Obama shouldn't punish interrogators after the fact
As I understood President Obama the first time, he said basically that we would not punish those involved in the techniques used to gain information from terrorists. Then later, he said that he would turn it over to his Attorney General to decide if any involved should be punished.
This reminds me of changing the rules after the game is over, so one team can win over the other. Why do they want to go backward when the people were doing what they were supposed to do to gain information?
If the current administration wants different methods to be used, then these can be followed from now on until someone decides to change them in the future. If our government wants their military to obey orders, these people must be guaranteed that what they are doing is backed by the President in command at the time, and cannot be re-visited by a new Commander in Chief and new rules made for them after the fact.
I am sure many citizens will wonder if this is being done for political reasons, and it may backfire on the current administration because many will look upon charging anyone who gave or followed orders in attempting to gain information from terrorists as being an unjust way to punish people after the fact. -- Carol Strache, Frazee