Reply #134: All the "reasons" you cite can certainly be presented in ones defense. . ,

[pat_k]

. . .but none of them qualify as legitimate reasons to refrain from prosecution.

We subject persons who commit war crimes to the ultimate punishments (life in prison, or the penalty of death if the abused person happens to die) because we hope that the prospect of the penalty will outweigh any "pressures" or excuses for committing the crimes.

We have an obligation under the Constitution, and the treaties that are part and parcel to it as the "supreme law of the land," to prosecute those who are suspects in war crimes. (Don't forget, we do not simply have an obligation NOT to torture. We have an obligation to treat humanely.)

In this case we have "confessions" -- we know the acts that were committed. There are witness and records of who participated in them. We have no Choice but to prosecute. The ONLY thing that failing to prosecute does is shift the obligation to prosecute to the other parties to Article III of the Geneva Conventions.

The shame of having to look to other countries to deal with "our" war criminals and bring us back into the community of civilized nations is one we would never fully recover from. Just as our elected officials are obligated to act, I believe we each have a duty to as citizens to fight to wake them up to their duty to do what the law, and their oaths, demand.

As I said in another post:

We must prosecute Bush, Cheney, and the other officials responsible for implementing and rubber stamping "the program." We must prosecute the employees who refused to say "no" when asked to commit outrages upon the persons in their custody. To do anything less renders the law meaningless and ensures that there will be officials in the future who believe they can commit any act, however abhorrent, with impunity, as long as some authority gives the "go ahead."