[Spain and Pinochet.] When Scott Horton interviewed Jane Mayer this exchange for me thinking:

[HORTON] Reports have circulated for some time that the Red Cross examination of the CIA’s highly coercive interrogation regime—what President Bush likes to call “The Program”—concluded that it was “tantamount to torture.” But you write that the Red Cross categorically described the program as “torture.” The Red Cross is notoriously tight-lipped about its reports, and you do not cite your source or even note that you examined the report. Do you believe that the threat of criminal prosecution drove the Bush Administration’s crafting of the Military Commissions Act?

[MAYER] Whether anyone involved in the Bush Administration’s interrogation and detention program will be prosecuted is as much a political question as a legal one. Right now in Italy the CIA agents involved in the rendition of Abu Omar are facing criminal charges, which is obviously an unmitigated nightmare for the Bush Administration. But to get that far it took an extraordinarily independent and politically fearless local prosecutor, Armando Spataro. I may be wrong, but I personally doubt there will be large-scale legal repercussions inside America for those who devised and implemented “The Program.” Activists will be angry at me for saying this, but as someone who has covered politics in Washington, D.C., for two decades, I would be surprised if there is the political appetite for going after public servants who convinced themselves that they were acting in the best interests of the country, and had legal authority to do so*. An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised.

Yeppers. The Gang of Eight is indeed bipartisan.

But am I the only one who noticed how Mayer slipped that "inside America" qualifer in?

Which makes this little tidbit about Kucinich's impeachment hearing all the more tantalizing:

Via Cannonfire:

One of the nice things about my current alienation from the Democratic party is that I no longer have to defend Nancy Pelosi. She abstained from voting on the resolution to send the Kucinich impeachment measure to the Judiciary Committee for hearings. So did Committee Chairman John Conyers, oddly enough.

Nevertheless, the resolution passed and hearings will occur. And they will be televised.

Things now get verrrrry intriguing. Kucinich wants to present a surprise witness:

>An unidentified government official of a U.S. ally wants to participate if and when Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich makes his case to impeach President Bush before the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Ohio Democrat.

No matter how the eventual hearing is framed, Kucinich said he would like to be joined at the witness table by a foreign official he would not name.

“I’ve been contacted by representatives of a U.S. ally who are seeking an opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee,” he said in an interview.

“Legislative leaders of a foreign capital” have a “new angle that I haven’t thought of before but is relevant,” he said. “This interest in whether we’ve been told the truth has extended to other countries.”

Kucinich would not provide further detail.

What the hell...? This is a most unusual development, one which the big blogs are oddly [, or not,] reticent to discuss. Which allied government are we talking about here? Britain? Israel? Turkey? France? Germany?

Does a fib to a foreigner count as an impeachable offense? I don't think so.

Could the mystery witness be... from Spain?

NOTE * Huh? To do what? "Convince themselves"?

UPDATE I forgot to say: We now return you to our regularly scheduled coverage of Chandra Levy The New Yorker cover.