The 9-12 Project of Central PA

"You Are NOT Alone!"

Prosecution of Bush Administration Lawyers

I don't know if you have seen the story or not, but President Obama has reversed his decision on whether or not to prosecute Bush Administration lawyers for advising President Bush on the legalities of "torture." At the time of the advice as now, that I know of, there is still no definition of torture. The Genva Conventions states, "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." However, the question is whether or not the conventions apply to Al Qaida.

From what I read and interpreted from the conventions is that the Taliban and Iraqi Rupublican Guard fall under the Conventions. So, how do we make the distinction between Taliban and Al Qaida since they were working hand in hand in Afghanistan? Neither the Taliban, nor Al Qaida, wear any flags or insignia or uniforms for that matter. In that case, no distinction between the two can be made and therefore seen not as being of an organized army and not covered by the Geneva Convwentions. So they are detained as "enemy combatants" and not Prisoners of War. So you could say that the Bush Admin. lawyers were not bound by the conventions. They based their advice on precident set by a 1994 US law that says that torture must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain.

It was this US law and the experiences of those who have been subjected to waterboarding and various other techniques that the lawyers used to advise the use of these techniques. I have been waterboarded as part of my training and it is not what I would call torture. The lawyers gave the President the best possible advice from their interpretation of the law. I beleive it would set a very dangerous precedent if an administration of a president could

a) Punish those for giving advice and,
b) Go after a previous administration for thier advice/actions.

How would America feel if President Eisenhower went after and prosecuted President Truman's advisors for deciding to drop an Atomic weapon on Japan. How would President Obama feel if the next President decided to prosecute Timothy Geitner and his economic advisors for the advice they gave Obama on the bailouts; as they are clearly violating the Constitution of the Unites States. People would think twice about advising any President; if they thought that they would later be prosecuted for their advice. Even if it is decided that they were encouraging "torture;" since when did we become a country that prosecutes for giving advice and opinions. I could tell someone that the best thing I think they could do is to go kill somebody. Under this administration, I guess, I can now be prosecuted for just saying "hey, you should kill 'em." I don't think that they would go after me for saying that. But with the types of things that are happening with President Obama; one can literally never say never.

The bottom line here is; how can we punish someone for thier advice and also how can we expect people to give the President advice if that advice may be deemed inappropriate by present standards of public opinion. The question of torture should not be how do we feel about it, but whether or not it was illegal. I don't beleive that what I know of that the CIA did in its interrogations is torture as defined by law and even if it is deemed torture, the advisors should not be punished just for thier educated opinon.

Views: 6

Comment

You need to be a member of The 9-12 Project of Central PA to add comments!

Join The 9-12 Project of Central PA

© 2024   Created by Web Master.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service