Project GOA

Why torture cannot be condoned in tackling terrorism

By admin | Thu 5 Mar 2009 at 13.24 GMT
Categories: Intelligence, Terrorism

Americans cannot rewrite the first days of the 21st century. We can, however, account for them. More so, we can move forward, and do so in a way that accords with our values and the laws that enshrine them.

Terrorism presents unique challenges. But they do not necessitate, nor do they prescribe, the abolition of our values. As countless legal scholars have reminded us, our prohibition against torture can be found in the 1984 Convention Against Torture, the U.S. statute implementing it, and entire bodies of domestic law and international treaties to which the U.S. is a party. It can also be found in the U.S. Constitution — in the Fifth and Eighth Amendments — which binds American officials wherever and whenever they act. These are bedrock values; they cannot be forsaken.

It is not only that we value human dignity and thus should seek to prevent torture. It is also that torturing makes us less safe. Even if one accepts the rather tenuous arguments about the efficacy of torture in gaining information (and they are not entirely convincing), we have learned that such actions have ripple effects that increase the ranks and allegiances of those who would seek to harm us. Better, then, given principled and pragmatic considerations, to fight terrorism in accordance with our values.

But we must first come to terms with how we have deviated from our values. Memoranda from the Bush Administration are being revealed. This week Congress will discuss how we might come to terms with, and take responsibility for, the legacy the memos reveal. Whatever our course — whether it is a commission of inquiry or prosecutions — Americans must investigate rigorously what was done in our name and account for all that has been done.

Of course, the choice of investigation is not always in the hands of American elected officials. In Congress, it may be. But in U.S. federal courts, there are cases challenging the program of extraordinary rendition, under which foreign nationals were taken into U.S custody and sent to countries where officials knew they would be interrogated under conditions of torture. The Second Circuit will soon rule on such a suit, brought by a Canadian citizen who was taken at JFK airport in New York and rendered to Syria, where he was allegedly tortured. I am hopeful that the courts will fulfill their duty — that they will say what the law is, admit it was broken, and hold responsible the Executive for breaking it.

Perhaps none of this will be sufficient to restore dignity to those who suffered at the behest of U.S. officials. But it is a start. And there is hope for the future. The Obama Administration has already charted a new path. The President released a series of Executive Orders seeking to restore respect for the rule of law — both domestic and international — in our struggle against terrorism. And public scrutiny of Bush Administration memoranda will make future administrations think twice about deviating from the rule of law.

There is, too, a larger task at hand. This Administration should not only combat terrorism in a way that accords with our values, but they should also fight the symptoms at its foundation. We must work with other nations to invest in peaceful and prosperous societies, and again show the world with our actions the virtue and principles of a self-determined government. But more so, we must again lead with our example. We have just begun this new century, and as we face its unique challenges, we can only hope that America will do so with a sense of moral purpose befitting our highest principles.

Luke Norris is a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School. A Rhodes Scholar, he is a recent graduate of the MSc in Global Governance & Diplomacy at Oxford.