Any rogue agents who are actually indicted will argue that they were following their guidance and acting within policy. To make their case, they will themselves subpoena loads of documents and demand testimony from the highest officials. Many will also try to make deals to rat out their masters.

From what I could tell in following the Abu Ghraib prosecutions, a serious reason that they never went beyond the enlisted men who took the fall, was that the defendants had third-rate lawyers who were obviously in the tank. That will presumably not be the case here. Possibly we will finally have the "Breaker Morant" moment that never materialized in the Abu Ghraib trials.

For the moment, therefore, I give Holder credit for coming up with a rationale for starting any sort of investigation at all, and hope for the best.

Yep, it's all hopeless, thanks for that. As Glenn responded to your most recent comment here, what's pathetic is your schtick, not those who might want to see some improvement around here.

Why don't you just thank Mr. Cheney for keeping us all safe and go somewhere else to occupy your time? That is, after all, the sum total of your "contributions". It's not only tiresome, but now even Newsweek is suggesting that the philosophy of sanctiomonious surrender you so perfectly embody is actually being considered as some kind of justification for continuing with the very things you suggest you're too savvy to trouble yourself with actually objecting to even though you presume such things to be wrong. Your attitude is a big part the problem, not any part of a solution, for everything you pretend to complain about.

Adnoto

The mere hint that something is being considered is worth "celebrating."

The Newsweek article didn't provide a "mere hint" that it was being "considered." It said 4 independent sources close to Holder said he was leaning towards doing it. Anyone with a working brain would understand that it'd be worth celebrating only if it actually happens, not merely because it's being considered.

Hmmm... okay.

I realize it is because there is a significant "want to believe" (it's that "hope" and "optimism") but still, the clinging to the belief that something will be done is rather sad and pathetic at this point.

What's sad and pathetic is someone who is a thoroughly and completely defeated human being mistaking their defeatism and resignation for moral superiority.

-- GlennGreenwald

I thought we may have this problem and that this was the type of response I would receive.

Am I defeated? I wouldn't say so. Or I hope not. I admit that I sometimes feel defeated but, when I do, it is because of the attitudes and strategies of people like you. I never feel defeated or beaten by them. I am not a pessimist. Not even close. I believe it is possible to overcome the establishment. I believe it is possible to see torture team members defeated and locked away as they deserve. I also know that their peers (Holder, Obama, etc.) are not going to do that freely. They are not going to do that until their fear of us is greater than their fear of their establishment peers.

They don't fear us. They have you on the hook talking about hope and potential celebrations based on things they, without being forced, are never going to do.

is how many ideas this administration floats without actually doing anything. We've been talking about preventive detention for about two months, and still there's been no real-world movement. Now, this, the sort of flip side of it...this administration seems to be run by trial-balloons. I don't recall the former administration doing this.

As for whether its possible. Who knows? It seems unlikely, but ten years ago no one believed we'd ever have an African American President, either.

This is rich.

"The notion that basically one person at the Justice Department, John Yoo, and Hayden and the vice president's office were running a program around the laws that Congress passed, including a reinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment, is mind boggling," Harman said.

House Democrats are pressing for legislation that would expand congressional access to secret intelligence briefings, but the White House has threatened to veto it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEr2O_sANlmWwPWdPygTxCbq1_bQD99BVMOO0

I really do not see how Holder could possibly feel that he has a choice in whether or not to prosecute. Nor do I see how he has a choice in who to prosecute, everyone, low-level torturers, or policy makers. We are a nation of laws which therefore must be upheld. There are only two choices anyone has-break the law or adhere to the law. If Holder chooses not to investigate and prosecute lawbreakers, then he is also a lawbreaker.

The law makes no distinction between those "low-level torturers" and those "powerful policy makers," if they are all found to be responsible for torture policy; they are all either guilty or not-guilty. "Shielding powerful policy makers" is simply unlawful if those policy makers are guilty. In the eyes of the law, power has no immunity.

Holder may be bright but he has no spine. Because he is much smarter he may be more dangerous to the country than Alberto. He has left almost all of the Bush US Attorneys in place causing havoc, he has left Don Siegelman hanging, he supports unrestrained executive power, is dismissive of Constitutional protections and on and on and on. Holder is turning out to be a bigger mistake than Geithner and Summers. He is the worst appointment of the Obama administration.

Not even close. I believe it is possible to overcome the establishment.

Well, off you go then. Don't waste any more time depressing yourself with people like Glenn Greenwald.

Imagine if Papon had been tried, and then found guilty, and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. Imagine the damage to French society of all that partisanship. Their country would be in ruins by now.

And we wouldn't have that wonderful Grey Papon mustard either.

Wieners just wouldn't taste the same.