3 of 3

Write now Article Tools

Page 4 of 4

committed, or aided" the September 11 attacks, should be construed narrowly to prevent the President from using war-time powers for torture. To prevent further degradation of America's international reputation, Congress should use its authority under the Constitution to enact strict guidelines.

The President would then be obliged to ensure these laws are "faithfully executed", and it is likely the Supreme Court would uphold any such congressional enactment provided it does not directly interfere with the operational aspects of the Commander-in-Chief power. The President or Secretary of Defence should not be able to set the conditions of prisoner treatment, as there have been concerns raised that torture is sanctioned by senior members in the chain of command.

Attempts by the President to segregate alien combatants from judicial review have created a culture of disrespect for the principles of natural justice among military officials. This may have percolated down the chain of command, resulting in waterboarding (simulated drowning), sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation. The exact interrogation techniques approved for use have not been revealed by the Pentagon.

Naomi Klein (2005) warns against "casual amnesia", whereby the torture conducted by previous administrations - on whose precedent the Bush administration is operating - is forgotten. According to Klein, what distinguishes the present administration is not its willingness to torture, but its willingness to openly couch disregard for human rights in legal argument.

WIRETAPPING

The Bush administration's National Security Agency (NSA) has authorised wiretaps and collected other telephone data without a warrant. The Department of Justice has claimed the President has authority to do so, in spite of the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, due to Article II powers and the AUMF resolution passed in 2001.

Stephen Spruiell (2006) defends the legality of the NSA's wiretapping program. He contends critics have "yet to provide any evidence that it has been abused in the past, or to give a compelling reason for believing it will be abused in the future". But these are not the "merest hypothetical abuses", as Spruiell claims. They are an ever present danger. The onus of proof should sensibly lie on those who favour liberty diminishing measures, not on those who seek to preserve freedom. Even if the Bush administration does not abuse wiretapping measures, the precedent its actions set for future administrations will prove troublesome for the American people.

Learn more about this author, Sukrit Sabhlok.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Add your voice

Know something about American government: The erosion of checks and balances during the Bush era?
We want to hear your view. Write now!