There were too many people with gold and commissions that knew about or enacted the orders who didn't have the "balls" to refuse the order, to not move along with the cabal, to resign or worse yet defend the Constitution as was their responsibility in those hollow oaths they made to receive the honor, wear the uniform and bank the coin.

Abu Ghraib was the canary or clarion call; but, all along the routes from capture to torture and all up the chain of command from the lands of an angry god to the halls of a very vengeful one, honor had called but received no reply.

Now that the criminal cabal has crossed off the White House and Naval Observatory property, it is a time to commense a reformation of our officer corps from the Plebe to the Chairman.

By all means, let's have a mature debate on torture. But we can't pretend history started and ended with Bush. Torture via rendition goes back to at least Reagan and was notably increased under Clinton, and is being continued under Obama.

Was/is this smart policy? What are our policies on torture during peacetime vs. torture during war (we've, of course, utilized what the ICRC would consider torture during every war)? Should there be a difference? What should be the punishment? Should Clinton, Gore, Bush, Cheney, Panetta, Obama, Biden, etc. do perpwalks for this?

I completely agree with the call for some kind of investigation to find out what really went on because frankly I don't trust either the official US Government version, nor the Red Cross version. I think you are wrong, Mr. Ricks, to take the claims in the Red Cross report at face value since the come exclusively from the detainees. I simply don't trust Abu Zubayda's version of events.

And this is why we really need an investigation - to find the truth. As it stands now, the truth is obscured.

Thank you Mr. Ricks. It's our country, and the buck stops with us voters.

Maintaining boundaries in close combat requires that seargents protect our young men's (and our country's) honor, the officer's putting limits on the non-coms, and on up the line. What's remarkable about the battlefield and brig abuse in this war is that some of it was being pushed down from the top, watched on tape by men who had avoided, or simply missed out on war in their own youth.

I was in High School when Sy Hirsch broke the My Lai story, about a platoon that killed over 300 civilans in 3 separate villages. Rapine and murder is as old as war. But what struck me was how few US troopers resisted. A medic, a chopper crew, a guy who self-inflicted to get away. I began to wonder if I could be Lt. Calley, or one of those other regular Joes brought up on charges.

Decades later we learned that field grade officers stood in line to get a few weeks in field command of a 'get tough' ear hunting 'Tiger Force'. The investigation had been buried, none charged.

We saw similar 'get tough' and 'go-along' kinds of patterns at Abu Grab; a single Navy dog handler refused to use his canine battle-buddy to inflict abuse. I heard no one remark on the fact that some of those humiliation and cold-stress techniques were exported from our own state prisons.

Did no one else watch First Blood? Red Dawn? Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch? We want to be Spartacus, but we're running a Legion system.

We are far beyond needing a 'truth' commission as we already know what the truth is: Bush & Cheney authorized torture. They have already confessed to the crime, even bragged about it. Unless this is done within the proper authority of a legitimate Dept of Justice investigation it will have no effect other than to whitewash and cover up.

But don't think the rest of the world is going to be so quick to forgive and forget. Look at the opposition building to Bush's first visit out of country to Canada, saying he is ineligible for entry because he is suspected of war crimes.

Tom,

Does it at all make you think twice that the sourcing for this is the inmates themselves? Did the Red Cross officials actually see any of this? Here's why that's a problem: the inmates have been known to just make stuff up. Take the case of Airat Vakhitov. A Russian captured in Afghanistan. In 2003, his mother was begging the US not to extradite him to Russia, that Guanatanamo was "better than any Russian sanatorium - lots of good food and expert medical assistance." His mother went on BBC and other news outlets begging that he not be sent back to Russia, that he was being treated just fine in Gitmo.

In February 2004, he's released, and a year later he starts banging on about how he's scarred for life based on what they did to him in Guantanamo. Of course, the press jumped on that one, Amnesty Intl became his best friend, and no one bothered doing a little research for the old article where he's begging not to be sent to Russia.

Then we get reports like this and lickety-split, we're supposed to frog march our former leaders before some three ring political circus? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

First, nobody outside of the delusional American right-wing fringe believes that what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld authorized was not torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3 of all four of the conventions says:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Every one of these was violated systematically (during his first tour, General Odierno, who is now in charge of the US military in Iraq, made a policy of taking families of wanted men hostage, putting wives and children in Abu Ghraib, and leaving notes behind telling the men to turn themselves in if they wanted their families released - and then not releasing the families when the men did turn themselves in).

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states:

Article 29

The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War similarly states:

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

In both cases, civilians and soldiers, even though the individual soldiers who commit the actual abuses are liable, the Conventions make it clear that the ultimate responsibility lies with the nation that holds the detainees, and that any action of American military individuals is, ipso facto, the responsibility of the Detaining Power, the United States. This makes an unarguable case for charging Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, General Myers, and perhaps dozens of their top aides and advisors with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Constitution of the United States says in Article VI:

...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, President Obama has an inescapable Constitutional duty to order the Justice Department to investigate and, if warranted, bring charges under the Geneva Conventions. Should he fail to do so, he is in dereliction of his oath of office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It should be pointed out that as head of the 'Executive' branch of government, his primary responsibility is to see that laws are 'executed.'

If Obama fails to act, he has committed an impeachable offense and may well be seen legally as an accesssory after the fact to the Bush administrations war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile, any other signatory nation is free to bring charges against former Bush administration and, while Bush is in Canada today, a group of Canadian lawyers are doing just that. Canada has a specific law that calls for detaining anybody even if only a suspicion of war crimes exists.

The lawyers were thwarted four years ago on Bush's last visit, when the Canadian courts ruled that Bush as sitting President had diplomatic immunity, but a 10-year-old legal ruling in England on the status of former General Pinochet determined that the protection of diplomatic immunity ends the day the person leaves office. It will be interesting to see if Canada's Conservative Prime Minister is going to follow the law and have Bush arrested and detained, or if he is also going to show contempt for the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law.

Reuters: Exclusive: Lawyer says Guantanamo abuse worse since Obama

In fairness, that's a purposefully sensationalist headline. The lawyer in question even acknowledges that the abuses aren't administration policy, but are actually the actions of a few bad apples: "He stressed the mistreatment did not appear to be directed from above, but was an initiative undertaken by frustrated U.S. army and navy jailers on the ground."

So now that torture is no longer official American policy and is just the actions of a few bad apples, will it ever be appropriate to punish the low-level guys who inflict torture? If so, when?

It appears as long as the torturer's archipelago remains an outlay of our treasury and operated by the three lettered departments and agencies filled with stooges the albatross will remain alive enough to bite.

Recommendation for the President: Fire a three stooges group a day composed a mix of senior executives or military until it goes away. Hold the firing ceremony or post the dismissal notice at the Stockdale memorial in Annapolis.

First, nobody outside of the delusional American right-wing fringe believes that what Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld authorized was not torture and other violations of the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3 of all four of the conventions says:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Every one of these was violated systematically (during his first tour, General Odierno, who is now in charge of the US military in Iraq, made a policy of taking families of wanted men hostage, putting wives and children in Abu Ghraib, and leaving notes behind telling the men to turn themselves in if they wanted their families released - and then not releasing the families when the men did turn themselves in).

The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states:

Article 29

The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War similarly states:

Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

In both cases, civilians and soldiers, even though the individual soldiers who commit the actual abuses are liable, the Conventions make it clear that the ultimate responsibility lies with the nation that holds the detainees, and that any action of American military individuals is, ipso facto, the responsibility of the Detaining Power, the United States. This makes an unarguable case for charging Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, General Myers, and perhaps dozens of their top aides and advisors with multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Constitution of the United States says in Article VI:

...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

So, President Obama has an inescapable Constitutional duty to order the Justice Department to investigate and, if warranted, bring charges under the Geneva Conventions. Should he fail to do so, he is in dereliction of his oath of office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It should be pointed out that as head of the 'Executive' branch of government, his primary responsibility is to see that laws are 'executed.'

If Obama fails to act, he has committed an impeachable offense and may well be seen legally as an accesssory after the fact to the Bush administrations war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile, any other signatory nation is free to bring charges against former Bush administration and, while Bush is in Canada today, a group of Canadian lawyers are doing just that. Canada has a specific law that calls for detaining anybody even if only a suspicion of war crimes exists.

The lawyers were thwarted four years ago on Bush's last visit, when the Canadian courts ruled that Bush as sitting President had diplomatic immunity, but a 10-year-old legal ruling in England on the status of former General Pinochet determined that the protection of diplomatic immunity ends the day the person leaves office. It will be interesting to see if Canada's Conservative Prime Minister is going to follow the law and have Bush arrested and detained, or if he is also going to show contempt for the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law.