Legal opinions and congressional briefings were done prior to the interogations, not after the fact.

At least with Zubaydah that may be true with regards to the Bybee memo. I hereby change my charge to:
“the President is not necessarily supposed to be a legal scholar, and that's why they went to the Justice department to get their opinion. Instead it appears the Bush administration decided to torture people, then asked the Justice Department to provide legal justification.”

That is why everyone on the right is so confident about releasing all the information.

I thought everyone on the right was just arguing that releasing the information was a national security disaster? And why would releasing all the information about systematic torture be confidence inspiring?

Opinions differ.

That is why we have the three branches with a different focus for each.

The administration could not have broken U.S. law because it relied on the opinion of the Justice Department and the consent of the Legislative Branch from the leaders of both parties.

In effect, the lawmakers said that the specific actions taken did not violate any law. They implied that the administration could go further without breaking any laws.

This is so clear cut that even a liberal should understand it.

Legal opinions and congressional briefings were done prior to the interogations, not after the fact.

That is why everyone on the right is so confident about releasing all the information.

The truth is, no one in the government, from the President on down, is entitled by any law to break the law. Period.

Commanders in Chief cannot be Constitutional Scholars in Chief at the same time, because sometimes the actions need to be diametrically opposed

Other than the vague assertions of former Bush speechwriters and biased CIA chiefs, there is no proof that these torture sessions achieved anything of value. And you're right, the President is not necessarily supposed to be a legal scholar, and that's why they went to the Justice department to get their opinion. Instead it appears the Bush administration tortured people, then asked the Justice Department to provide legal justification.

Just like when well meaning crazed liberals in the Legislative branch want to make all the bad guns go away, our friends in the Judicial branch will do their job by stopping them. It’s not that the legislators were criminals for trying, but it would be criminal if the people charged with stopping them didn’t do their job.

So when the Executive branch breaks the law, by say torturing people, why isn't the judicial branch called in to stop them? Isn't it criminal for Obama not to prosecute the Bush administrations officials who broke the law?

First off, this is Shaun Mullen we’re talking about. This guy can’t write a grocery list without it turning into a crazed liberal rant. We both know that.

As to your point:

“The executive branch is tasked with protecting the Constitution first and foremost.”

I’ve got to disagree. When confronted with a situation in which the security of the country is at stake, the Executive Branch should protect the safety of the country first, then argue their case to the Legislative and Judicial branches if necessary.

Commanders in Chief cannot be Constitutional Scholars in Chief at the same time, because sometimes the actions need to be diametrically opposed. Just like when well meaning crazed liberals in the Legislative branch want to make all the bad guns go away, our friends in the Judicial branch will do their job by stopping them. It’s not that the legislators were criminals for trying, but it would be criminal if the people charged with stopping them didn’t do their job.

crazed liberal rantings

61% of the country supports investigations into torture of one sort or another. Hardly a fringe position, despite your crazed conservative/sadist rantings.

Shall we look to the Executive Branch? No. The Executive is tasked with protecting the country.

The executive branch is tasked with protecting the Constitution first and foremost. Protecting the country is supposed to be done within the established legal framework. If they don't follow the laws then there is no safeguards against the government turning their considerable power against innocent citizens of our country, which they've already done in prosecuting this so called war on terror.

What you're suggesting is more akin to a military dictatorship than a republican democracy. It's fine if you want to take that position, but at least do it openly and proudly.

As for the culpability of the Congress, I assume you realize that the blame is bipartisan, since torture dates back to way before the Democrats took control in 2006. But aside from that, you're right, any investigation and possible prosecutions should include members of Congress who were briefed and signed off on war crimes.

Let’s start by stipulating (just for the sake of argument) that:

• That the enhanced interrogation methods were “torture”
• That someone needs to be prosecuted

Who should we go after? Who is responsible?

Shall we look to the Executive Branch? No. The Executive is tasked with protecting the country. They should do everything and anything to carry out that mission. The Executive would include the President, VP, everyone in the CIA, military and the Justice Department.

“But…But….the Executive would run wild with power” would be the response from your average liberal. Not so, due to our system of government we have checks and balances. The Legislative Branch provides oversight.

So, while the Executive was doing its job of protecting the country, what was the Legislative doing to provide oversight? First, the ranking members of the intelligence committee and the leadership on both sides were fully briefed on all aspects of the “torture”. The reaction? All parties asked if we were doing enough.

The people charged with making sure the Executive Branch were doing the right thing, operating inside the law and within the conscience of the country not only approved of the methods but asked if we were going far enough. If they thought there was anything even remotely wrong, they could have gone to the Judicial Branch for an injunction to stop the practice or they could have exposed it to the media.

They did nothing.

Who should be prosecuted? The congressional democrats who sat on their hands.

Like you, I'd rather see the big dogs held accountable for war crimes than the low hanging fruit like CIA interrogators. But I think they should be part of the equation:

Without punishment for the CIA interrogators and doctors who carried out the torture, the CIA will continue to act with impunity, having been given explicit authorization to break the law. That “just following orders” is not a valid defense for committing war crimes was established in the wake of WWII when Nazis and collaborators were put on trial at Nuremberg. Everyone along the the chain of command, from the Vice President down to the CIA interrogator, is supposed to refuse orders to commit crimes. Punishment gives future CIA interrogators the right incentives to oppose unlawful orders.

His most recent statements would suggest that both he and Bush are in agreement- waterboarding (etc) is not torture and its use is a moral issue only, to be decided by future administrations as they see fit.