I'm not sure I agree with Glenn Greenwald; I think President Obama probably did the right thing in the long run by giving immunity to CIA officers who implemented enhanced interrogations and believed they were following the guidance of the Justice Department. First of all the blanket immunity seems less universal than it appears at first glance -- if CIA interrogators acted before the OLC declared certain forms of torture legal, or if they went beyond the stated parameters, that's not acting in "good faith." Those who acted on advice from the OLC, who stayed within the guidelines issued are not sadists; they were doing their job as they were told to do it. Although it's difficult to disagree with Greenwald on the legal merits of his argument.
Obama needs to maintain an effective working relationship with our intelligence services, which would be impossible if they were all concerned about being prosecuted for doing what they thought was legal. There's no telling how this would affect our ability to gather information and prevent terrorism. That said, it's obvious that we are holding ourselves to a lower standard than we have historically demanded from everyone else. "Just following orders" has not been an adequate excuse when it comes to crimes of a similar nature committed in other countries.
All we are is "lucky" there's no one big enough to tell us to do things differently.
-- A. Serwer
