The Independent Institute has an excellent analysis of the current prisoner interrogation and handling fiasco that is besetting the White House and Pentagon. From their article:
If today the U.S. government were to put itself on trial, on the same basis it employed to try the Nazis at Nuremberg, for actions taken in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, it might have to convict itself–if only for the sake of consistency. Justice is no respecter of person. Can anyone sincerely maintain that what was a crime for Hermann Goering and Alfred Jodl is not equally a crime for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney?
Evidently, leaders of the Bush administration have given serious consideration to the possibility that their actions might lead to an indictment for war crimes, and they have taken legal measures to minimize their exposure to such prosecution. In a January 25, 2002, memorandum obtained and publicized recently by Newsweek, Alberto R. Gonzales, counsel to the president, outlined the pros and cons of the government?Ã„Ã´s decisions about the treatment of prisoners in the so-called war on terrorism.
The argument isn’t your typical liberal rant on prosecuting administration officials for war crimes, in fact the institute is highly regarded as a bastion of reason. This one is actually very well thought out and argues mostly for the case of consistency and judicial equality on the part of the United States. We’ll see if this has any legs, but the story may already be dying down as other news developments take it’s place.
[The Independent Institute]
Talk Show Terrorist or Pragmatic Pundit?
Memo Shows Hypocrisy on International Law
Fresh Calls for War-Crime Exemption from U.S.
2002 White House Memo Outlined ?Ã„ÃºWar Crime?Ã„Ã¹ Fears
Yesterday?Ã„Ã´s War Crimes are Today?Ã„Ã´s Reprimands
War Crimes in Iraq