RUMSFIELD AND HIS CRONIE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE ABUSE THEY HAVE CONDONED AND INITIATED IN THE PRISONS AND IRAQ AND EVERYWHERE THEY HAVE THEIR DIRTY FINGERS IN THE PIE OF HORROR THEY HAVE INFLCTED ON THE WORLD. THE "LIBERATION OF IRAQ" WHAT A LOT OF BULL SHIT THEY ARE TRYING TO FEED THE US AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. NO ONE BELIEVES THEM. THEY AR A NEST OF VIPERS AND LIARS. THEY CHEATED THEIR WAY INTO GOVERNMENT AND HAVE PUSHED THE WORLDS FACE IN THE PILE OF SHIT THEY HAVE CREATED.

THEY SHOULD ALL BE SENT TO IRAQ TO DIE FOR THEIR MESS THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF THE INNOCENT YOUNG LIVES THEY HAVE SENT OVER THERE.

DISGUSTED IN OREGON

Rumsfeld and Bush have committed war crimes that would land a Yugoslavian general or leader in jail. Nobody can arrest them, so the point is moot.

Their day in front of judges may come someday, but not for many years, if at all.

Margaret,

Please learn to control your CAPS lock key. It looks like you're shouting. Plus, while I agree with your sentiments in general, "dirty fingers in the pie of horror"? WTF? Or is this some reference to Titus Andronicus or Sweeny Todd I'm not getting?

Regardless, while Rumsfeld should be convicted of war crimes, he won't be, at least not until he's conveniently dead of old age and thus will make a convenient sin eater and scapegoat for the younger Republicans. They'll drag this thing out forever and a day, simply because they can.

I'm sure there is an unwritten policy that no commissioned officer is going to be prosecuted for doing what Rumsfeld and company told them to do. It just won't happen.

Now enlisted people? That's another story. By the time they get out of Fort Riley to talk to the press about how they've been screwed, the gang of criminals now in charge of the federal government will be long gone. Besides, who'd going to listen to any of them anyway?

We really do need to think past the specific acts being committed, and think about the systemic picture, of how we can create a political system which effectively maintains the rule of law, rather than allowing the law to be tossed aside almost without accountability in the name of 'winning the war'.

We have a system in which it's basically unthinkable for Bush to do something like declare himself 'emergency president' indefinitely after his term expires; the public wouldn't stand for it, even if they had a great opinion of him (which they don't). We need to find a way to similarly 'really' make the rule of law on war issues work.

I lose track of all the nefarious things we're officially "not doing", like outsourcing torture, but if high profile prisoners like Ramzi Binalshibh aren't on the Gitmo list and aren't in Florence, where ARE they? Was he one of the "ghosts" who passed through Gitmo? If we have other Gitmos, why can't we get those inmate lists? Has anyone explained why, in the land of "prisons 'r' us" we would have prisons in, say, Egypt or Jordan? Did we incarcerate enemies abroad at other times in our not-so-transparent history? Who in our chain of command is ultimately answerable for "disappeared" prisoners? Who pays the bills for all those private planes flitting around with drugged, diapered cargo? If, as one assumes, they are "ghosts" because they went to secret places where unspeakable things were done to them, what is the ultimate resolution? Will we someday discover babbling idiots with no gonads in some Near Eastern cellblock, or will they all just remain unaccounted for? Bagged, as above, like trash?

The first time someone said, "Let's take these mofos and REALLY show 'em who's boss," did anyone answer, Yeah, okay, cool...but THEN what...???"

In a world of cell phone photographs, instant messaging and forensics that can ID tiny fragments of remains, how is it that people can still simply disappear?

I'm sure that a perfectly comprehensive ghost investigation has already taken place, and those found responsible have already suffered their ghost punishment.

Really, with the transparency levels we've had thus far with this administration, I'd expect no less.

It should surprise no one that former Inspector General of the Defense Department Schmitz didn't conduct an investigation into Abu Ghraib. The former Inspector General himself was quoted by the AP on June 25, 2004 in a speech at the City Club of Cleveland as saying that the Abu Ghraib abuses were "the fault of a few soldiers he called 'bad eggs'." He also said he knew nothing about "illegal orders that came from any leaders."

Who needs an investigation when you've already made up your mind about what happened?