The US is a party to the UN Convention Against Torture (in the Supplemental Reading folder under Student Resources). Does the U.S. Have an obligation under that Convention to prosecute former President Bush in a US court for his decision to authorize waterboarding? Why or why not? Please discuss the specific Articles of the Convention that apply.

2. If waterboarding is torture as defined in the Convention, what are the similarities between the legal issues in this case and the legal issues in the Pinochet case in your text?

3. If waterboarding is torture as defined in the Convention, could President Bush be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court?
Please help me I'm stuck with this

It seems to be politically one sided, since it wants you to assume facts not proven.

It seems to be politically one sided, since it wants you to assume facts not proven.

It does assume that "waterboarding is torture", which is a matter of extensive debate. But that makes OP's task a lot easier. Simply compare with the Pinochet case. What elements are the same and which are different?

As far as the first part of the question is concerned, simply read through the convention and answer whether a party to the convention has an obligation (as opposed to an option) to prosecute. Again, seems simple enough.

Again - this is homework (as stated on the other thread). I think OP should do the homework and then post something specific.

Is it exam time already?