So argues Bill Kristol in a recent article for The Weekly Standard:

Bush should consider pardoning–and should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

To say I disagree is an understatement.  I can’t speak for the views on torture of the people who did it, but rewarding them for their participation would only be a signal that the United States does indeed endorse torture.  It’d be a national security nightmare.  It wouldn’t protect the troops at all.  Oh, and did I mention it would put the lives of those agents in jeopardy?  What is Kristol thinking?

I have nothing to like about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; he did, after all, plan the acts that killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001.  I certainly don’t wish him well.  But endorsing the act of torture is counter-intuitive to American interests.

That Kristol can speak so enthusiastically about it is a little disturbing.