"let's let AJ Holder focus on more relevant, current issues such as preventing the DEA from busting LEGAL medical marijuana dispensaries and growers in California and other states where medical marijuana is LEGAL."

Actually, it's not legal in California or anywhere else within the United States. Don't get me wrong, I think this is unfortunate, and I actually believe in full legalization (and sensible regulation) of all drugs for any purpose, recreational, medical or otherwise... But the Federal government, heinous as its DEA and other paramilitary squads can be, is correct in its consideration of legal jurisdiction on these issues. Holder has said he will halt the dispensary raids, and I'm certainly not going to take him at his word for it without proof...

But it's pretty pathetic to treat the considerations of the California medical marijuana industry (and yes, the patients, a few of whom may actually have legitimate medical use for that sweet, sweet herb, such as relief from chemo or glaucoma) as more urgent and valuable than those of people who have been locked up and tortured, without any due process of law for 6, 7, 8 years now (or those few dozen who have been murdered over these years). Don't you think it's just a little selfish to worry that some "insomniacs" might not have enough Northern Lights to tuck them in to bed tonight, while disregarding the fact that Mohammed Jawad has spent about 1/3 of his natural life (of 19-20 years) in Bagram and Guantanamo, being subjected to severe physical and psychological abuse, and still has had no indication that he will ever be released? Don't you find it a bit of a stretch to equivilize the situations of entrepreneurs subjected to the unjust loss of property and fines with that of a Binyam Mohammed, who is being blocked from seeking restitution for the blade violence used against him (including genital slicing) as the CIA and/or MI5 ferried him around to different torture chambers in "friendly" Muslim states?

You might have a point about Holder's potential priorities if the detention and torture policy was an isolated incident in the past, but these are ongoing crimes, and there are (likely innocent) people still being held in the bleakest of conditions in the name of our "War On Terror", thanks directly to people at the top of the chain in the White House, Pentagon and secret services. This is a much, MUCH bigger threat to democracy and our supposedly humane system of justice than the plight of Orange County potheads, and a much more crucial test of our new AG, no matter how you look at it.

...because it is, by and large, a victimless crime. In an age where a lot of people want their lives recorded and broadcast for our entertainment, it's hard to get worked up over someone's being spied upon without his knowledge. Especially if that spying doesn't lead to detention and/or arrest.

Clearly, doing permanent, painful harm to someone's body is torture.

Yes it certainly is. However other things are torture too. Many other things. I know if you're just imagining single activities being done to you, it may not seem bad, but imagine them being done by your worst enemy? Imagine being kidnapped, flown who knows where and held in a cell for years on end with no judicial process, for all you know for the rest of your life. That could constitute torture all by itself. Nonetheless, there is no need to argue such 'gray' areas because the issue has already been settled: The U.S. executed Japanese soldier for waterboarding after WW2.

We tortured. Only a desire to not admit could lead one to ask if we really did.

If one more comment here helps, then I want to do it. Where's the public outrage? All over from what I can tell, but the media need to listen and cover it. I don't care as much about the Bushies as much as I care that we do something now to make it clear that anyone in the future will pay a dear price. That includes members of the Obama administration. Surveillance, torture, incarceration without accusation or chance of trial, incarceration after acquittal--those are things that liberals and conservatives should agree on--liberals for civil libertarian reasons, and conservatives because they want protection from government coercion and encroachment in our daily lives.

(Please note that I don't include Republicans who favor big government in order to enhance the wealth and power of large corporations.)

Nothing will come of this because when all is said and done, even with crimes discovered beyond doubt, because the perpetrators will kick the responsibilities up and up until it gets to the president. At that point it will become (bizarrely) a constitutional issue pitting the authority of the president against the congress which could only be resolved by the SCOTUS. Problem here is congress (and so is the pres) is afraid to take up that challenge because the loser loses power forever. No one wants to test their authority because losing the test means losing the authority. As long as its not tested everyone can go on pretending they have power and no one wants to upset the apple cart proving it one way or the other.

It has to be. After all, we stood for this criminality for seven years and most people were content to do nothing to stop it. The nation can stand the truth no matter how hard it is. This is the only way to heal the wounds. We have to know what really happened, who did it, and then hold them accountable. If Bush and Cheney and the rest of their awful crew spend the rest of their lives under house arrest, then so be it. That will give them plenty of time to ponder what they’ve done. As far as the GOP? Who gives a fast flying fig about them? They’ve already proven that most of them aren’t fit to hold their offices.

I strongly support probing Bush/Cheney and Co!