Checks & Balances - Apparently not applicable to the Bush Administration

The inhumane way in which the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were treated is one
example amongst many others of the Bush Administration’s open defiance of the American Constitution.
Beginning in 2004, American’s became aware of the torture and abuse that
the prisoners in the Abu Ghraib correctional facility were going through. Even
more outrageous is the fact that the commander of Abu Ghraib, Janice Karpinski, during
the Abu Ghraib trials bought out in open the fact that 90% of the detainees in the
prison were innocent. It is one thing to use harsh torture techniques on actual suspects
but quite another when using them on innocent civilians. Horrible atrocities were
inflicted upon these prisoners including urinating on detainees, sodomization of
detainees, forcing the prisoners to be naked and perform sexual acts and waterboarding
to name just a few. Former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld advised President
Bush to pass the infamous memo that allowed the U.S. to suspend the Geneva
Conventions at any point it so deemed necessary claiming that it needed to be done
since the U.S. was fighting a “war against terrorism”.

“The War Powers Act” passed in 1973 clearly states that
Congress must be involved and made aware about any war related proceedings
including interrogation of detainees. Clearly the Bush Administration did not think it was
necessary to involve the Congress since Rumsfeld and Bush were allowing grievous
acts to be enforced upon prisoners (most of them innocent) at Abu Ghraib. Following
the Abu Ghraib trials the Senate passed a detainee Bill which introduced new rules
relating to the treatment of prisoners kept in detainee camps. It was approved 65 to 34.
Although it made several interrogation techniques illegal it still gave the President
power to decide if harsher techniques needed to be implemented. Also, no detainee
whether innocent or guilty was going to be able to question their detention in court i.e.
they were not given the right to Habeas Corpus and due to this every prisoner held at
these camps would have to undergo a trial, innocent or guilty. So even though the
Senate had passed this Bill, its effectiveness was highly questionable. Only as of March
2008, in Boumediene v. Bush was this right given back to the prisoners.
I do believe that President Bush ignored the boundaries of the Presidency. The
framers certainly did not intend for innocent civilians to suffer in detainee camps
and have Habeas Corpus stripped from them. My stance is that terrorism must be punished at all costs but the innocent should not have to suffer. Hillary Clinton rightfully
mentioned in one of her interviews the fact that while the US is engaged in a war on terrorism, it must conduct itself in an honorable manner even when faced with extremely trying circumstances.

Obama now faces a serious challenge in trying to initiate an accurate
solution to the treatment of detainees kept in prison camps. He has pledged that he will
close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay but is still very vague as to what will become of the detainees. McCain had planned on moving them to the United States and have them tried using the Pentagons Commission but since Obama's Presidential victory all focus is on what he has in mind. Obama is of the opinon that the Bush
Administration’s methods have been an utter failure and that there was no reason to
hold the detainees back in those camps to begin with. He believes that the legal
system in America is strong enough to carry out the trials of terrorism suspects devoid of any external influences. Touche.