**Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.**"

Ronald Reagan (ironically) 1984"

Yes but this has nothing to do with the 2001 killings by the war lord in 2001. I have never approved o Bush's policies or defended them, nor have I defended torture. But the torture issue has nothing to do with the 2001 killings by a Warlord, and Obama is not responsible for any of it. My point is wrapping several different complicated situations into to one overreaching statement of hypocrisy is absurd. Different kinds of situation require different approaches and investigations.

I always enjoy the taking of names to complement the kicking of ass.

"This is why your rants are delusional, Glenn. You pine for a mythical land that will never exist."

Not if the likes of you get their way.

One should pretend that nothings amiss and just go about one's business then? Surely this will work itself out. This is America the Good!

I mean the US Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, right? Certainly a notion that is apparently shared by more than one President.

Also, even if the law is changed, that doesn't absolve one of guilt if the crime was committed prior to the change.

Unless you are a major telecom. (See FISA Amendments Act of 2008.)

'But the torture issue has nothing to do with the 2001 killings by a Warlord, and Obama is not responsible for any of it.'

They were not only tortured and murdered but witnesses were reported to have been brutally tortured and murdered.

So, yeah, it does.

And Obama is not being accused of being directly responsible for the incident.

He is being criticized for failing to act on the knowledge, which makes him technically complicit after the fact.

Obama is once again showing consistency in actively covering Bush's crimes. He continues in obstructing justice in every sense of the phrase.

or affect policy ... or get in the way of our multinational corporations ...

Why should we be the ones to investigate and prosecute these crimes?

Because we actually have the infrastructure and the funds and the feigned moral outrage to make that a reasonable expectation ... we've signed those treaties and conventions ... we're on the various UN committees and ... they happened on "our watch" ...

It is doubtful anyone else in the vicinity has either the "will" or the "ability" to do so.

That should have been dugjakes instead of scathew.

Oh key-rist on a crutch, Bernbart. Must I become the Sesame Street of Logic for you again? Fine. Here it is. Imagine the background music is "One of These Things is Not Like The Other"...

1. The Afghan warlord commits what is accepted in international law to be a war crime.

2. US run by Dubya, looks the other way. CIA involved (as usual).

3.Obama discourages investigations into Bush suspected war crimes.

4. State Department officials object to the reinstatement of alleged War Criminal in a leadership position in currently occupied Afghanistan and goes so far as to say: "We believe that anyone suspected of war crimes should be thoroughly investigated," the official added, hinting the Obama administration is open to an inquiry.

5. Ergo, we are hypocrites, we have a double standard when it comes to investigating (much less prosecuting) war crimes by other government officials (see also: Chuck Taylor) while refusing to investigate (much less prosecute) our own government officials for identical crimes.

I hope this makes it clear for you what the point of Glenn's post was.

The hypocrisy gets ratcheted up another notch, and I'm amazed, again, at how little response there is.

Here, it really does help. I promise. I installed it yesterday and it's wonderful.

http://language-grammar.blogspot.com/2009/04/salon-letter-filters-script.html

I think your update pretty much sums it up.

If you inherit property that includes a toxic waste dump, it becomes your responsibility.

If you suppress investigation of your inherited toxic waste, you're still a criminal, even if you didn't create the toxic waste.

* * * * *

The Bush Administration discouraged the investigation of a war crime.

That cover-up is itself a war crime.

And covering up the cover-up is also a war crime.

* * * * *

Got it?

Simple concept: the cover-up is also, itself, a crime.

Just ask Mr. Boalt.

We will get nowhere unless there is an independent investigator/prosecutor appointed with almost unlimited resources. You know, the kind we threw away on Wall Street Banksters.

Glenn, please consider a post calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor. In fact, we should have a permanent special prosecutor's office whose function is to put politicians in jail. It would be a busy place.

Until politicians, federal agents, and troops start going to jail for breaking the law we will continue to see the law broken. How hard is that to see?

I read this story today in my local paper, Denver Post, and it was buried in the back of the paper. Face it folks, this isn't going to get much coverage. How convenient that IG report was released on Friday. Basically maximizing it's chances of being completely overlooked. Of course Congress isn't going to do anything about it. They aren't going to investigate. If they did, the Obama admin would fight them tooth and nail on it. That's transparency for ya. It's all so depressing.

.

Some old McNamara interviews were on TV last night, and he was "somewhat" remorseful about Vietnam in 1995 & 2003, but still trying to explain away, or make excuses for an unnecessary war.

This is nothing new, but I can see the similarities in Afghanistan, and Iraq - or at least the human mistakes, in the running of these wars. We get stubborn with our beliefs. One wonders - is there any solution? We have to speak out of course, or at least try. "Memories are short" seems to apply here.

I'm for pulling back, or pulling most of our troops out of both of these wars. How can it be much worse? We currently seem to be making an Afghanistan Quagmire...

marc