Question. Maybe a stupid one, but a question. Having been let off the hook from torture charges

[rateyes]

what incentive is there now for the interrogators to testify against administration officials? Why grant them immunity from prosecution without getting their testimony in exchange for it?

[customerserviceguy]

1. The photos of Abu Ghraib were released

before the trials, and you did have people shamed enough by them to testify. And that was with Bushco in power.

My guess is that President Obama intends to use the same shame to motivate those who need not fear prosecution to come forward voluntarily. Any names that would come out would subject those named to intense pressure from media, family, and friends. The only possible redemption method would be to come clean on higher-ups.

[MarjorieG]

2. Or, if unlikely we get prosecutions for Bush and Cheney, how much do we want to tie up our lower

level CIA, lawyering up and accusing eachother, lessening effectiveness of a very closed club doing needed intelligence work over this? I don't think it was an easy time for people working in that community these years of ambiguous morality and law. What Obama did was still difficult within the CIA community.

I think we can appreciate the bind our administration is in, all righteousness and Turley's intransigence aside.

[stillcool]

3. Has there been another..

CIA person like Philip Agee, who blew the whistle on the CIA and faced prosecution, and had to leave the country? If these people are free to talk, that would be a great thing. But I doubt that is the case.