Maybe he thinks this investigation will be "stimulative".

Pelosi go home. You had your chance to impeach, and you took it off the table, even though you campaigned on that. It must be nearing re-election, because now you're going after Bush again?

I do wonder though.... Obama has said he will reserve the right to use "enhanced interrogation" techniques.... sooo how does that compute when you're ready to string up the previous admin for the same behavior?

From Panetta when he was confirmed:

"Obama has signed an executive order limiting interrogation techniques to the 19 outlined in the Army Field Manual, but Panetta conceded those might not be enough. He said he would not hesitate to go to the president and ask for additional authority if there was "a ticking-bomb situation."

So its ok when he does it, but bad when Bush does it?

Everybody does is never a defense no matter who's saying it Haus, and didn't Panetta have to backpedal the next day?

Criminal prosecution should be on the table, it should be handled by Congress and John Conyers should move forward on it asap.

I think if they did do something criminal then they should be tried like anyone else...in fact their criminal acts are more dangerous than any average Joe's.

My main issue of concern is not even the torture, I really would like someone to look deeper into the politicizing the DOJ - I mean if you can't trust the Dept of Justice, what else does this nation stand for?

I really can't understand why we would do an investigation and not consider criminal prosecution.

Steph I agree that its not a defense, so if you don't want it to happen or are willing to ruin others lives over it, then you shouldn't be doing it yourself, ever. There seems to be some mixed messages from the administration as to whether or not they actually will stop all kinda of interrogation.

Mich - Yea, it doesn't seem to make much sense. If you're going to investigate then there should be a punishment or else what was the point?

Interrogation isn't a crime. Using torture is.

Interrogation isn't a crime. Using torture is.

And Bush didn't use torture. He used Enhanced interrogation techniques.

I can't tell if UnDave35 was being funny or not...I want to laugh but not offend.

Lord, after watching those two women, I need to go look at something beautiful and untouched by bitterness and jealousy.

I will have to agree with Mich, if you are going to go through the motions of investigating possibly criminal activity, why stop just shy of prosecutions...seems sort of pointless to me

I don't have a problem prosecuting if there is proof abuses have taken place by the President and Vice President. Unfortunately, there is no proof, other than partisan rhetoric, and sketchy claims by the enemy, which have been proven to be unreliable (Remember the post on "People who have been tortured can't identify their torturer"?) The fact that those people who were "tortured" were able to identify their assailants casts a large shadow of doubt.

My understanding is that Obama is falling right in line with how the Bush Administration conducted the war on terror:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html

IMO we need to come to terms with how we conduct these things or change how we are doing them. There is not point in prosecuting the former loeaders of our nation if the current leaders are following their footsteps.

To that end, I wish Pelosi would just shut up about it and give the Obama administration time to get their bearings and make some policy decisions. At the moment Congress and the Presidency are not simpatico on this matter, and it jsut looks bad.

Pelosi referred to more than the war in Iraq, the quote in the post even mentions politicizing the Justice Department, and to other administration officials in addition to Bush and Cheney.
It is more Congress' job than Obama's to determine if a past administration is to be investigated - it would be easy to question the executive branch investigating itself.

So are we going to pursue criminal prosecution of Obama since the same things are going on during his administration?

What same things, in reference to what possible crimes, what evidence do you have to offer?

The tit-for-tat is tiresome, especially since it requires such logistical gymnastics to make the argument.

What is tiresome is the fact that your clouded judgment of 2 men that have done the same thing will make you feel they expect different outcomes?
The new article on here stated that more torture is being done under Obama's watch than Bush's

You might want to re-read the article. It doesn't say that.
I'm not sure what your first sentence says.

You have a clouded judgment of Both Bush and Obama. Torture is being done on Obama's watch. You believe Bush should be punished heavily and to the fullest extent of the law, but you don't feel the same about Obama. i am sure you will give some excuse about why Obama shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution, but in reality it all comes down to your clouded judgment. You like Obama, so no prosecution. You don't like Bush- prosecute him.

Argue all you like, your previous comments speak louder than a single one on here.

What evidence is there of torture on Obama's watch?
The article today talks about nasty guards getting their licks in before prisoners are released, not an administration approved policy of torture.
Neither is good but they are different.

Read past the headline, and you will see that the article speaks of the guards getting in their last licks. The guards should be prosecuted for that.
However, Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration authorized the use of water boarding, and other torture techniques. You can argue that water boarding is not torture, however we have made sure other countries were prosecuted for its use. You can even say that the soldiers who committed these crimes have already been brought to justice (Abu Graib), but the soldiers only take orders from their higher ups. The individuals at the top, who authorized this behavior need to be held accountable.

"Read past the headline, and you will see that the article speaks of the guards getting in their last licks. The guards should be prosecuted for that."

Only if this is true. It hasn't been proven, only accusations have been made at this time. As for the idiots at abu graib, they were letting off steam, not following someone's orders. They people who needed to be punished were.