Centerfield

On torture, absolutely. The people who gave the orders and all, on the exact standards that we applied after WW II to determine who was and was not responsible for war crimes then. Some people on both sides wouldn't like the results. For example, a lot of people ont he left would be outraged because, as far as I can see, Cheney would get off free and clear simply because he had no authority to give any of the orders. And merely arguing (as a non-lawyer) that something ought to happen is more like free speech that like war crimes. But Rumsfeld, Sanchez, Yoo, Bush, Meyer, etc. up and down the chain of command should all get a hard look.

On the FISA laws, I haven't seen enough, and frankly don't know enough, to be certain what I think. But as a mater of principle I don't think holding office, no matter how high, is a free pass to break the law.

What I've noticed is the most hysterical screeching about "law" in this regard comes from those who know little about it.

Ignorance is a great aid to hysteria, no matter the topic.

On the other hand, "even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then." Which is to say, just because they start from ignorance of the law, and are motivated by political ideology rather than love of the law, doesn't mean that their conclusions are going to be wrong 100% of the time. 99%+? Sure. But perhaps not this time.

On FISA? Most assuredly NOT so. And I know those statutes inside and out.

I also know the price of lawyering a war. It's not imaginary. And it's not yet clear to me that the compromise bill currently moving through Congress fixes that problem properly. So while folks wave their hyperbolic hysteria, it'd be nice if they take a moment to acknowledge the price.