Insufferable columnist Tom Friedman agrees with the insufferable David Broder that sanctioning torture should NOT be prosecuted as the crime that it clearly is under both international and domestic law. He therefore applauds Obama for saying that the torture policy crafted by the Bush administration was a "mistake", not a crime warranting investigation and prosecution.
In short, Obama is doing precisely the right thing. Friedman's reasons? Prosecuting Bush would "rip the country apart." Friedman also argues that Al Qaeda is such "a unique enemy" that it remains "undeterred by normal means."
What does that mean? As near as I can tell, it means that any detainee associated with Al Qaeda deserved to be tortured, and to hell with the laws and international treaties that prohibit it.
Glenn Greenwald begs to differ:
* Bush officials ordered torture.
* Torture is a crime.
I prefer Greenwald's logic to Friedman's 'tortured' reasoning.
The most consistent critic of Obama's refusal to acknowledge torture as a crime has been Rachel Maddow regular and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Turley has said that not only is torture a crime, but that there is no option but to investigate and then, if evidence warrants, to prosecute those responsible for initiating the torture policy.