Unfortunately, we have a system where, until the interviewee has fallen far out of favor with his own people, that TV interviewers can't really fire off the really hard questions in most cases on weekly shows. If they do that, the guests stop agreeing to appear and there go the ratings, and finally the job.

For all the talk about Journalistic Integrity, you have to remember that modern day news is a profit venture now, as sad as that is, and all decisions must be seen through that lens.

Nailing a Sanford interview would have meant higher ratings for MTP, which lead to more money for NBC, which equals a raise for David Gregory. No one on that chain will do anything to disrupt that process.

Especially to announce this on a holiday..

This is not a government matter. Despite O'Reilly's negative nattering, he didn't go out there and hire a hit man.

Civilly, that's another matter. If it can be proven that his diatribes had a specific impact in the shooter's decision he could be held (and maybe Fox) civilly liable for a wrongful death claim.

There's not enough information out there yet to know if this is viable, but its an option.

Call it priming the pump if you will, but if true its a brilliant strategy. It allows the President to avoid alienating a significant part of the population while still slowly shifting national opinion.

The problem here is that a certain subset of the Democratic party doesn't just want a prosecution, they want it NOW, and good legal procedure doesn't work that way. You wait until you have the facts (and possibly a suitably leaning jury pool) in your corner. The Obama administration has had about 100 days to go over 8 years of materials (and does anyone think that everything was left behind, easy to find, in a clear and organized manner?). It's going to take months and months for due diligence to occur.

I have not agreed with every one of Obama's decisions, but each time I have gotten the impression that he has thought the matter out, solicitied and considered contrary opinions and reviewed the facts at hand before deciding. I'm prepared to accept he has done so in this matter as well, and that his approach may be based on information that we are not yet privy too as a country.

Democrats: Yes, we know you don't agree with us on everything, but here we are, willing to listen.

Republicans: You can't march party line with us? Good riddance....

Even if it doesn't change a single vote, it certainly enhances the inclusive image of the Democrat party...

"Unless the situation is at gunpoint, one will not take a superior officer at their word about the legality of a particular questionable action, but will consult the appropriate entity"

That's exactly my point. That's what they did. And the appropriate entity may have given the wrong answer, but they did get an answer.

One thing, and I am doing this from memory, I don't recall Obama saying the interrogators were innocent. What he said was they will not prosecute. It is common for prosecutors not to seek charges when they feel they don't have a winnable case, even when they are certain the target may be guilty...

Imagine the flip side. What if these individuals were charged and the majority of them were acquitted. What message would that send?

This is not verification with the officer who gave you the order, this is verification with the agency of law that would be responsible for pressing the charges of same, that said activities were not chargeable. Secondly, the DOJ is outside the chain of military command, which is why the 'following orders' meme is not totally accurate.

In effect, the DOJ, by pre-authorizing the activities, granted the actors a virtual writ of immunity that must be honored now, as despicable as that may be.

If you were to go into court right now, on any charge, and present to the prosecutor a letter from that same prosecutor that says 'I will not prosecute you for doing this because it is legal', that's a pretty tough defense to beat.

That's not what was in effect here. What happened here was people were given orders, they questioned the legality of those orders, and were told, in effect, yes, these orders are legal.

The distinction here is not minor. Regardless of the ethical standards of the person conducting these heinous acts, they did operate under what they believed to be the clear protection of law, and as such can be generally exempted from prosecution for CRIMINAL prosecution. This does not mean they cannot face career sanctions, civil penalties, etc.

What the Obama administration has said, in effect, is because these people chose to rely on the officially issued position of the Department of Justice that their activities were not punishable by criminal charges, they should not be charged. Again, that does not mean not punished, just not charged. I'm fairly comnfortable in assuming that many of these person's careers are dead-ended.

More importantly, the administration has NOT (at least publicly) extended such protection to the architects of these memos and the policies behind them, although they have been less proactive than I would like in taking action.

While unpopular, the action taken is correct legally. It would be a massive use of resources to charge persons who have a clearly valid legal defense. It may offend your moral sensibilities (it does mine), but the law is the controlling factor here.