Leveraging Little Torturers to Get the Big Torturers

[snot]

I'm sure this must have been expressed somewhere else on DU before; apologies that I didn't find quite it.

The point is, I have no interest in prosecution of the little fish who were following orders, and doubt many here care all that much about prosecuting them.

The only reason to keep them on the hook is to incentivize them to testify against the bigger fish who wanted the torture to happen.

So, Obama's chosen to give up that leverage . . . ?

Too early to be certain; but let's remember and follow up.

[anaxarchos]

1. How long will it take to be "certain"? n/t

[EFerrari]

2. How "little" are the guys that actually hurt the bodies?

I'm so sorry. That makes no sense to me at all. :(

[MarjorieG]

3. No leverage if legal out by DOJ saying legal. Really want CIA to stop doing its job from CYAs and

expensive lawyering up, for no leverage.

How much do you want the gov't, intelligence work, the health care push, to stop while we proclaim war on Bush, that ultimately will not get Bush. I know you feel righteous on this, but I argue pragmatism.

[EFerrari]

5. I worry that the administration just made it harder to prosecute anyone.

No discovery over the actual physical acts, nothing moving up the food chain. If the actual torturers are protected, ow exactly can anyone else even be investigated?

[snot]

6. Exactly my concern.

[EFerrari]

7. Hey, snot. After being lambasted here yesterday

it was a little comforting to listen to Scott Horton this morning. He pointed out exactly the same thing.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/17/memos

But, imho, it is still early days. This isn't going away.

[knowbody0]

4. also, getting co-operation from those involved

who were under orders from their commander in chief.