This article does not clearly report the war crimes themselves. Rather than inform on facts, it leapfrogs into the current mentality favored by the right wing and by triangulating centrists in the Democratic party. The basic message is that it is hopeless to uphold the law and hold criminals accountable for their crimes. As such, it seems ethically challenged and presumptive.

This is analysis that skips the question of whether war crimes were committed and instead examines views of politicians and scholars on the best way to determine what happened, why it happened and whether actions are needed to prevent it from happening again. The writer's views can be inferred but the analysis is careful to identify and quote sources.

excellent explaination of why prosecution is not the best option.

It takes a long time (more than five grafs) until the author introduces any of these critics. For most of the article, they're referred to abstractly. Many government officials mentioned are referred to as "senior Justice Department officials" - or some variation of that - rather than using actual names.

While trying to find a way to prosecute Bush & Co. the author comes up empty. Still, a well written article.

This story is nut case crazy stuff. Why bother with it. Bush did a great job on stopping terror attacks. An overly legalistic approach to war is just stupid academic stuff. You may be sure that our enemies are not following any imaginary laws of war.

This article qualifies as journalism, but begins by accepting the notion that "bush went too far" which leads the reader to believe that there may be some bias here.