the point being the difference between legal theory and practice, is all

Wouldn't make more sense to learn,improve our policies,clarify them and move on

It would.

Do you have suggestions on how we can "learn" without investigating what actually happened?

Also -- many of the things that are being called "torture" are not. I do not count sleep depravation or sensory depravation as torture. PsyOps is a totally different discipline.

Would you subject your children and/or loved ones to such techniques if you think they are holding information that you desire? If not, what if they REALLY don't want to tell you?

So, you believe that the politician should only be in the game for his/her own gain?

I have read pundits who claim that democracy is simply various groups stealing and dominating as their power allows. Are you saying that now that Obama has won, it is time for his followers to "get as much as possible" while the getting is good?

I am beginning to see that several folks who I thought were interested in seeing the constitution defended; in fact, want their side to win. Just that. Just win, baby.

Several thousand years ago, a sage claimed that the good ruler would rule his country just as a great chief would cook his fish. (very lightly)

I would add to that that one must enforce the rules of the game; or stop pretending that the constitution has any value. (sports metaphors only due to watching playoffs today)

Those who tortured the terrorists shouldn't be prosecuted, they should be given medals for keeping us safe in the War of Terror!

So... pardons tomorrow?

The All-Star Panel hopes so.

Get a medal.

That's the establishment way.

That just started. Pelosi will be interviewed by Chris Wallace. Should be a hoot.

I do know where Holder is on the flow chart, more or less, and am aware that he is "independent".

Excuse my cynicism, but I haven't seen a lot of independence on the part of the AG for quite some time. Holder himself is reputed to have held his tongue on the Marc Rich pardon.

Ideal vs real is very important; you know that. Ideally Holder could go after these guys, theoretically he could do this even if Obama were to state publicly that prosecutions would be a bad idea. (as he pretty much has) I don't think that this is likely however. I worked for the federal government here in Canada and I can say for sure that every government comes with its own set of priorities, and goals. Along with those do's comes a very clear set of don't's. Typically these priorities are decided at the very highest levels.

For instance right now we have the case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen currently held at Guantanamo for a "murder" allegedly committed on the battlefield while he was a minor, i.e. a child soldier. Despite any number of laws on the books and international treaties, that require our government to protect it's citizens, our own dear Leader, Stephen Harper has, alone in the world, not even asked to have him back. Needless to say, neither has his Foreign Minister, Solicitor General (equivalent to your AG) or any other official, despite what our laws and Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our clear legal obligation under international treaties such as the Child Soldiers treaty require.

So, yes, I do think that it really is up to Obama to, if not "give permission", then to at least give direction. Holder, of course, can pick any direction he chooses to swim. I am simply saying that in general he is unlikely to choose to prosecute any crime sans political direction.

Having said this, I completely support any and all efforts to bring these alleged criminals to justice regardless of their stature. Obama may agree with us, now we have to "make 'him' do it", as your own FDR once said to a petitioner.

Holly - upthread would be Glenn this time. I go on about the requirement, but he mentioned this time. I only followed up with the requirement of punishment and reparations in the case that guilt is found.

Jebbie - I don't know about trials in absentia except I've heard of them happening. I don't think international trials can be in absentia, but someone else probably knows better.

libertyaintfree - Brazil does not have state sanctioned torture. They have signed and ratified the CAT. Unless you want to claim the U.S. has it, huh?

rawguy - The statutory penalty is minimum 20 years. Death or life imprisonment if the torture victim died (e.g. if they can prosecute the cases in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib or find torture in the suicides at Guantanamo).

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.

Kitt, I don't think anyone is questioning whether the Obama administration has the capacity to walk and chew gum at the same time. Some of us are simply questioning whether the political culture makes it impossible to prosecute war crimes and, say, enact health care reform. Obama can't do it all on his own. He needs the Congress; he needs the media; and he needs the people.

Prosecution of former Bush administration officials would spawn a media circus reminiscent of the Clinton impeachment. It's naive to think that any other major legislation would get any oxygen in that kind of environment.

I say this as someone who badly wants Bush officials to be forced to account for their crimes. But it's not going to be free. Obama will have to sacrifice at least some of his agenda to do it.

Let's at least be honest with ourselves about the consequences -- both good and bad -- of war crimes prosecutions.

Dude, there were hundreds of treaties. If you want a link, try www.google.com, or your local library.

The common perception is that the White Man continually screwed the indians by breaking treaties.

In fact, the White Man continually screwed the indians by writing and enforcing treaties that were sweetheart deals for the whites. Most of these involved surrendering land, and ending hostilities with a mutual ceasefire.

Indians would then "break" treaties by wandering back onto the surrendered lands while hunting and migrating. Or, by realizing they'd gotten the raw end of the deal and killing a few settlers.

Yes, whites broke treaties -- especially in cases like the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, after realizing that there was oil beneath the land that the tribes had been herded onto. Indians got some mineral rights payments, and still do. But, white man needed the oil to fuel cars and fight Hitler. So it goes.

But the bottom line is that indians were as likely or more likely to break a treaty, either officially (as in a formal act of definance by the chiefs), or unofficially (as in a few guys wandering off the reservation to take a few horses).