Obama Right to Allow Torture Investigation
President Obama gingerly retreated Tuesday from his resistance to a Congressionally-authorized commission of inquiry to investigate US detention and interrogation practices. During a photo-op with the King of Jordan, he acknowledged that it is up to Congress and the Attorney General, respectively, to decide whether to authorize a special investigatory commission, or initiate a criminal investigation of torture allegations.
The President moved closer to what Amnesty and other NGOs have long been advocating — namely, not a commission composed of members of Congress, but a truly independent body consisting of internationally-recognized experts with no partisan affiliation. Amnesty has called for a commission to be composed of “credible experts, who will be seen to be independent, impartial and objective, who command public confidence, and whose expertise includes international human rights and humanitarian law.”
There are other criteria in Amnesty’s recommendations that are designed to ensure that the commission will be truly independent and nonpartisan and that it is properly resourced. These are vital ingredients to ensuring that the commission is seen as above reproach, thereby giving it a real chance of helping to heal rather than exacerbating political divisions.
The President recognized this concern when he ruminated about the danger of a Congressional investigation dissolving into partisan backbiting. Another reason the commission should be composed of nonpartisan experts is that Congress itself has arguably been complicit in the abuses that have come to light, or at the very least, has failed to conduct effective oversight.
Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, for example, don’t even have the same recollections about the extent to which they were briefed or the content of their briefings on interrogation of terror suspects. All the more reason for us to let our US Representatives and Senators know that we want them to support a nonpartisan commission of inquiry that meets Amnesty’s criteria.
Only by getting the whole truth out can we move forward by identifying how to prevent a future administration from violating our laws and treaty obligations barring torture.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
At the end of WWII, the trials at Nuremberg decreed that your conscience is the determining factor, and that YOU, the individual are responsible for actions you performed or participated in: not your superiors. Yet, I see more and more the same argument presented: "I was only following orders."
Yet, the crimes against humanity performed by the Nazi's so far exceed, in every way, the efforts by our military and intelligence agencies, that any direct comparison between actions results in an outright rejection: much the same as the difference between an accidental bump between two people and a deliberate assault with intent to kill.
The information released so far indicates very clearly that our government fully researched both law and conscience and determined well defined limits to application of interrogation techniques. In addition, it seems that the subject of just what techniques used would "cross the line" between valid information acquisition and illegal actions both by law and conscience was examined in detail.
The express reason for this detailed examination is the conflict we are engaged in with people who have expressed openly their desire for our destruction, and have used real torture - hammer and tongs type - along with murder to get what they want. That we *not* become like them is of paramount importance: otherwise, we are no better than Pol Pot or Hitler.
That the current administration believes that past applications were too much, is a change which can be accomodated with difficulty. That the current administration and congress want to hold trials to determine crimes against humanity is foolish and self defeating. The same argument for trying past officials for deliberate torture can be used very easily to try current officials for failure to defend the nation.
First even the definition of torture is in the eye of the 'beholder'. Your definition of torture is not my definition of torture. Second, if you read the entire piece, even of what President Obama released - not to mention all that he has not released - the interrogation 'techniques' worked - and saved American lives. But more importantly than that are two points - America is governed by a Constitution - not a World Court, not World opinion, and not whims of the current day. To 'investigate' and pursue anyone who acted under a Constitutionally allowed system - would just be another way that the Obama Administration shreds the Constitution until American citizens have no RIGHTS what-so-ever. Secondly, America is a sovereign Nation and to turn over any investigation of a crime , real or perceived, to an 'international' body is once again - the end of America as we know it. And as for the evils of waterboarding - my oldest son has been waterboarded - it was of such non 'horror' to him that among the events in his life - it was never mentioned - but carrying an injured comrade through a river on his back was and losing his first soldier in combat was.
Finally, the Obama Administration is once again using a backdoor technique to insure America is not sovereign nor safe in this World. So much for transparency.
Torture is not in the eye of the beholder.
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
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 or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1
We are governed by a constitution and our government has included itself over the centuries into various world organizations, conventions and treaties as responsible members. We signed and ratified the convention. We expect others to be bound to it just as they expect us to be bound to it. We also have to conform to the rules we helped make up and enforce.
Don't resort to fear mongering, this isn't the "end of America as we know it" just like similar cases have not destroyed any other country. Our country has a thicker skin than you seem to realize.
I'm sorry your son had to face those difficulties of war . That does not mean water boarding is not torture, considering what you report him going through, it may have been the least painful situation for him.
However, water boarding is an historically recognized form of torture. The Catholic church used it during the Inquisition, Japan was punished in the world courts after WWII for using it and it has been used in various SE Asian dictatorships. Not very good company to be in to say the least.