And not even a lousy magazine cover to show for it.

"Security Breaches: Scooter Libby went to prison for the "outing" of a desk-jockey CIA agent. He forgot conversations. Pelosi forgets briefings. And the outing of our entire intelligence apparatus by Democrats is OK."

... but not nearly as glamorous, unfortunately.

Rest of article, here.

And this is a good idea, because...?

The random-ideas-that-stink generator was up and running again at the White House.

A day after telling CIA employees at their headquarters in Langley, Va. that he won’t prosecute CIA operatives for employing certain interrogation techniques, the President says that perhaps he’ll go after the Justice Department lawyers instead who devised the legal authority for the interrogations… except that he won’t, he’ll leave that decision up to the Attorney General, Eric Holder.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said

Translation: Obama has floated the idea and is now seeing which way the winds blow before telling Holder to unleash the hounds on Bush administration officials. Want proof?

Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government's efforts to cope with terrorism.

If that isn’t trial balloon-floating, then we don’t know what is.

We can’t begin to describe what a bad idea this is. We’ve already given up quite a bit of the playbook with the highly-selective release of the CIA interrogation memos and with a trial even more classified and secret information will be required to be made public. How does this benefit our safety?

Some people will argue that the claim that the interrogations did indeed prevent future attacks as Dick Cheney has argued is akin to proving a negative. And they would be correct unless those memos are released for examination. Again, more playbook revealed and again, how does any of this actually benefit our safety?

And, despite assurances that CIA operatives will not be prosecuted themselves, how comfortable do you think these people will be taking the stand against people they believed to be in good legal standing and for which they were being advised in good faith on the war on terror? And how does this effect morale with respect to the CIA’s efficacy in continuing to round up the bad guys, foil plots and continue this fight? How is any of this of actual benefit to our safety?

As the President even intimated above, how is the time and energy that will be spent on this whole affair by our intelligence community of any benefit to our safety? Instead of doing their job of protecting this country, they will be preparing for trial. Awesome.

And you wanna bet some Democratic law makers who had full knowledge of these techniques yet did nothing to stop it aren’t squirming in their seat right now? We’re looking at you, Nancy.

Unfortunately, it’s this last reason that will be why we most likely won’t see any real action instead any of the aforementioned ones. No matter – results are all we care about around here.

Image of the Day

Nutroot heartache

Seeking to move beyond what he calls a "a dark and painful chapter in our history," President Barack Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted.

...dark and painful chapter in our history? 9/11 - we would consider that "a dark and painful chapter in our history". Then again, he could've been speaking on behalf of the bad guys for whom many, no doubt, experienced some pain in the dark.

The President, though, made it up to the nutroots somewhat by giving up the interrogation playbook.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod says President Barack Obama spent about a month pondering whether to release Bush-era memos about CIA interrogation techniques, and considered it “a weighty decision.”

Links to pdfs of the CIA memos can be linked through Politico link above. You can learn all about the torture techniques we used and some we never did like the infamously brutal "caterpillar torture":

Justice Department lawyers said in a "top secret" memo to the CIA that they could place Abu Zubaydah, one of the highest-ranking members of Al Qaeda, in a cramped confinement box, and introduce insects into the box under the following conditions. An excerpt of the memo, dated Aug. 1, 2002, reads:

"As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar.

If you do so, to ensure that you are outside the predicate act requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain.

If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, then, in order to not commit a predicate act, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause death. (material redacted with black lines here) so long as you take either of the approaches we have described, the insect’s placement in the box would not constitute a threat of severe physical pain or suffering to a reasonable person in his position."

The tactic ultimately was not used.

You know what's really torture? Reading the legalese that ensures the civil liberties of these bums.

H/T: Sweetness and Light and Instapundit