between 'leaving the door open' and Pelosi's famous statement that impeachment of Bush was "off the table". Pelosi basically said "Whatever we find out, that's OK with us". That's a carte blanche to any kind of potential lawbreaking.

Obama is wise to leave this up to AG Holder. He would be wise to assign a special prosecutor to investigate this, as Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Libby. Then, if they see a crime that should be prosecuted, they can prosecute it.

This is not a matter to be decided by opinion pages and cable TV.

And see what happens. The republicans went after Clinton, and although impeachment is a political process rather than a legal one, it was probably worth rendering a decision on whether or not his acts constituted "High crimes".

I think it's the prospect of returning to that proper functioning of DOJ that has the press so "hysterical" about Obama's statement today. If political considerations disappear, then the reporters will have to depend on hard analysis of facts and interpretation of the law to write stories on potential prosecutions, rather than pick up the phone and talk to their favorite insider.

This is also a jarring dose of reality for the pundit class. If the Obama DOJ doesn't "just walk on by" on torture, poor little Peggy Noonan's world is going to come crashing down around her.

The question is simple. Do we have a constitutional republic that is a nation ruled by law; or are we an elected dictatorship where the president may do as he pleases for his term in office?

We have seen the imperial presidency gain in power, administration after administration, for generations. Can we put a stop to it?

I wager that we can not.

and then get him singing...when lawyers are looking at jail time their memories become crystal clear. bet that is the last thing cheney & addington want.

It'll be great fun to watch the hapless Bybee, Yoo, et al rat out their former masters as they attempt to save their own filthy hides.

You beat me to it!

Hunter at dailykos.com had a good point, I thought:

Not prosecuting illegal behavior, especially when performed hundreds of times over years by multiple people, eventually sets a precedent that such behavior is indeed legal and could be argued that way in a court of law.

Shorter: Not prosecuting torture means that it is legal behavior in that country, for all practical purposes.

These are crimes that were committed before Obama took office, and Obama knew about them when he did take office.

And so, it should've come to him to ask any potential AG whether they were willing to investigate these crimes. They're of such seriousness that any worthwhile human being would not have even chanced no investigations by not asking about it.

It should've been the first question, and it should've been a necessary one.

Surely the Obama folks recognize by now that the only bipartisan look at the torture issue will come via a DOJ-appointed special prosecutor--certainly not with the cooperation of any Republicans in the House or Senate.

But we so fetishize the omnipotence of the President as the central and absolute power that we look to him to make all decisions for us ("will you prosecute, Mr. President?"). We barely recognize any longer that there are other political officials with independent authority and responsibilites.

The very heart of the problem. I'm OK with Obama expressing a measured opinion about the appropriatness of prosecutions in this matter, given the wide scope of people who could be implicated. But Emanuel and Gibbs are totally over the line; they should keep their mouths shut and refer all questions to the AG. Period.

As you know, you go to war with the "LAW" you have. They're not the "LAWS" you might want or wish to have at a later time." I think even though the legal footing for this is remarkably questionable this will get shrugged off and stonewalled into a weasel clause festival. My hopes are right above whale shit right now for expecting any criminal charges against ANYONE. I would point to a recent comment here pointing out the fact that MIchael Scheuer mentioned that Clinton was the one who set up the rendition program, does Holder the "Independent" want to go that far down the trail? I'm not saying I wouldn't be happy with a good investigation I just don't think the probability of one occurring are anything but zero.

did anyone other than me read de la Vega's piece?

Very compelling argument against a special prosecutor because it will almost necessarily destroy all three ultimate goals: 1) fleshing out an accurate historical record, 2) opportunity in an open forum for victims to be heard, 3) zero likelihood of any accountability for top Bush officials.

Or stupid, but couldn't it be that this was the plan all along? If there's one thing we've learned throughout the campaign and now this presidency, it's that these guys are experts at controlling their message. Emanuel & Gibbs aren't idiots, and know that it's not Obama's call to make. But by putting forth the message that there shouldn't be prosecutions the president can be somewhat insulated from the attacks that will no doubt come from the right if/when prosecutions begin.

Do you think the AG ought to be an elected position? There can easily be conflict-of-interest when both the President & Congress are involved. Perhaps the Attorney General with careful –with thorough guidelines attached– ought to be elected every 5 or 6 years?

Regarding who might take the ball and run with it: who on Holder's staff might be a young Pat Fitzgerald (or Janet Reno, for all the Clinton hating trolls)?

Is there somebody at DoJ who is willing to take on the mainstream press and the rest of the DC crowd? Someone willing to take this to the house and prosecute Yoo, Bybee and the rest of these neo-cons?

mr Greenwald sir

i do believe you and others like you are playing no small part in "making Obama do it"

credit to you as my dear old Gran used to say

if Obama has been gaming this to keep himself above the fray, as it were, it just goes to show that he's playing for keeps and good on him too !