I hope somebody asks Obama how he reconciles his position that those "following orders" should avoid prosecution for acts they must have known were illegal with the outcome at Nuremburg.

I'm sure Chuck Todd or some other odious press cretin will bring that up at the next presser. Not holding my breath.

Namely....breaking almost every treaty ever ratified by the US Senate....and committing crimes against humanity that the new president is willing to "forgive", even though he does not have that aurhority? Isn't this enough to demand Obama's impeachment, especially since he is a member of the bar who taught constitutional law? What kind of examples are Obama and Holder?

So they pronounce an illegal treaty breaking amnesty to the torturers to defend the American way of life.....torture followed by illegal immunity?

My reaction to Obama's statement was disgust. He has adopted Bush's verbage as well as his dishonesty on these matters. While Bush was adamantly proclamining, 'WE DON'T TORTURE!' his minions were doing just that, apparently upon his bidding. Obama cannot hold these opposing views and believe either one. The commenter in the NYTimes said it well (below). Finally, every time I hear Obama say 'Let's be clear...' his presidency more closely mimmicks his predecessor, in content and tone.

**********************

'President Obama’s speech was an exercise in cowardice and hypocrisy. He said-

“A democracy as resilient as our must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals,”

AND THEN, offers that very false choice-

“While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that IN A DANGEROUS WORLD, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security.”

Even if those operations included torture. We have only learned the tip of the iceberg of the torture techniques used, waterboarding is the least of it, so transparency remains a long ways away.

He begins by saying that acts of torture “…undermine our moral authority and DO NOT MAKE US SAFER,” -

then, he implies that the torturers who “…carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice” from the Bush Administration Justice Department made “…every single american safer.”

That, my friends, is the definition of double-speak.

It’s much simpler, Mr. President. To cover up a crime is to be complicit in that crime.

— joe'

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/16/torture-memos-released/

Is among the first out of the box with arguments that the retention of agents should motivate us to look the other way. But the entire culture around the CIA is one that suggests that there's virtue in "bending the rules" and going the extra mile. Jack Goldsmith telling refer in his book to "Lawfare". This is simply the notion, common in such circles that the law is just another weapon of war to be neutralized.

Obama has pointedly refused to do anything to address this mindset and as near as we can tell, has cut a deal in order avoid internal resistance (like untimely leaks).

Glenn correctly notes that the only way to break this mindset is through continuous pressure from mere citizens.

President Obama says CIA people with no brains, ethics or even the most basic grasp of the law and history get to skate. That's it.

What about Yoo and all the rest? Nothing. It's just left out there as some vapor of an idea, and of course the bloggers pick it up but that will be all, the President already framed the lawyers out.

The answer is that nothing will be done. We just got it.

To really boil it down, Obama and Democrats are political wussies, if they know what fighting is they're horrified by it. Obtaining convictions against Republicans who play by no rules and an enabling media is easily possible but very ugly. Democrats can't even play patty-cake, let alone pick up knife.

Wussies have been know to lean fighting very well with the right leadership. Oy.

Glenn,

I think that politicians are well aware of the fact that most Americans do not take International Law seriously, and therefore Pres Obama can make immunization statements like yesterday's with the comforting knowledge that there will not be much of a populist political backlash.

I picked this up years ago in conversations with my peers of all political persuasions. There was either a lack of even the basic concepts of International Law and America's obligations (mostly from the Left) or a total disregard for even considering such things (from the Right).

You will find that people are well versed in the content (and--more importantly--the rhetoric) of Articles I and II of the Constitution, but VI will always escape common knowledge, relegated to the back burner in favor of Articles surrounding "hotter" issues.

What's clear now is that the political establishment itself does not take International Law seriously. That's what we've been left with. And President Obama was a professor of Constitutional law, so he has to be aware of all of these issues.

I believe that right now Obama is doing what he believes to be the politically most prudent path.

Consider this: Let's assume for a minute that he'd have called for immediate action, prosecutions for CIA operatives etc... then what would have happened? The right would have immediately cried foul, "political persecution" and all the ballyhoo. The message of the memos would have gotten lost in the shuffle. The right would have dug in and would have had an instant narrative with traction (no matter how objectively wrong it would have been)

But by shielding the operatives, they now have no public defense narrative. What can they accuse Obama of? "Endangering national security"? This cover-all argument is too old to convince anyone but the hardcore believers. Look at the uncertainty on the right blogosphere: Nearly noone even mentions the torture memos. Had Obama gone all-out, things would have been very different.

In my estimation things will play out like this: Civil right groups must and will push for prosecutions publicly. Eventually, the conduct of Yoo/Bybee will be found unprofessional, and THEN things will really get rolling.

In a nutshell, I believe that Obama is just purposely slow-playing his hand here. The careful wording seems to indicate this, too. So there's still hope.