This certainly isn't a one-sided issue.

There are many in the CIA who are doing whatever it takes to protect Americans and American interests. I am sure many of their actions have indirectly accomplished this goal. I'm also sure that many of their actions have actually harmed Americans in the short and long term.

The fact of the matter is, we live in a dangerous world, where being nice is only going to open opportunities for other entities to attack us. At the end of the day, I believe it is imperative that we allow our covert specialists to maintain their secrecy to better do their jobs.

They, the CIA, wouldn't even be in this position if our politicians didn't systematically turn the entire Middle-East into an American-hating orgy to begin with. But, we did, hence 9/11. Now, did we expect the CIA to shake terrorist hands after two symbolic towers fell, along with thousands of innocent lives?

This part is a very interesting point. But, at the same time, if the administration conducting the investigation is complicit in the crimes being investigated, I don't feel like that counts as an investigation at all. In my opinion, the long term solution would be for the AG to be far, far, more independant of the president, no matter what party is in office. Maybe that position needs to be replaced with a committee with lifetime appointments or something like that... Something that would make it less directly tied to the current administration and that might make it possible to investigate actions performed by that administration.

As for this particular situation, I'm not entirely sure what I think either. Definitely I don't want to see individual agents or soldiers strung up for actions that followed the lead set by the president and vice president. They were told that those actions were legal and neccessary. I put 100% of the blame on the people who misled them in Bush's administration, not the individuals on the ground. I'm very worried that an investigation will ultimately be directed towards scape goats low in the chain for political reasons.

But, at the same time, I think that as a voter, I have not just a right to know what was done, but a responsibility to know and to take that into account every time I vote in the future. I want to know what techniques were used, how broadly they were used, what the goal of using those techniques was, who authorized it, what kind of safegaurds were, or were not, put in place to prevent abuse, what implicit approvals were given, etc.

So, I guess what I would ideally like is for there to be a major investigation, for it to turn over every stone, and for it to present its findings to the American public in full. But, I don't want to see the names of any individual agents, I just want to know where the authorization for those actions originated and what the authorization was.

The only exception I would make the the principal of not prosecuting individual agents is if there are cases where individual monsters operating within the CIA went way beyond what was implicitly asked of them. If there were individuals who were simply utilizing way over the top torture for torture's sake, those individuals need to pay the price, but otherwise, the responsibility rests with the neocons and that is where it should stay.

__________________

Almost 2/3 of Americans either think the current health care bill is about right or doesn't go far enough
We spend 54% of our federal budget on the military
The costs of failing to address global warming

It seems to me that a person cannot demonize an individual for carrying out an order from a commanding officer or one such like a commanding officer. However, can you hold that commanding officer guilty of crime if they themselves were only following protocol?

Thus my concern with this issue is determining when these sorts of actions began. It seems unlikely that Bush or Cheney roused one sunny morning and, after tea, decided that torture/interrogation (whatever you like) was the proper course to follow. I am more apt to believe that such techniques have been used for decades but only now are coming to light for the public.

I would not hold this to be true of only the United States either, as it seems likely that (likely, not proven nor absolutely true) most nations do what is considered necessary to ensure their way of life is protected and sustained.

An interesting question to ask oneself would be "what would I be willing to do to ensure the absolute safety of my loved ones?" I found the answer a bit dark, myself.

__________________
~bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem~

"It is not goodness to be better than the worst"

You're missing something major though. Torture does not produce reliable intel. That's the main reason they don't use it. And, from 2002 on, Cheney gave explicit instructions that they were to focus all interogation on 'uncovering' the fictional link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It has nothing to do with keeping anybody safe.

__________________

Almost 2/3 of Americans either think the current health care bill is about right or doesn't go far enough
We spend 54% of our federal budget on the military
The costs of failing to address global warming

Yes you can, you can also prosecute them for war crimes/crimes against humanity as was proven at the Nuremburg Trials after WW2

__________________
The Right Wing hand book. How to debate on the internet.

When confronted with someone criticising American foreign policy please use the following lines.

1.You hate America..
2. You support Terrorism.
3.You are Anti-American.
4.They hate our freedoms.
5. I have been water boarded..

Please repeat ad nauseum...

But was every Nazi prosecuted? Or only those near the top of the ladder?

__________________
~bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem~

"It is not goodness to be better than the worst"

Indeed, I am aware of the problems surrounding the use of torture. I concede that it, more often than not, does not work. (I cannot say that it has always failed, as torture is a centuries old technique)

As to Cheney's orders, I have no knowledge of that so I'll take your word for it. Still, I wonder if the C.I.A has always used current methods or if they are new.

Please understand, I'm not siding with anyone. I simply wish to find all the facts before making a judgment on the issue. Of course, I could always just be a coward. That's a possibility.

__________________
~bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem~

"It is not goodness to be better than the worst"

Here is an article on it if you're interested- http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/

If I had to guess, and this is mostly just a guess, I would imagine that they have always used torture on an extremely limited basis in very unusual circumatances, but that the widespread use of torture was a major shift of the Bush admin. A lot of lifetime professional interrogators quit, demanded reassignment, or even published books and made movies speaking out against the use of torture during the Bush administration because they felt is was such an unjustifiable and massive change in the way things were being done.

__________________

Almost 2/3 of Americans either think the current health care bill is about right or doesn't go far enough
We spend 54% of our federal budget on the military
The costs of failing to address global warming

As I understand it they are still hunting down prison guards to this day.

__________________
The Right Wing hand book. How to debate on the internet.

When confronted with someone criticising American foreign policy please use the following lines.

1.You hate America..
2. You support Terrorism.
3.You are Anti-American.
4.They hate our freedoms.
5. I have been water boarded..

Please repeat ad nauseum...

If the CIA hasn't done anything illegal, then they shouldn't have anything to fear.

Isn't that the same argument you Rightists use about warrantless wiretapping?

__________________
sputterman: "Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."