So, *you* want a king. Well, *I* don't.

[BrotherIvan]

156. Please, honestly

I appeal to you as we have met before and I respect your posts, please tell me you don't think the United States should shrink from prosecuting war crimes--TORTURE, which is illegal internationally without question--because of political expediency? I know that's not what you really intend to say. This goes far beyond Obama as a single person, this is a decision that effects our laws for the future.

How can the US ever say anything about human rights if we do not prosecute one of the most despicable possible acts? How would holding war criminals accountable be "toxic"? How is being afraid of a minority party which has lost the last two national elections an excuse? Why are Democrats afraid of what they will say? The world would stand with the moral position.

And as a point of fact, the Administration did not need to prosecute on its own. Countries all over the world would have tried them according to the Geneva Convention. They could have been tried in The Hague. The Administration actively blocked that. This is not about having the political will, this is about protecting war criminals. This was a decision made and it has very dire consequences for our country and our standing in the world.