Reply #2: I agree. But drip! drip! drip! will only work for a limited time. Eventually,

[struggle4progress]

one or more institutional mechanisms will be needed to provide enough disclosure to produce statutory reforms and possibly prosecution. Congressional hearings are often a good thing, I think, but I would prefer not to see the sequence that the Iran-Contra hearings yielded when Democrats too quickly immunized testimony. And while I personally think some criminal prosecutions are warranted, the Republicans are already manning their megaphones to shriek witch hunt! The Obama Administration is inclined to compromise, which is frequently but not always a good thing -- and at present, the Administration may in danger of drifting rudderlessly on this issue

The question is how to put together a practical package providing enough disclosure to (1) indicate what reforms are needed, (2) restore some international credibility to the US, and (3) provide a basis for deciding who to charge and why. The proper combination of Congressional hearing, threat of prosecution, independent commission activity, and private organization lawsuits and FOIAs might produce the desired results. Congress has subpoena power, but should largely concentrate it on the Executive branch, and should be extremely cautious in any immunity grants. One naturally hopes that the relevant bar associations will seek disbarment of the lawyers who provided the most obviously dishonest advice, since there is prima facie evidence of malpractice against them. A Commission like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission -- with the ability to grant immunity to witnesses who testify fully and honestly under a plea-bargain-like statute providing that the immunity grants can dissolve for witnesses who fail to testify fully and honestly -- might provide a useful mechanism for disgorging important information and for protecting people who were only marginally involved (say). One does not want too powerful a center in this, not only because it provides an obvious focus for attack, but more importantly because distributed decision-making and the diffuse exercise of power produces a more genuinely democratic result