The American Civil Liberties Union rarely has moments when most BYU students would admit to agreeing with their actions, let alone support them in those actions.
Recently, however, the ACLU has teamed up with the likes of Oliver Stone, Philip Glass and Rosie Perez in an effort to encourage Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute those who authorized the use of torture at Guantanamo Bay — and they’re right in doing so.
A probe into those who authorized the use of torture is the correct path for us to take, morally, legally and from the perspective of mending international rifts created by our lawlessness.
Many of us are familiar with John Adams’ famous quote that we are a “nation of laws, not of men.” In the past, we have examples where we as a country have proved we hold the law above individuals, most notably in the case of Nixon and his cronies. They did many great things for the country, but they violated the law and required punishment for their actions. Many opinionated people can also name examples where they feel we haven’t upheld the law, but have treated lightly the criminal behavior of our leaders.
The situation with the ACLU demanding investigation into torture of enemy combatants provides this generation with a perfect litmus test to see whether we will hold ourselves up to the inspired principles and beliefs of our founding fathers. We have the choice to become participants in the political process and encourage enforcing those laws or of becoming subject to men, turning our backs without taking proper measure to discover who violated the law and who should be prosecuted for it.
In addition to the moral responsibility to probe and potentially prosecute, there are international repercussions of allowing those who authorized torture to go unpunished.
The United States helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which bans torture in all forms. Additionally, the U.S. participated in the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both in 1977, and both of which declare torture, even of enemy combatants, a war crime.
This brings us to a defining moment in history — the older brother moment. With an ever declining global prominence, and with two looming giants emerging as world powers which will potentially eclipse ours, we have additional motive to look at what our domestic actions say to the international community.
We’ve got to make sure we’re setting the right example, because when the older brother is no longer the biggest kid in the house, the younger brothers tend to have an excellent memory for every fault he had. In other words, the world will watch to see whether we enforce justice under the rule of law or whether we turn a blind eye and pretend this did not occur. And they will treat us accordingly.
This hopefully provides good reason to rethink the most popular counter to the idea that torture is legitimate; the idea that “they would do it to us, so we should do it to them.”
Holder and President Barack Obama have repeatedly made statements in which they favor the idea of probing for criminal activity, but they may need to be reminded that it takes action, so the statements aren’t just empty campaign promises but are backed by actual investigation.
The issue of whether or not torture occurred is now moot; the evidence is voluminous. It has nothing to do with political leanings or the efficacy of past administrations. Crimes were committed, and increasing amounts of evidence is pointing to high level authorization of illegal activity, while punishment has been limited to low-level members of our armed forces.
Here’s to the hope that we have not sunk to becoming a nation of men and not of laws.
Michael Edwards is the News Editor at The Daily Universe.
Feeds 
Bottom line is that nobody cares. Seriously, only the media dredges this stuff up from time to time to keep it alive. I have never heard a conversation where this was a topic. Most people are just trying to survive and deal with the day to day. The topic of torture is so far removed from our minds that we just don't care. It happened in another country to people from other countries who hate us and want to kill us. Who cares? That goes on anyway in other countries. Why doesn't the media just drop it and get a clue? All it amounts to is a serious failure of an attempt at a diversion of reporting current events.
This comment makes me nauseous.
I can't tell if this is a joke or not. I'm terrified to think it's not (legitimately appalled) and yet would be shocked to find out that indeed it was.
You make some good points, even though I disagree (and let's be honest and admit that reasonable Americans can disagree), but this piece is guilty of using at least one particularly egregious straw-man argument: your assertion that those who advocate coercive interrogation most commonly claim that "they would do it to us, so we should do it to them." Seriously? Who are you reading that says this? I've read up on the subject quite a bit, on both sides, and I have yet to hear a serious argument to that effect. On the contrary, the most common claim is that coercive interrogation is necessary because of either 1) urgency of the situation, or 2) resistance to traditional interrogation methods.
Reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes torture. Those who believe waterboarding is torture love to claim that because it is an incredibly intense experience, the argument is over. It is not. Torture is of course not limited to the rack, the Scavengers Daughter, or the Iron Maiden, nor even to such modern inventions as red-hot points inserted into various body cavities, or the removal of fingernails. But not everything that is coercive or harsh is torture either. Personally, I can't put sleep deprivation or enforced standing for long periods of time in the same category as the atrocities that are now being committed by the Iranian regime against its own citizens (including raping unmarried young women the night before their executions after "marrying" them to prison guards). One may disagree about waterboarding, of course. It's a gray area, certainly. Gray does not mean black and white, as you imply.
Regarding becoming a nation of laws rather than of men: funny that nobody brings this up with the abuses of past Presidents. I don't say this to excuse the Bush Administration's actions, but it seems incredibly partisan to me to focus just on Bush without holding "Truth Commissions" into alleged human rights abuses of other previous administrations. The unfortunate reality is that a certain amount of humans rights abuses are inherent with every administration. Personally, I'd like to see them all punished, but right now we seem to be only focusing on George Bush. Sounds like we're more interested in scoring partisan victories than in truly punishing violations of the law.
One other item: the author is either incredibly naive as to the interests of nations, or is engaging in deception regarding the world power of the U.S. I'm not one of those Americans that believes that America is unassailable, or that its record on human rights has been perfect. (See paragraph above). I do believe that its record on human rights has been better than any other nation of our power, but that is beside my current point. French statesman Charles Talleyrand once stated, "Nations don't have friends, they have interests." People have friends. Nations have interests. Period. We call Canada, Britain, France, Germany, and a host of other countries our friends because they have common interests with ours--global stability, the promulgation of greater liberty and human rights, the protection of the weak and the powerless, economic well-being, and so forth. But ultimately, nations do what they believe to be in their own best interests. That explains, better than anything else, opposition to the War in Iraq by many of our allies. Either they had no interest in removing Saddam Hussein (as was the case with Canada) or they had economic ties to Iraq (as was the case with France, Germany, and Russia). The same is true of our decision to attack Saddam Hussein. It had little to do with WMD, and a lot to do with the fact that he was the one dictator of a large country in the Middle East that we could take out without damaging our oil supply. Otherwise, Iran or Saudi Arabia would have been far better targets. Interests, not friendships drive nations.
Lest you ask, "but what about South Africa and apartheid?" South Africa was a country of relative economic insignificance to the Western world. The West could take a hard line on South Africa because it cost us very little economically to boycott them. The West wins a major PR victory as defenders of liberty and equality, at very little cost to itself. That's also why we have an embargo on Cuba, long after they have ceased to be a threat, but not China, an even more repressive Communist regime. U.S. presidents gain Florida's electoral votes at little to no economic cost to our country. On the other hand, the economic cost to the country (and thus the political cost to politicians) would be spectacular were we to boycott China. (The rightness or wrongness of the embargo is the subject of another debate--I dislike it personally--but the motive is self interest, not ideology).
A "truth commission" would certainly cause Europe to sing our praises more freely, and it would make life easier for American tourists abroad and for those who have family members out of country. (Though I don't know that either of those is that bad right now--I got no flak about being American when I was in Paris or London this summer, and my Canadian in-laws don't shun me because I voted for George Bush). However, a "truth commission" wouldn't change the economic or security relationship that we have with Europe, Canada, and our other "friends." They might hate American "backwardness," but they'll still trade with us, and they'll still expect us to keep the peace. Barack Obama's charm hasn't led to much of an increase in European troop commitment levels in Afghanistan, as popular as he is there.
Yes, our world power is declining, and this may cause very negative consequences for us in the future. But any retaliation taken against us by the other nations of the world will be driven by self interest, not by ideology. Given that an American "truth commission" has little to do with Spain's self interest, I seriously doubt that it would change the dynamic much.
Not to say that a "truth commission" is invalidated on these grounds. It should still be a subject of serious debate. But I think that the idea that such a commission would restore our standing in the world is irrelevant, as it will ultimately have little to no effect on other nations' actions against us.
This Viewpoint article alleges that there were those in the Bush administration who "authorized the use of torture." While I am certainly not a defender of the Bush administration, and even agree with the notion that torture did occur in the Iraq theater and possibly also occurred at Guantanamo, I think the Viewpoint is unfair. The interrogation techniques that were authorized were only authorized after lengthy legal analysis concluded that they were not in fact torture. Thus, no one "authorized the use of torture."
Reasonable minds disagree with the conclusion of the legal analysis that was done. After having read the memos, however, in my opinion it would be disingenuous to suggest on the flip-side that no one could reasonably agree with their conclusions. In other words, the authors made a difficult judgment call that was reasonably supported by fact and law. Just because you may disagree with the judgment, does not mean that these people should be prosecuted unless it can be shown that they acted in bad faith. Every day other judges and policy makers make difficult judgment decisions that result in the actual loss of life (e.g., whether to hand down the death penalty in a case, whether to enter or continue an armed conflict (Bush/Obama), whether to financially support the armed conflict (Congress), etc.) These people are not being prosecuted for these decisions even though many reasonably disagree with them.
Whether a legal definition of torture was "adjusted" to allow clearance for what transpired at Guantanamo, or whether high-level administration knowingly allowed torture is a moot point. The focus of this Viewpoint is the necessity of an investigation. Taking the responsible step of having courts looking into the matter is the first step in showing the world that the United States is a moral leader.
Furthermore allowing the governing administration of any world power to begin classifying torture on it's own terms (and yes while working with or through the legal commitments that have been made in the past) is a slippery slope. This could allow China or Russia to feel inclined to test the boundaries of the definition of torture, and that's the concern the Editor expresses.
Finally the reason Judges, Congressmen and the President aren't prosecuted is that the their decisions are made within the bounds of the law. Ruling in favour of the Death Penalty, aswell as entering and funding an armed conflict are legally justified. The Viewpoint mentions an example of a President acting outside the law and the appropriate investigation that took place. There's no relevant comparison between the possible torture of P.O.W.'s and judgement calls related to the death penalty and engaging in wars. Unless of course you were to suggest that the Iraq War was illegal or that the Death Penalty is ineffective and immoral, but that wasn't the case. Comparing them as potentially unpopular rulings that result in human suffering, that are made by people in positions of power is a short-sighted illustration.
The point of the initial reply was that the decision was based on the legal opinion that the acts were not 'torture' and therefore it was legal to use those tactics. People may disagree with that legal opinion but, just as a judge is trusted to make a decision on the death penalty, the opinion of the person trusted with that position is what counts. The only way that these acts could be illegal is if the legal opinion used as a basis was not of the correct person or it was not in good faith, having been influenced by others.
In which case it's a pretty confined investigation that I thought had already been conducted?? Are we wanting after another investigation because we disagreed with the results of the first one? How many investigations do we need?
Wait, China? Do you honestly believe that China doesn't already engage in torture? I hope not. If so...man, that would be boundless naivete. I really don't think China takes its moral clues from the U.S. hahaha...talk about American arrogance.
The ACLU actually has a fairly decent record regarding civil liberties other than freedom of religion. The issue I've always seen is their view is just the antithesis of American Christians who think that everyone should abide by their definition of morality.
In reality and under the 10th Amendment, the States and local communities are the ones to decide whether or not to base their laws under religious values.
Dave,
Your comment is unrelated to the torture discussion, but it's worth addressing.
The Tenth Amendment simply states a "truism," as the Supreme Court once put it. That is, it merely reiterates what the Constitution assumes--that powers not delegated to the federal government or denied to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. The Amendment is not an independent source of State power; it certainly does not grant States the power to legislate in accordance with religious values.
The police power permits States to protect public morality, but legislation that is based on religion may still run afoul of the Establishment Clause.
Actually, you're wrong. Several of the new states after the Constitution was ratified had state religions; the First Amendment, and many others, only applied to the federal government, under the idea that the states had constitutions of their own that they could change if they wanted to. But it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. This extension of the power of amendments to the federal constitution such that they applied and overruled existing state laws became known as "selective incorporation," and is the current philosophy that predominates in our government; however, this has not always been the case.