USA TODAY EDITORIAL EXCORIATES THOSE WHO WANT TO PROSECUTE ADMITTED WAR CRIMINALS

Right wing apologists want a double standard when it comes to their party committing murders and other felonies- would they argue that war criminals from Serbia or Rwanda should have had their crimes swept under the rug? Not hardly.

I'm writing to respond to the Ross Baker editorial "Those targeting Bush should let their hate 'die away.'" There might be cogent political reasons for not prosecuting members of a previous administration for policy decisions that may border on criminality. None of those reasons apply to an administration whose highest members have admitted committing war crimes which violated both international law and American laws prohibiting murder, kidnapping, torture, sexual battery, and false imprisonment. Every crime against humanity ordered or condoned by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and every such crime committed by members of the CIA and the Department of Defense (FBI agents reportedly refused to engage in criminal acts) should be investigated, then prosecuted.

It is not a "vitriolic chorus of the blogosphere" or "television talking heads" (Mr. Baker's words) who suggest that prosecutions must occur. It is eminent law professors and experts on international law who have explained, with specific citations to U.S. treaty obligations and U.S. laws, that American prosecutors do not have the discretion to refuse to prosecute known war criminals located on our soil

It was no defense at Nuremberg that high ranking Nazis were making political decisions or that lower ranking members were merely "following orders." Prosecuting American war criminals, as we prosecuted Nazis 63 years ago, will send a message both to the rest of the world and to future presidents that some acts will not be overlooked and some lines can not be crossed with impunity.