On the 2008 campaign trail, President Barack Obama stated that he would investigate any alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Bush era, particularly those pertaining to torture. However, he made it clear that he would not want his first term to consist of any actions that might alienate the Republican party. In short, he decided well ahead of the beginning of his administration that he would not prosecute the Bush Administration for war crimes.

The negative backlash from Bush opposers was predictable. A statement such as this from the presidential candidate who proposed change and openness with the American people in regards to government activity contradicted his supposedly honest principles and proposed policies.

Although Obama issued an executive order to close American-run “black sites” (secret prisons) and end torture tactics practiced by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials on prisoners in the first week of his presidency, he then went on to excuse the torturers from prosecution. This is implicative of Obama’s eventual decision regarding prosecuting the Bush administration—at this point in time, it appears that he will not do so.

The Nuremberg Trials took place almost immediately after World War II and prosecuted many of the prominent leaders of Nazi Germany. They were convicted of war crimes, crimes against humanity and participating in and initiating crimes against peace. What if the trials had not taken place and the Nazi leaders had been allowed to go free? It then would have been clear that principles of right and wrong are non-existent and that humanity had reached one of its lowest moral points in history.

It is Obama’s duty as president to deliver justice to the Bush administration for its crimes. It is his duty to redeem the United States in the eyes of the international community by condemning the writers of that dark chapter in American history. In the eyes of much of the rest of the world, Americans are now viewed as unscrupulous, cruel and inhumane because of the Bush administration’s treatment of mostly innocent prisoners (it is estimated that nearly 90 percent of Abu Ghraib prisoners were innocent of all accusations made by the US government).

The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him…information or a confession, punishing him for an act he…has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him…for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Electrocution, water-boarding and sleep deprivation were just a few of the abuses black site detainees were forced to endure. Simply glancing over those words evokes feelings of suffering. If those actions cannot be identified with the definition of the word “torture,” what can be?

There is no justification for the disgusting acts the Bush administration committed during their eight years in power. Isn’t the United States supposed to serve as a model for the rest of the world? Is it not supposed to be the paragon of civilization and morality? As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States has the obligation to practice what it preaches and set an example for others.

By failing to prosecute Bush administration, Obama is neglecting his duties as the president of this nation and is failing in his innumerable promises to bring change to Washington and restore the United States’ standing in the world. He would sink the United States’ international standing even further than it has sunk already, for he would not only appear to condone crimes against humanity; he would be the second hypocritical president the United States has seen in a row.

—Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the staff (assenting: 15; dissenting: 5)