Torture investigations? What torture investigations?

By GottaLaff

Why in the world wouldn't President Obama go after the BushCo torturers?

Jack Goldsmith headed the White House's ultra-secret legal arm, the Office of Legal Counsel, and his attempts to rein in the "unitary executive" infuriated David Addington.

Good, good. As it should be. So now can we begin to make things right again? Whaddya say, Jack? [Laffy Note: Goldsmith "worked at the Justice Department from 2003 to 2004 on issues that probably would be subject to new investigations, so readers should consider my views accordingly"]

A congressional or Justice Department investigation "would bring little benefit, and they would further weaken the Justice Department and the CIA in ways that would compromise our security." The relevant facts, he says, are "well known inside the government," and several investigations, both public and private, have already been conducted. Obama should allow these investigations to continue and make their findings public. But new investigations could spook intelligence agencies from properly doing their jobs.

So breaking the law doesn't spook them? Setting a precedent's A-OK? Tacit approval, setting up other countries to follow our example and continue the same practices, including on Americans, that's cool with everyone?

Goldsmith may have some valid points, but his conclusion doesn't sit well with me.

Read more here.