured that, if in the next few years you wake up and see a pile of ash where the Brooklyn Bridge used to be, or that if Obama starts encountering advanced weapons in his surge into Afghanistan, he'll want to reserve the right to use waterboarding as deemed necessary.

As Glenn has covered a number of times over the past several years, utilizing torture has been deemed a vastly ineffective (if not an overtly counterproductive) method of gathering intelligence. Would you please state specific evidence to the contrary for your view?

I've just heard that maybe moving ahead of Obama's order to close down Gitmo they have been moving detainees out already. A few to Iraq and one to Afghanistan. But the Mil. isn't saying whether they are being released or still detained. Are they covering their butts getting the evidence of wrongly held people out of the way do you reckon?

I think most presidents of my lifetime have violated the constitution, in spirit if not in letter.

I mean, WTF is this trillion dollar bailout? And how many times have the feds pushed state laws under the carpet in the name of some right- or left-wing agenda?

The fact is that dems only see the trampling of the constitution being done by the right, and reps only see the trampling of the constitution being done by the left.

Effective presidents, by and large, are those who focus on their political agenda. And for Obama, this would be a waste of time -- with zero political upside.

I am a centrist. If I were a right winger, I would PRAY for Obama / Holder to go after Bush/Cheney. Because there is simply no upside in it for them.

I loved watching The West Wing during its heyday. There was an episode arc where Charley, the President's aid is trying to find a replacement for President Bartlett's personal secretary who had been with him since his days as a Governor.

Lily Tomlin played the part of the new secretary, and play it to the hilt she did. She bombed out on a couple of interviews but was finally accepted. What struck me during the episode where she was given the job was when President Bartlett read back to her a letter she had written lambasting him for some policy decision or another he had made.

When asked why he agreed to give her the job after such a ass ripping letter he simply stated it was because she addressed him as "Mr. President", that in spite of her strong and obvious disagreement with him she still showed respect for the office.

Why do I mention this?

Simply this, you show absolutely no respect for anyone or anything that goes against your vaulted and high-minded ideals. I'm not talking about me. I couldn't care less about the "verbal" trash you toss out on this board. Calling me a Bush lover? Honest to goodness I never laughed so hard in all my years reading Salon. I wonder how old you are. You sound so much like myself when in my 20's and early 30's. So righteous and cocksure about my every opinion. I bet you are just a joy to be around when any discussion turns to politics.

I never said Afghanistan was simple. I've always said is was a "clusterf--k,"

It was a clusterf--k for the Russians, and it will be for us. Simple as that.

C'mon, dude. Think like a politician. You know I'm right on this.

-- steveindallas

No, "Dude", I not only don't think you're right on this, I don't agree with your conclusion or your premise or what political gain can be or cannot be made. I don't agree with anything you've written.

Obama doesn't have to spend every waking minute on the investigation. As you requested of me, 'see my previous comment'.

The idea that Obama and his administration have their collective voices strangled on every other issue just because and investigation is going on is really quite stupid. Plus, this isn't even a difficult investigation. The perpetrators have all but confessed already. Just wait to see how easy it will be once the whistle blowers come out of the woodwork in the very near future.