Reply #2: Re: Item 2. . .

[pat_k]

Whether or not participants in the war crimes "relied in good faith" on the criminal legalisms "authorizing" the crimes is not a judgment that an AG can make with any credibility or legitimacy.

The proposition that a reasonable person actually believed, in good faith, that slamming a captive's head against a wall 30 times; keeping them awake for a week and a half; or subjecting them to water torture did not constitute cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, is absurd on it's face.

But, even if it were not absurd, it is the role of the court, not the prosecutor, to be the finder of fact on such matters. While "just following orders" may prove to be a legitimate defense in a given case, it mustn't be allowed to be institutionalized as a blanket "get out of jail free card" by "prosecutorial discretion."

The burden is on the person who committed war crimes to prove their "good faith" state of mind to the satisfaction of a court. This is what our courts are for -- to pass judgment on such "tough questions" case by case, in accord with processes designed to keep the judgment as free of passion or prejudice (or political pressure) as possible.

In other words, to do it in a way that gives US ALL confidence in the result.

We know war crimes were committed by employees of the CIA. By refusing to charge them, Holder makes ALL CIA agents war criminals in the public mind. If some of those who did participate can show that they acted in "good faith," Holder's refusal to charge them is denying them the opportunity to clear themselves.