idn't you know, in your gut, that something like Abu Ghraib would eventually come to light?

When the world first learned about the abuse of prisoners, President Bush said that it "does not reflect the nature of the American people." He's right, of course: a great majority of Americans are decent and good. But so are a great majority of people everywhere. If America's record is better than that of most countries — and it is — it's because of our system: our tradition of openness, and checks and balances.

Yet Mr. Bush, despite all his talk of good and evil, doesn't believe in that system. From the day his administration took office, its slogan has been "just trust us." No administration since Nixon has been so insistent that it has the right to operate without oversight or accountability, and no administration since Nixon has shown itself to be so little deserving of that trust. Out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, Congress has deferred to the administration's demands. Sooner or later, a moral catastrophe was inevitable.

Just trust us, John Ashcroft said, as he demanded that Congress pass the Patriot Act, no questions asked. After two and a half years, during which he arrested and secretly detained more than a thousand people, Mr. Ashcroft has yet to convict any actual terrorists. (Look at the actual trials of what Dahlia Lithwick of Slate calls "disaffected bozos who watch cheesy training videos," and you'll see what I mean.)

Just trust us, George Bush said, as he insisted that Iraq, which hadn't attacked us and posed no obvious threat, was the place to go in the war on terror. When we got there, we found no weapons of mass destruction and no new evidence of links to Al Qaeda.

Just trust us, Paul Bremer said, as he took over in Iraq. What is the legal basis for Mr. Bremer's authority? You may imagine that the Coalition Provisional Authority is an arm of the government, subject to U.S. law. But it turns out that no law or presidential directive has ever established the authority's status. Mr. Bremer, as far as we can tell, answers to nobody except Mr. Bush, which makes Iraq a sort of personal fief. In that fief, there has been nothing that Americans would recognize as the rule of law. For example, Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon's erstwhile favorite, was allowed to gain control of Saddam's files — the better to blackmail his potential rivals.

And finally: Just trust us, Donald Rumsfeld said early in 2002, when he declared that "enemy combatants" — a term that turned out to mean anyone, including American citizens, the administration chose to so designate — don't have rights under the Geneva Convention. Now people around the world talk of an "American gulag," and Seymour Hersh is exposing My Lai all over again.

Did top officials order the use of torture? It depends on the meaning of the words "order" and "torture." Last August Mr. Rumsfeld's top intelligence official sent Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the Guantánamo prison, to Iraq. General Miller recommended that the guards help interrogators, including private contractors, by handling prisoners in a way that "sets the conditions" for "successful interrogation and exploitation." What did he and his superiors think would happen?

To their credit, some supporters of the administration are speaking out. "This is about system failure," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. But do Mr. Graham, John McCain and other appalled lawmakers understand their own role in that failure? By deferring to the administration at every step, by blocking every effort to make officials accountable, they set the nation up for this disaster. You can't prevent any serious inquiry into why George Bush led us to war to eliminate W.M.D. that didn't exist and to punish Saddam for imaginary ties to Al Qaeda, then express shock when Mr. Bush's administration fails to follow the rules on other matters.

Meanwhile, Abu Ghraib will remain in use, under its new commander: General Miller of Guantánamo. Donald Rumsfeld has "accepted responsibility" — an action that apparently does not mean paying any price at all. And Dick Cheney says, "Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had. . . . People should get off his case and let him do his job." In other words: Just trust us. 

Essay

The abuse of detainees at Arub Ghraib prison has been the most discussed news item in the past few weeks. The whole world has been shocked by the torture and sexual abuse committed by American soldiers. It is still unclear, however, whether American top officials ordered the use of torture. In order to prevent a crisis like this from happening again, to ensure its position as a leader and role model and simply for humane reasons, the US should  adhere to the Geneva Convention in any situation.

If the US always complied with the Geneva Convention, such a situation could not happen again, at least not in this extent. For if all soldiers were ordered to treat detainees fairly, it would be likely that the majority of the soldiers would obey. Furthermore, the question whether top officials ordered the abuse and whether Rumsfeld, the American secretary of defense, and his administration knew about it would not arise.

Through the release of  a report on the abuse at Arub Ghraib, Rumsfeld, the American Iraq policy and the Bush administration in general have been discredited. This puts the US in a difficult position since the Bush administration was already subject to harsh criticism because no weapons of mass destruction, the justification of the war, were found. How can developing countries look up to the US after they started an unjustified war and tortured prisoners of war. In order to remain world leader and a role model for other countries, the Bush administration should make adhering to the Geneva Convention obligatory in all situations.

Of course, the US should not only comply with the Geneva Convention for political reasons. It should also be a question of how to treat human beings. The US Constitution guarantees, for instance, equality before the law and the pursuit of happiness. How can a country whose constitution ensured basic human rights already two hundred years ago withhold the right to fair treatment from a prisoner?

As stated above complying with the Geneva Convention in all situations would improve America’s reputation in the world. For it would probably prevent such a situation which has discredited the Bush administration and America as democratic country from occurring again. Thus if  the US wants to keep its position as a leader and role model it should make adhering to the Geneva Convention compulsory without any exception. The question of putting the convention out of force should not even arise in any country claiming to promote human rights.    

Essay (corrected)

The abuse of detainees at Arub Ghraib prison has been the most discussed news item in the past few weeks[mdm1] . The whole world has been shocked by the torture and sexual abuse committed by American soldiers. It is still unclear, however, whether American top officials ordered the use of torture. In order to prevent a crisis like this from happening again, to ensure its position as a leader and role model and simply for humane reasons, the US should  adhere to the Geneva Conventions in any situation.

If the US always complied with the Geneva Conventions, such a situation could not happen again, at least not in this extent. For if all soldiers were ordered to treat detainees fairly, it would be likely that the majority of the soldiers would obey. Furthermore, the question whether top officials ordered the abuse and whether Rumsfeld, the American secretary of defense, and his administration knew about it would not arise.

Through the release of  a report on the abuse at Arub Ghraib, Rumsfeld, the American Iraq policy and the Bush administration in general have been discredited. This puts the US in a difficult position since the Bush administration was already subject to harsh criticism because no weapons of mass destruction, the justification of for the war, were found. How can developing countries look up to the US after they started an unjustified war and tortured prisoners of war. ? In order to remain a/the world leader and a role model for other countries, the Bush administration should make adhering to the Geneva Conventions obligatory in all situations.

Of course, the US should not only comply with the Geneva Conventions for political reasons. It should also be a question of how to treat human beings. The US Constitution guarantees, for instance, equality before the law and the pursuit of happiness. How can a country whose constitution supposedly? ensured basic human rights already two hundred years ago withhold the right to fair treatment from a prisoner?

As stated above, complying with the Geneva Conventions in all situations would improve America’s reputation in the world. For it would probably prevent such a situation which has discredited the Bush administration and America as democratic country from occurring again. Thus if  the US wants to keep its position as a leader and role model it should make adhering to the Geneva Conventions compulsory, without any exception. The question of putting the convention out of forcewhether or not to abide by these conventions should not even arise in any country claiming to promote human rights.