Weren't the OLC opinions that this was all a-ok locked up in a safe somewhere that no one had access to, and that interrogators had no knowledge of? If yes, there is no good faith argument since there was no knowledge of the new guidelines.

Ultimately, this isn't a game. It doesn't actually matter what is fair and what isn't. What matters is making sure that doesn't happen.

Since this is one of the most corrupt nations on the planet, we apparently can't charge people with crimes if someone in the government knows them. Fine. Then we should nail ever low level grunt to the wall, lock the door behind us and throw away the key.

Doing things your way ensures that this happens again. Doing things my way means at least someone is going to say "No".

I don't understand why you want to make an exception for those who were "just following orders". People who were in the CIA knew, just as their original training told them, that what they were being ordered to do was illegal. Being told that the administration had come up with an excuse for breaking the law should not have changed this - every one of them should have understood that if they had specifically been trained to know that something was a crime, and they were now being told - despite the lack of any relevant legislation - that all this had changed, something was not right.

Fact is, you did not have to be in the CIA and get special training to know torture was illegal. It used to be that every school child was taught the same, and in case anyone forgot, there were the new accords signed by Reagan himself.

There's a link at antiwar.com pointing out that Cheney is lying: there are definitely historical precedents of an administration investigating its predecessor. Title is "Cheney Is Wrong: There Is Precedent for the Torture Investigation".

"I've already said I don't think those interrogators who stayed within the OLC's guidelines should be prosecuted"

Out of interest, do you also have time for the Nuremberg defense?

Avedon, I'm honestly not sure where I come down on this, i.e., the question of whether to prosecute those who stayed within DOJ guidelines. But I think it cannot be answered simply by saying, everyone knows "torture is illegal." Yes, undoubtedly. The question is, however, what the line is between torture and merely tough tactics. That line is not always clear. Now, I feel fairly certain that the line is somewhere other than where the DOJ drew it, and at least with something like waterboarding, it's so clearly torture that issues of line-drawing don't even come into play. But with respect to other tactics, is it so unreasonable to say that operatives could rely upon the line the DOJ drew, even if a court would now say that line was wrong? As I say, I'm not sure where I come down on that, but I know it's not as simple a matter as you seem to make it out to be.

I've already said I don't think those interrogators who stayed within the OLC's guidelines should be prosecuted -- I hold the policymakers ultimately responsible for the implementation of torture as policy.

Curious as to whether you think that, say, Gestapo interrogators or concentration camp guards who stayed within Nazi legal guidelines should have been prosecuted? Or does the Nuremberg "I was only following orders" defense apply only to Americans and not to Germans, Japanese, Serbs, Iraqis, Chileans, Hutus, Cambodians, etc.?

Cheney is not wrong when he asserts that it is a dangerous precedent when a change in power in Washington leads a successor government not just to change the policies of its predecessors but to invoke the criminal justice system against them.

Which is why no-one should have been prosecuted for the Watergate crimes after Nixon resigned....

It's far more dangerous precedent when a government knows that no matter what crimes it commits, any successor government will not prosecute. This is nothing but an open invitation to criminality, a blank get out of jail free card for the executive.

I haven't read Broder and don't intend to - but for his position to have any credibility, there would have to be a viable alternative to bring Cheney to justice and it would have to have teeth.

I can't imagine any such alternative, but the burden would be on Broder to come forth with one.

But of course if a President were to engage in extra marital sexual activity and, when investigated and sued, lies about it. Then of course the damage to the country from a partisan witchhunt is irrelevant. The man must be impeached. It's not like he ordered torture or lied about the causes for war, this is important.

Or so sayeth Mr. Broder. He was all for investigations and impeachment once upon a time.

Which is why no-one should have been prosecuted for the Watergate crimes after Nixon resigned....

To be fair (ahem) to Broder, he doesn't think anyone should have been prosecuted for Watergate, either.

Getting a blowjob = impeach!

Burglary = what's the big deal?

The question is, however, what the line is between torture and merely tough tactics. That line is not always clear.

No, it's pretty damn clear. It's laid out in several federal statutes and international treaties, all of which are United States law, and there are in addition numerous court cases where torturers have been convicted for additional guidance.

It never seemed to confuse anybody that much until 2002 when suddenly Cheney and the rest of his regime started their routine of head-scratching as to whether stripping someone naked, tying him to a table and forcibly drowning him was or was not illegal....

Rule.
of.
Motherfucking.
Law!

It ain't that motherfucking complicated.

You left out this Broder howler, from the same column.

"When President Ford pardoned Nixon in 1974, I wrote one of the few columns endorsing his decision, which was made on the basis that it was more important for America to focus on the task of changing the way it would be governed and addressing the current problems. It took a full generation for the decision to be recognized by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and others as the act of courage that it had been."

??!!

I don't really have the time to go into ALL the ways this is incorrect, I'll simply say that I remember many many of Nixon's highest staff going to the slammer for their crimes.

Let's face it:

Broder is a senile old idiot!

Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?

You betcha!

Broder is right. It is a dangerous precedent, at least in the hands of the Republicans. Remember the Pugs used the impeachment of Nixon as precedent for the special prosecutor jihad against Clinton. Just imagine a future GOP administration retroactively investigating its Democratic predecessors for corruption of youth or violating the second amendment or some crazy horseshit. I'm not saying this justifies a lack of prosecutions for torture, but I've seen how creative the Pugs can be when given a new toy.

Glenn, It's not just torture that is illegal. Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is also prohibited under the Convention against Torture. It's beyond reasonable doubt that terrorist suspects were treated cruelly under orders from the Bush administration. We have the various cruelties spelled out in detail in government documents.

Q: What does one call a govt where the Executive branch and its minions are king?

A: Executionary Government (sounds like fun, especially if you aren't being executed)

Just imagine a future GOP administration retroactively investigating its Democratic predecessors for corruption of youth or violating the second amendment or some crazy horseshit. I'm not saying this justifies a lack of prosecutions for torture, but I've seen how creative the Pugs can be when given a new toy.

Look, it's not as if they'd never do this anyway. You can't appease the crazy/evil -- the only thing that would result from not prosecuting these criminals for their crimes would be giving them carte blance to commit more crimes in the future. If Watergate and Iran-Contra had been properly pursued, we wouldn't have seen many of the same criminals and accomplices (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Cohen, etc.) arise, zombie-like, to take new positions in our government.

Moreover, remember that in the last eight years Republicans were already coming up with quite, ah, creative prosecutions of Democratic officeholders (see Don Siegelman in Alabama). This is something they're already doing.

Finally, I don't think a compromise of "we won't investigate your actual crimes if you promise not to investigate us for made-up crimes" is a solid foundation for a democracy to rest on.

Remember the Pugs used the impeachment of Nixon as precedent for the special prosecutor jihad against Clinton.

So does this mean Nixon shouldn't have impeached? Or does it mean he shouldn't have been pardoned by Ford and he should have been prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned? I'd say that pardoning Nixon only emboldened the Republicans to see what else they could get away with -- their criminality should have been decisively squashed back in the 70s, and it was because of that lack that they still had the strength to go after Clinton in the 90s.

i still say the 4th estate has merged into a 5th column (see telecom act of '96?)

And what does Broder have to say of the injury and dishonor this does to that MAJORITY of intelligence agents and servicemen and women who adhered to the lawful guidelines--and who are in fact, by so doing, responsible for gaining the most useful intelligence? Their service is being corroded under the same Cheneyite cloud as the ones with no morals and no scruples who were Just Following Orders.

Broder:

Torture is ILLEGAL, always and everywhere, even when the US does it.

Even when Republicans do it.

What do you not understand about the word ILLEGAL? That it doesn't avoid and subvert Constitution and rule of law by corrupt, morally bankrupt political
dodge?

"Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.

"Avedon, I'm honestly not sure where I come down on this, i.e., the question of whether to prosecute those who stayed within DOJ guidelines. But I think it cannot be answered simply by saying, everyone knows "torture is illegal." Yes, undoubtedly. The question is, however, what the line is between torture and merely tough tactics. That line is not always clear."

The STANDARD to be applied is the LAW, not the "opinion" of those who believe it's actually "debatable". The law is abundantly clear -- and couldn't be more clear.

Only those who've not read the law, or read and rejected it, or want to continue the intellectual dishonesty of pretending it's "debatable" "can't decide" whether to investigate and prosecute.

And then there's the fact that over 100 not-found-guilty "detainees" are dead as result of HOMICIDE.

ALL involved are responsible -- those who falsified the law, and those who imposed the torture.

That includes the interrogators, who took an oath to protect and defend CONSTITUTION AND RULE OF LAW, not instead their criminal *sses.

And those concerned with "morale" suffering as result of investigation and prosecution: Either comly with the law, or go to jail.

David Broder is a mindless ASS, in the mold of Kovaks, Krauthammer, Humes, Gigot, and all of Roger Ailes roster of Fox News Idiots

It is, at least, somewhat reassuring to see that the VAST majority of commenters on the WaPo site disagree with Broder, understand the concept of enforcing the law, and have no problem with the idea of seeing Cheney "in the dock."

Heck, quite a few are even telling Broder he should resign. It's almost as negative a reaction as one of Joe Klein's columns over at Time.

Why is it that the general public is so often so much wiser than our highly paid, well-connected pundits?...

"Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?"

Yes, in fact, we very much do!

When the American people voted the Bush Admin back into office, they absolved them of any responsibility for the war and its conduct. End of story. As they used to say about WMD, get over it.