War Crimes Prosecution would be a Grave Mistake
As Americans, we have a right, if not an obligation to debate how our government goes about securing our safety. By denouncing misguided policies like waterboarding, certain aspects of The Patriot Act, and the deplorable behavior at Abu Garaib and supporting candidates who will effect the proper change, we work within our system to shape a government that reflects the people’s will. Just as the government’s power must be used with discretion so to must the people’s.
With pressure growing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Administration officials were guilty of war crimes abuses we run the risk of allowing anger and disgust to cloud our discretion. It was the opinion of The Supreme Court in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the harsh interrogation methods used on detainees violated international law.
I personally don’t believe our government should engage in torture even if applied in an attempt to save lives. This is just not the way a modern, civilized society should act. I also find the administration’s argument that the Geneva Conventions ban on humiliating or degrading treatment doesn’t apply to Al Qaeda detainees because they are not acting on behalf of a country to be ludicrous. Still, quiet a chasm exists between reading a desired interpretation into a treaty in an attempt to secure the homeland and possessing criminal intent. I just don’t believe any administration official was acting with criminal intent in interpreting our treaties to allow for torture. Without criminal intent how you prosecute for War Crimes?
Sphere: Related ContentBye Bye Privacy - DHS Crafts Final Regulations for Real ID Act
 In another blow to privacy, those Americans aged 44 will fall under the Department of Homeland Securities Real ID Act, mandating more stringent drivers licenses, another post 9/11 blow to civil liberties.  The regulations, years in the making, are designed to make it more difficult for terrorists and illegal immigrants to obtain government-issued identification.  The act faces stiff opposition from civil liberties groups who see this as a national id system and fear that the data sharing among government agencies enabled by the act will make it easy for citizens personal data to be pilfered and thus abused. So much of this makes me uncomfortable, but my main question is why are those born after 1964 a greater threat than those born before?  Why the grandfather clause?  It’s not like they are raising the drinking age.  As we see another one of our freedoms evaporate it matters not that there hasn’t been another attack on our soil; our foes are winning.Â
