The memos didn't provide de iure indemnity. There is no constitutional basis, in fact the proposition that a memo can supersede the Constitution is idiotic on its face.
The failure is the de facto doctrine of absolute executive immunity. It has two prongs: 1. "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." 2. When the perpetrator follows president's orders, also not illegal.
Nevertheless, since there is no legal basis, there is nothing preventing the next government from prosecuting them.
The memos didn't provide de iure indemnity. There is no constitutional basis, in fact the proposition that a memo can supersede the Constitution is idiotic on its face.
Yes, and that's what I meant by "let the courts sort it out later." The Constitution's not much help either way, being full of imprecise, hand-waving language and vague terms like "cruel and unusual." It was anticipated by the Constitution's authors that it would be of use only to a moral government.
Nevertheless, since there is no legal basis, there is nothing preventing the next government from prosecuting them.
I wonder if that's ever happened in the US? Does anyone know?
I would disagree. The Constitution is a bulwark against tyranny. The US have successfully prosecuted waterboarding in the past.
It usually only happens when the rule of law is suspended and then resumed. You're a young country, so maybe it hasn't happened before. Robert H. Jackson was an American, though ;-)
The memos didn't provide de iure indemnity. There is no constitutional basis, in fact the proposition that a memo can supersede the Constitution is idiotic on its face.
The failure is the de facto doctrine of absolute executive immunity. It has two prongs: 1. "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." 2. When the perpetrator follows president's orders, also not illegal.
Nevertheless, since there is no legal basis, there is nothing preventing the next government from prosecuting them.