I've often argued that if we are to be a nation of laws, that none may be above the law. Or something stentorious like that.
At Glenn Greenwald's place, commenter Ikonstan really poses the fundamental question:
Suppose (for the sake of discussion) that in 2007: (a) Afghanistan learns exactly where George W. Bush is located in the U.S.; (b) there is ample evidence that W. (i) illegally detained and tortured its citizens and (ii) is continuing these policies with the intention of doing so indefinitely; and (c) the U.S. government (both Dems and Republicans) is either unwilling or unable to apprehend W. in order to extradite him to the the Netherlands for trial. Further suppose that efforts to compel the U.S. to do so through the U.N. are blocked (because, say, the U.S. vetoes any actions).
What, if anything, is Afghanistan (under current facts) permitted to do about Bush, who -- we're assuming for purposes of these discussions -- clearly committed war crimes and is continuing to do so?
That's the nub of it. What could Afghanistan-- or any other nation, for that matter-- do about American war criminals?
We can only hope.