when i read that, i thought of r.d. miller and you know, it struck me suddenly that the same could be said for the living. now, throughout this investigation, a question kept nagging at me. why did the army go through all this trouble collecting thousands of pages of record on war crime allegations, of numbing and naming each case, and keeping files on them. if it wasn't to prosecute the wrong doers, and from everything i could see in terms of what happened to these cases, that couldn't have been a top priority. there wasn't much evidence or effort to identify or address conditions or policies that might promote atrocities, so that couldn't be the reason, so then why go through all this effort? there was this incredible collection of records, that told us so much about what happens in war, and what causes a war crimes. so -- but no evidence of the army ever doing anything with it. so why did they go through all of the effort? and that's what i wanted to ask a former pentagon officer whose name appears on many of the status rep