1. At the end of WWII, the US executed Japanese soldiers who water boarded US soldiers. How can anyone call for “moving on” unless “the rule of law” is applied equally.

2. The call for a special prosecutor has one unintended consequence. The moment one is assigned, all documents become hidden from public scrutiny. It was 18 months with the Libby case, and many(Rove et al) were given multiple chances to revise their stories. The result was a black out of news and a lack of clear judgment. Watergate, on the other hand, was largely revealed in public, and even though it was a three ring circus,the truth came out.

The partisanship that the Right fears is also it's guarantee that all will be interviewed in public, and that's the appropriate place for these proceedings in a Democracy.

DaGoat: “I think there are also some questions about the use of methods that cause limited discomfort but may not rise to the level of “torture”.”

Let's not try to finesse this. Imagine your son or daughter naked and freezing, with a dog collar, urinated and defecated on, humiliated and degraded, kept in the dark for weeks, then having their hearing damaged by megaphones in the ears, beaten, kicked and nearly drowned. Repeatedly.

That's what we're talking about. Most have now been released without charge. We never had any evidence they had committed crimes or taken up arms against us. Unless we think these “mild discomforts” are appropriate treatment for our soldiers, we must deplore, investigate, and I believe, prosecute. If we don't have the will or the nerve to prosecute, then honor an extradition treaty and let them be prosecuted by a country whose citizens have been victims of crimes.

Are all of you Bush-league defenders unaware of reciprocity? Do you consent to these tactics being legalized internationally and used against our service personnel? Do you consent to discard our extradition treaties such that those who break our laws and flee the country can not be returned for trial?

Financial: yes, it will be huge, but then the GOP was willing to spend $40 million of the taxpayers money to go after Clinton for an indiscretion in the WH.

Politically: yes, to anyone who participated. Why would we want to shield criminals?

Socially: yes, this country is divided along party lines, and I'm sorry that it was primarily one particular party who devised and implemented the torture policy, but that doesn't excuse them.

Morally: of course that to me is the biggest cost and I think trumps all else. For how can we claim to be a moral, upstanding nation and demand other countries to treat our citizens well when we are willing to throw their citizens in prison for years on end, without trial and torture them? The decision **not** to pursue charges will have a huge, incalculable moral cost for the US for the rest of our history. We will always be known as the country which could not prosecute its own citizens for torture, crimes which we have prosecuted others in the past for. How would we expect any other country to take us seriously? And why should they? That's why we need to prosecute.

We need to do whatever is necessary to put the people responsible for torture (and whatever other crimes) behind bars. They broke the laws, disgraced us as a nation and turned us into a banana republic, unless we are willing to actually punish the perpetrators. Whoever they may be.

I'm wondering why the Republican leaders, who are all about personal responsibility, family values and upholding the law to the letter aren't out there asking for these investigations. After all with Clinton and a sexual indiscretion the GOP howled that Clinton was unfit to lead this country and impeached him, which was costly and lengthy.

Perhaps if the GOP hadn't spent all its time and energy impeaching Clinton then Congress and the White House could have focused on truly important issues, including national security issues, affecting the US.

Gee, sorry Kathy. I guess I misread this paragraph of yours.

It's beyond me, too. Probably because I don't think that and never said it. Or implied it.

Has there been a huge cost to the Bush administration's design, authorization, and use of torture?

The Democrats are on top, Obama is very popular and they have a lot to lose. If Obama and Pelosi are bogged down with this it will make pushing through their own agendas much more difficult.

When would be a better time to investigate and prosecute? If Obama were unpopular, would that make it a good time to prosecute?

I think Obama sees this and would like this problem to go away.

Who wouldn't?

Despite the talk about indictments and arrests being required by law, I think Obama has the power to make this go away.

Does he? Is saying no to investigations and prosecutions going to make it go away?

I have seen this compared to Ford's pardon of Nixon.

And how did that work out for Ford? Did it increase his political capital?

You could make the case to indict or make the case just to move on.

“Move on” is one of those expressions that means different things to different people. What does it mean to you? Please be as specific and concise as you can.

And if the truth, once it's come out, points to war crimes having been committed, then there should be prosecutions.

I have seen this compared to Ford's pardon of Nixon. You could make the case to indict or make the case just to move on.

I don't agree, I think there is a lot of discussion on the proper way to handle government employees who were following directions doing things they were told were legal. I think there are also some questions about the use of methods that cause limited discomfort but may not rise to the level of “torture”. In fact I think that will be the crux of the debate, namely the lawyers were tasked with defining torture so the CIA could use methods right up to the point of torture but not exceed it. In my opinion they did a bad job of it, something that deserves impeachment or disbarment but probably not criminal charges.

Now there are a lot of right-wingers who seem to be justifying torture on the basis of the prisoners being bad people that deserve to be tortured. That ignores the fact that really what we're talking about is interrogation, something that is not designed to be punitive, so this argument just doesn't hold water.

On the left are a lot of people who just want to see Bush/Cheney, et al punished for something. In a sense they are analogous to the right-wingers who really just want bad things to happen to people they don't like. In fairness there are plenty of people on the left who just want the truth to come out – I read Jane Hamsher and many of her commenters agreeing with that approach.

My point though was that no matter how honestly we believe that our positions are right and true there will be a huge cost to this type of investigation, and I don't mean a financial cost. It will raise partisan feelings at a time that Obama is asking people for support on many other issues. It will dominate the media for months to years. It will force Obama, Pelosi and their staff to focus on things that will detract from other important tasks.

In fact I could make a case for the right to let the investigations go on. The GOP can't get much weaker so don't have much to lose. The Democrats are on top, Obama is very popular and they have a lot to lose. If Obama and Pelosi are bogged down with this it will make pushing through their own agendas much more difficult. Maybe the GOP could get lucky and see a high-ranking Democrat forced to resign.

I think Obama sees this and would like this problem to go away. Despite the talk about indictments and arrests being required by law, I think Obama has the power to make this go away. From a pragmatic standpoint that might be the right thing to do but from a justice standpoint it might be the wrong thing to do, and there lies the problem.

Actually I went to bed.

To answer your question, yes I have heard of Alberto Gonzales.

On dismantling the Justice Dept, it's a moot point since it's now Obama's Justice Dept. If your point is Bush damaged the Justice Dept so irreparably it can never be used again, then I disagree.

I don't know what Pelosi or others in Congress knew about the torture policies. I would hope the investigation with regards to any eventual prosecutions would reveal that information.

But I do know that the Bush administration withheld information on a variety of subjects from Congress, especially the Dems, over the years. So just because some people may either say or speculate that Pelosi or others had the information does not make it true.

I can't help but question statements made by people with little or no credibility, who are trying to save their own skins by any means possible.

If there is enough evidence to prosecute Bush administration officials, then there should be evidence to determine what Pelosi and others knew.

The Bush administration had records of other aspects of the torture policy / debate, including top secret legal opinions and videotapes of torture sessions. So if this information was given to Pelosi and others why didn't the Bush administration have records of this? They had records of other top secret meetings. It was, after all, the Bush administration who made the ultimate call as to how much could (or should) be recorded in these meetings.

Oh, spare me, Holden Caulfield. You're more concerned about hypocrisy than torture?

we all circunavigate the world daily. not an excuse.
“not continuing this discussion.”
because you can't answer a legitimate question.
bye bye baby.

Why, in a nation a of laws should people not be prosecuted for clear commissions of crime?

I never said 'prosecute', although if you want I guess you could interpret 'held accountable' to mean I implied that. Now, as I don't think Bush or the CIA or the lawyers or ANY of them should be prosecuted, and have made that position known, why in the world you would think I was calling for Pelosi, et. al., to have a special prosecutor assigned ot be prosectuted is beyond me.

I meant be held accountable the political and public sense, in the contempt she deserves. Holder her in contempt for hypocrisy about her position on what happened is a separate issue from the whole torture argument itself.

And in the end, Pelosi's defense is the Kitty Genovese excuse, and you and others are trying to defend that.

Now, I have to get up at 4 AM for a flight to the east coast, and will be out of pocket for work pretty much for a few days, so I will apologize in advance for not continuing this discussion.

“But my feeling is that we should go after the leaders who put in place these procedures. We should leave the soldiers (and members of Congress, of both parties) alone, unless there is proof that they helped form the torture policies. “

I see several different areas of involvement (some may overlap with certain individuals):

1.) Those who wanted to torture.
2.) Those who were asked to help formulate the torture policy (or, more accurately formulate the guidelines and write legal memos)
3.) Those who were fully informed of the program and gave approval (when their approval was necessary)
4.) Those who knew about the full program
5.) Those who knew enough about the program to know that the we were breaking national and international laws.
6.) Those who carried out their orders (regardless of whether they thought laws were being broken).
7.) Those who knew about certain aspects of the program but did not know specific cases of the laws being broken.
8.) Those who knew certain aspects of the program but had no indication that we were breaking laws.
9.) Those who suspected the program existed but no details nor confirmation.
10.) The average man on the street.

I think it's obvious that people who fall in the first three categories (down to “fully informed and gave approval) should be prosecuted.

Four and five are grey zones because they knew about the program but did not participate in its development or implementation.

Categories six and seven are more grey zone (though six is more of a “yes” and seven is more of a “no”).

The last three categories are “No prosecution”.

Granted since the GOP controlled the WH, formulated the policies and carried them out there will be more Republicans than Dems prosecuted.