Yeah, but remember: any rumours of torture at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib are totally unfounded. And those Abu Ghraib pictures don't prove anything --totally isolated incidents, y'hear?
I don't quite understand why they bothered investigating if they can't/won't do anything about it. That said, I think the law is at fault if we can still prosecute a Nazi war criminal 60 years after the event (when many witnesses are aged or dead), yet can't prosecute a few bent coppers 20 years after the event. I don't believe you should change the law retrospectively, but maybe it's time that we (all nations) provided a legal provision for pursuing such prosecutions at any time. Maybe these cases could be a catalyst for change... The cynic in me says not.
Actually, I met with someone who prosecutes Nazi war criminals. It's not witnesses that turn them in (excusing the odd incident of some 80+ year old boasting to his other friends when totally drunk, which apparently happened a couple times), but the Nazi's incredibly thorough documenting and record-keeping. We have pretty much all of the evidence we could ever want, it's just a matter of matching names to addresses. While anyone who did a crime should be prosecuted, I think it's very plausible that there isn't sufficient evidence to go forward with cases. There's that whole double-jepoardy thing, so they do have to get it right the first time. If they go ahead and press charges only to find out that they didn't have enough evidence, tough luck for the prosecuters, since the accused is found innocent and due to those double-jepoardy laws, can't be charged with the same crime again. Oh, Congrats on the big 1k Cthippo
It does happen. Background from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/Account.html
