Just an FYI... the prosecution of people for torture has ALWAYS been within the perview of the DOJ

[Windy]

Whether Obama wanted to prosecute or not makes absolutely no difference.

I clearly believe that Obama and his staff made the statements they did to try and insulate themselves when steps toward prosecution are taken so that they can continue to run the country without overwhelming distraction.

As for the CIA officers who conducted the torture. There is legal precedent for the position that a lower level officer following the law in place at the time and the directives of the government cannot be prosecuted unless they go outside the law/directives.

Lyndie England and Company were determined to be acting outside of guidelines. (however I think their cases should be re-examined in light of the information regarding what was authorized by the Bush administration which up until the release of the memos and new information that is coming out now had been heretofore unknown)

[Bandit]

1. She was too gleeful in the acts of torture

She should just stay in jail... I would hate for someone with that much joy in torture to be freed with the thought that she was cleared of wrong doing.. She was guilty of torture and needs to be in jail..

[Windy]

2. the law should be followed uniformly and appropriately in all instances.

If you don't follow the letter of the law, you lose credibility.

[zipplewrath]

3. Nope

Yes, under US law, they may actually be covered for their acts of torture. However, we have tried and convicted people in international courts of following their own laws. And in this case, it gets very confused because DoJ under Bush was solicited BY the torturers for permission to conduct torture. That act can get them all convicted of a conspiracy charge, as well as aiding and abetting.

[Windy]

4. Maybe Hayden, not low level agents...

And the DOJ recognizes that they may be tried internationally as well as civilly and has said that it will provide them with defense counsel, which is appropriate.