It’s an extraordinarily rare day when Greg Sargent and I are in agreement, but it appears he finds the administration’s position on criminal prosecution relating to interrogations completely incoherent:

If it’s up to Justice to determine who did or didn’t break the law in the case of the authors, it can’t be up to the White House to decide in advance that all interrogators acted within the law.
The question for Obama advisers: Who decides whether the interrogators broke the law? If the answer is Justice, as it should be, then the interrogators decidedly don’t have immunity. There are still plenty of unanswered questions at the heart of this.

One of my left-of-center readers said it wasn’t as incoherent as I suggested, because in his comments, Obama had issued a “de facto pardon” to the interrogators. A “de facto pardon” sounds kind of like being a little bit pregnant. You either have presidentially mandated legal immunity or you don’t.