I spotted this Washington Post article today. From what I can understand, the Bush administration wants to add an amendment to the US’s war crimes law which would reduce the risk of prosecution under the Geneva Convention.

The administration’s defense is that officials are too worried about prosecution to do their jobs. Doesn’t that imply that their jobs involve illegal activity?

The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions’ protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.

As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3;

I guess it does…

The best argument for this new legislation is to remove the gray area of the Geneva Convention. Because interrogating prisoners has become a major source of intelligence, our officials need to know what they can and can’t do. Currently many of the Geneva Conventions laws are open to society’s interpretation. For example, what does humiliating and degrading mean exactly.

Even with this argument, proposing to change the Geneva Convention’s influence at a time like this is incredibly dodgy. After all, laws are left vague so that they remain timeless. As societies change, it’s important that the laws can adapt with them.

What do you think?