How about the freaking law? This country does not torture, period. That cruel and unusual punishment thing wasn't just some wild drunken idea of the Constitutional Convention - it's a founding value of the Republic.

Obama is pandering once again. Rwead his statement:

You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies.

He has no intention of going after Bush.

Very mixed feelings on that one. I don't think Bush should investigate himself.

What would worked better for me is if at the beginning Obama would have clarified that his pledge last year to 'not demonize' 'the other side' was NOT some kind of indication that if he was elected President he would be in any way lenient to them in the case of serious wrongdoing. It sounds too much like an amnesty if he is elected which sounds almost like bribery (to them) for helping him. It doesn't pass te smell test.

But that was last year, the damage has already been done. After all, he's the frontrunner, and lets face it, hes received a lot of Republican help.. for some reason.

But, that said, Obama NEEDS to make it clear that he would dilligently investigate such wrongdoing and protect whistleblowers both legally and physically, if they come forward, if he's elected President. And he needs to also clarify that the statements he made last year are not veiled promises of amnesty.

If I believed a President Obama was really going to go after Bush and others for war crimes I would vote for him in an instant.  I am 100% sure, however, that Obama would do no such thing  once in office.  I am willing-to-bet-body-parts sure of this.

moral authority than Obama on the question of torture is disingenous, at best. Here is Senator Obama from the Dartmouth debate:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: America cannot sanction torture. It's a very straightforward principle and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals in emergency situations, and I will make that judgment at that time. But what we cannot do is have the President of United States state as a matter of policy that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us, and it sends the wrong message to the world.

How is that different than what Senator Clinton said? I think it's obvious that either of our cnadidates would be head and shoulders above McCain on this issue, but please don't pretend that Hillary supports torture:

Sen. Clinton has considerably less moral ground to stand on here.  She has said that torture may be "necessary" when it is the "lesser of two evils

although its a little too tepid for my liking.  "If" crimes have been committed, for example.  

That he also could say that he thought this could turn into a "partisan witch hunt" is not ok.  What part of the constitutional egresses of Bushco does he not understand, especiallly the war in Iraq?  Is that just bad policy, or is actual lies, punishable by impeachment?

So it feels like he wants it both ways, in my opinion.  And since he's been eviscerating the Clinton administration, can he be that tough on republicans?  Especially those he wants to include in his cabinet and cooperate with?  Does he think the impeachment of Clinton was "bad policy",, or was it ok?

This is the first time I've heard Obama say anything about this.  Now that he has to, I'm glad he did.

We already know this country has engaged in torture.  There is a really good article in this month's Vanity Fair about this.  

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/featu res/2008/05/guantanamo200805

We need to back off of the "if" and acknowledge that it is a fact.