This, then, is one of those rare occasions that necessitate a special commission of prestigious members with full authority to issue subpoenas. Its jurisdiction should include the use of torture and other cruel or inhuman treatment that violate the Geneva Conventions, as well as rendition and surveillance. Anyone who testifies before that panel — as the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Patrick Leahy, suggests — should receive immunity from prosecution. Transparency and accountability are the objectives, not criminalization.The goal is truth, and while it excuses potential criminal acts, it also safeguards us against a political disaster, and sets us on a moral path forward.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Torture Part II
Two weeks ago I argued that President Obama should issue pardons to members of the Bush administration that had a role in our sanctioning of torture. In today's NY Times, Al Hunt suggests idea that's along the same lines:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Before giving any pardons or offering any type of immunity several questions must first be answered:
(1) Between the years 2001 and 2008 was torture illegal? If so, under what circumstances? Does the acquisition of actionable intelligence mitigate the potential criminality of torture?
(2) What defines torture? Does torture include the tactic of rendition?
(3) Did federal officials commit acts that can be defined as illegal acts of torture?
(4) Does the US judicial system have jurisdiction hear a case against individuals whom committed these acts?
(5) What level of complicity would subject and individual to prosecution? Would having knowledge of illegal torturous acts without objection subject one to potential criminal penalty?
I think the Democrats are in far too much of a hurry to criminalize the actions of former President Bush and his administration. It is my personal opinion that the alleged torturous acts committed by the Bush administration were hardly torture. That isn't to say that our nation should continue with the same practices, rather we should keep the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" as a tool for acquiring useful intelligence.
It needs to be remembered that the techniques used did not leave the subjects with any permanent or lingering physical or emotional damage. Further, these techniques were successful in aiding the breakup of the terror plot against Los Angeles (which, by all accounts, was an extremely serious threat).
You are right to suggest that the Obama administration should be very wary of prosecution. There would be a tremendous political war of which most people don't fully understand. Any prosecution would look far more like a McCarthyite witch-hunt than a pursuit of justice.
Though it may please those on the far left, it would equally enrage those on the right. Obama campaigned on being a unifying and uniting force, but has governed in extraordinarily divisive way. Much has made of Obama's ability to attract Republicans to his cause. If Obama proceeds with prosecution he will completely and permanently lose his ability to unify the American people.
Post a Comment