by Sukrit Sabhlok

Created on: December 15, 2008

"The United States is, for better and, most definitely, for worse, the new Rome', the giant colossus striding the world and claiming to speak on behalf of good against evil". - Sanford Levinson

Slowly, but surely, the rule of law in America is being eroded. For years, the executive branch has attempted to redefine torture in order to circumvent legal restrictions upon its use. Congress also became complicit when it affirmed prior Bush administration actions by way of legislation. The practical impact of these unsettling legal developments was made obvious with the discovery that the United States had abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. It was now plain for all to see that the events of September 11, 2001 had led to the seizing of greater powers for the presidency.

This paper will argue that regardless of who is ultimately held responsible for the abuse of prisoners, the revelations have led to a widespread perception of moral bankruptcy which will ultimately prove harmful to national objectives. The Americans, who were initially greeted on the streets of Baghdad as liberators in 2003, have now been shamed on the world stage. America's image would be improved if the administration ceased condoning abusive interrogation.

I. The Road to Abu Ghraib

The events leading to Abu Ghraib were set in motion almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks. On September 18, 2001, Congress passed a resolution granting broad-ranging authority to President George Bush. Relying on the vague wording in that resolution, Bush then issued an executive order titled "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism", and declared that he could now capture alien combatants and try them under a system of military commissions. Significantly, the order stated that: "Given the danger to the safety of the United States and the nature of international terrorism it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts".

In other words, detainees captured with the blessing of the president were to be denied the same procedural protections afforded to accused criminals in the domestic court system. The supposed gravity of the terrorist threat was used to justify this abrogation of commonly accepted rules of law. In the process, an important psychological precedent was set: military subordinates were now on

• 1
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 7
• Next Page >>