Amazingly, the AG is NOT just suppose to prosecute people who break the law.... even if it were clear that water boarding was illegal.

The weakest part of our Judicial system is knows as "Prosecutorial Discretion"... we ELECT DAs (and appoint AGs) in counties, states and nationally to prosecute crime AT THEIR DISCRETION....

The intent is to assure prosecutions are attempted only when there is "sufficient" evidence to make conviction likely. It is also intended that honest citizens are no "harassed" by unjustified accusations.

This leaves a HUGE hole in our judicial shield.... and many a crooked DA and AG has taken advantage of this "discretion". Most recent example is the prosecution of the Duke rape case by Nifong, obviously pursued to win a close election by appealing to the prejudices of his community. But there was nearly a century of racial discrimination after the Civil War made possible by this "discretion"... justice for whites was very different from justice for blacks!

My opinion? Only a jury of your peers should decide if your actions rise to the level of deserving punishment. Unfortunately, this is not practical as we'd have to have a jury trial everytime someone spits on the sidewalk or "disrespects" someone or simply makes an innocent mistake.

What some of the senators were demanding of the judge was that he promise to prosecute government employees for a "crime" that these same senators were not able to get a majority of their peers to vote was illegal in various bills defeated over the past few years.

It is like saying, "I think there should have been a law against X. I was not able to pass such a law, but I declare, X must be unconstitutional. So I will only approve of DAs who promise to prosecute X anyway and take it to the Supreme Court to justify their prosecution."

Such a scheme is requiring the DA (or AG) to be biased! ...to be in the pocket of one faction against another and declare such before taking office. Further, isn't the prosecutor sticking his neck out and risking the charge of "false prosecution" if the Supreme Court looks at the constition and the laws the Congress HAS passed and concludes that in these circumstances, the action of water boarding is NOT automatically unconstitutional.

Remember, JFK appoint his own BROTHER to be AG! I still find it amazing that there was a time when it was EXPECTED that the AG was to be biased and personally incapable of being a legal check on the President! My how things have changed!

Again... if the senators want to outlaw waterboarding under ALL circumstances, simply convince 60% of the Senate to pass such a law (and then get the House to concur.)

Twisting the arm of an appointee to commit to a decision on classified actions even before winning a clearance to study the facts IS NOT the way government should be run.