War Crimes Prosecutions?

Sullivan's been at this for a long time, and I tend to agree with him. This morning I read this Sunday evening post where Andrew argues for prosecutions. Money quote:

I do not believe in a witch-hunt in the CIA, whose many hard-working officers deserve support not censure. I do believe in holding responsible those high elected officials who broke the law and violated the Constitution in authorizing war crimes. It should take as much time as needed for a thorough accounting; it should be meticulously fair; it should be geared solely to ensure that the rule of law is no longer in question; and that only those truly responsible at the top of the chain of command are held liable. But if we do not hold these men to account, the precedent they set is alarming.

They have, after all, argued that the executive branch can do anything to anyone to defend the nation's security as defined and measured by that executive branch itself. They have argued that that power is permanent and not restricted to a discrete length of time. They have declared the Constitution to be entirely subject to the executive's will, checked only by a four year "moment of accountability". And they are unrepentant - even boastful of their actions. We cannot leave that precedent in place.

Today he posts a snippet from Anonymous Liberal's blog about the counter-productivity of actual prosecutions for war crimes. A.L.'s contention is that prosecutions can result in acquittals, which can be used by Republicans and the conservative media, not only to exonerate those prosecuted, but to justify torture, warrantless searches, indefinite detention, suspension of habeas corpus, and God knows what else.

But, like Andrew, I believe that we either apply the law to those who are alleged to have violated it, or we don't. If we do, then we have to do it with the full knowledge that our imperfect system of justice may shed a light on this subject that we don't want shed: namely, that some we think may be guilty are not guilty, according to the law. If we don't, then as a nation we are collectively guilty of turning a blind eye to our obsessive pursuit of "safety." Doing whatever it takes to ensure no further attacks is one thing; vesting unlimited, unchecked power in the hands of a few is tyranny. Is that what we want for this country?