The Review-Journal’s editorial page today weighed in with some criticism of U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy’s idea to form a “truth and reconcialiation commission,” modeled after the post-apartheid group that investigated abuses during South Africa’s darkest days, to investigate abuses of the George W. Bush administration.

The writers couldn’t totally condemn the concept, of course. Deep down, we think they suspect that the former president did, indeed, commit some constitutional crimes while in office, specifically with respect to warantless wiretapping.

For the record, we also oppose Leahy’s idea. Not because we don’t want to get to the heart of the matter, but because we do. See, a truth commission might ferret out abuses, but that means nothing unless it’s paired with accountability. And that can only come in a court of law.

That’s why we think the best way to go is to use the good old American system of justice: Empanel a grand jury immediately to investigate and ultimately hand up indictments, not just of Bush, but of several other key figures in his administration.

Among the charges, of course, should be the constitutional violations inherent in warantless wiretapping and the abandonment of the Geneva Convention’s proscriptions against torture (which, by the way, Bush was constitutionally obligated to follow).

But let’s not end there. No investigation can be complete unless grand jurors also consider the charge of murder. (And we know just the man to do it.)

Oh, and the R-J’s editorial suggested Democrats are shy about actual prosecutions because they lack proof. If they really care about proof, this is a good place to start.