I can accept this policy IF the President supports a full investigation via a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (even Fred Hiatt supports this idea.)

i strongly urge mr. emanuel to use a dictionary, and look up the terms retribution and justice; the two are not mutually inclusive. retribution suggests a like-kind act, ie: waterboarding the author's of the memos. justice would be trying them under the laws of the land, and punishing them appropriately, should they be found guilty.

1. a violation of one or more international treaties we have signed;
   
2. a poor way for us to claim the moral high ground;
   
3. a recruiting tool for Al-qaeda.

Well, now everyone has their answer from the Obama administration: Torture is bad but no bad enough to hold anyone accountable for it.

Someone needs to ask the president what it means to not condone torture; I would like to know what not condoning torture means.  Does it mean that it is enough to institute a policy not to conduct torture?  Is condemnation alone enough to restore our stature as the world's greatest democracy?

I don't think so.  I don't see how just words and speeches are enough to show who we are, or who we aspire to be.  I think you show condemnation by punishing those who are responsible for whatever it is that is being condemned.

I thought I could not be more disgusted and heartsick after all that had happened during the Bush years, but I have to say that hearing that Obama does not intend to do more than just issue statements and give speeches and talk about moving forward just rips a hole in my heart.

Claiming 9/11 changed everything and that these desk jockies were in the heat and had to craft such policy is akin to saying that thinking about war is no different than war itself.  

Obama has, in effect, said that the b.s. ticking time bomb theory is, in effect, our operating paradigm whenever we feel like it.

Since when does motive matter? A pol should know that, eh?

The Nuremberg Retributions were one of the lowest points in 20th century history.  The aftermath of the Second World War should have been a time for looking ahead, not for laying blame for the past. Unfortunately, too many people failed to understand that well-intentioned Germans accused of war crimes were just following orders and acting in good faith.  Those dedicated patriots in the Whermacht and hard working public servants in the SS were men of integrity, they didn't shirk their responsibility to keep the German homeland safe from Jewish, Polish, Russian, Rumanian, Yugoslavian, French, British, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian, American, Greek, Dutch, Norwegian, Canadian and Belgian fanatics, extremists, and non-combatants

I've learned recently that the aftermath of the Second World War should have been a time for reflection, not retribution.  Everyone should have respected the strong views and emotions of Germans who defended their country through a war crime or two, just as much as they respected the strong views and emotions of the people whose loved ones were executed and dumped in a ditch, bombed, tortured, gassed, burned in ovens, and condemned as subhuman parasites unfit to exist.

But vengeance prevailed over common sense.  Retribution was insisted upon by persecutors waving the "rule of law" in everyone's face, they rambled on and on and on about "justice" but all they were really after was payback and revenge.  So many German children who loved their dedicated fathers had to watch with tears in their eyes while their fathers were slandered in the newspapers and demonized by finger pointing trial lawyers parading around for the newsreel cameras.