I can't even put into words the disappointment and anger I am feeling over Obama's stance on this issue (and others). It is disheartening to say the least.
By Bill Hare
4/16/09
President Obama's statement reported this afternoon by the New York Times that his administration would not be prosecuting CIA operatives responsible for "waterboarding" prisoners is a decision that is both legally and morally reprehensible.
Obama's statement used the term "good faith" respecting the individuals involved in the context of his decision not to prosecute. To anyone who studied law the term good faith in this context is a contortion of legal terminology. Its use in this fact situation would be rejected scornfully by any reasonable judge hearing this fractured lexicon.
The term good faith is generally applied in a civil context pertaining to performance of duty in a contractual setting. In making a determination on services rendered in a contract the issue of good faith is applied in the context of the individual performing under the contract.
How does good faith apply in this context? It never passed muster and almost assuredly was never used in the cases of Japanese officers who went to the gallows following World War Two for waterboarding.
In the context in which Obama misapplied the term good faith it could be said that Hitler attacked Poland and occupied France in good faith. Killers could be said to have carried out their acts in what they construed to be good faith. In this context the term has no meaning. Good faith in such a criminal law context is like beauty in that it resides in the eyes of the beholders.
Read more
No comments:
Post a Comment