We said

Given that we have a record of investigating and punishing I believe "we said."

And although things under Obama seem to be the same in regards to detainees, orders from above do flow down and much, but not all, of this kind of non-sense can be curtailed.

People are people, they are only as good as their leadership.  But this like every other war crime will be treated lightly because the leadership, and I am including Obama, feels that sweeping it under the rug, under the guise of looking forward, is more important than justice.

What bothers me, the right is so hell bent on the death penalty being a deterrent, yet when it comes to war crimes, crickets in regards to justice and deterrents.

All combat operations are heavily monitored.  The command environment is very informed and on a shared page.  But we still had atrocity show up in Afghanistan with that group of soldiers who assassinated some selected civilians...the guys who took trophy photos and kept fingers of innocent civilians that they targeted.  That shocked a lot of us in the Army, and then when the details came out and they had soldiers who had survived more than one IED blast and had severe brain injuries and brain damage leading the group, many of us were shocked again.  They were taking so many medications, heavy duty medications....they had no business being deployed.  Their commander was who was responsible for keeping them there and not sending them home.

When I began to investigate their commander I discovered that he was a Holbrooke/Eikenberry pet.  And that was one thing that Obama had going that is no longer going on, that he should be ashamed of.  He had set up and seemed to be inspiring a constant war and fight between Petraeus/McChrystal and Holbrooke/Eikenberry.  I suppose this was his idea of thwarting military mindset dominance.  You can't judge every situation though by party rhetoric rules.  Petraeus/McChrystal were demanding ROE that would not allow for collateral damage and sadly Holbrooke/Eikenberry thought that such stringent rules of engagement held them back.  So the rhetoric that Democrats in the State Department will be kind to civilians while the military is only brutal attack dogs of war that kill indiscriminately does not always hold true.

What ended up happening allowing an internal fight at Command level IMO destroyed the command environment and the focus on accountability instead of focus on fighting and protecting the camps.  People began protecting people who were in "their camp", and a commander of the men who committed those atrocities would allow for harsher rules of engagement if he could get away with it and this guy was looking for ways to do that and Holbrooke/Eikenberry were giving him cover to defy his military commanders.  He likely would also have embraced other harsher realities too since he is a man of HARSH MILITARY REALITY.  Like insisting that badly wounded soldiers not be sent home because that is "candy assed" and weak and they need to get out there and do their jobs.  And they did a job alright.

But military actions are now excessively documented via cameras on helmets and drones recording overhead.  And many people and levels involved in decision making while actions are being taken.

Obama doesn't issue illegal order either.  He doesn't give order to kill looters.  Maybe because he is a lawyer he understands a lot more and isn't prone to telling everyone he is writing history and issuing iilegal orders and allowing ROE that amount to war crimes.

An enemy of the US comes upon a war scene.  Destruction and people dead!  Ok, I already said it was a war scene and those aren't hard to find in a combat zone.

The US is long gone.  
What kind of genius does it take to get a few more bodies, children, women, pose them at the scene, tied or cuffed, place the barrel of a gun at their heads, shoot them again or even for the first time, play a little fire across the bodies and the site itself and then do some fake forensics, take some pictures, give some interviews.