A reader comments on my post this morning:
The real question, it seems to me, is whether the difficulties and possibilities are legal, political, or some mixture of the two.
My call would be: prosecuting Rumsfeld, Bush, and the others responsible for war crimes is legally possible (i.e. there is enough to make a case), but politically difficult.
There is no legal difficulty about it: the law is quite clear that responsibility flows uphill. There is already a great deal of evidence available to show the responsibility of those in charge, and only more will come out. So far as the law goes, it is no more conceptually difficult than the prosecution of Milosevic or Saddam Hussein.
Politically, of course, it could be very painful and divisive – it will depend on the extent to which people of good will can put aside party for the good of the country and its deepest ideals.
So: is it "difficult to imagine circumstances in which charges might actually be prosecuted"? Given the degree of partisan entrenchment in the country right now, yes, it is politically difficult. Is it legally difficult to imagine? No, no more than for any case in which there is enough prima facie evidence to bring an indictment.
If not the president, then the defense secretary. At some point, someone will have to be held accountable for what they have done. Here’s an op-ed on the same subject which I missed yesterday.
The Dish 