Obama Gives Torturers More Ammunition
Published in die Tageszeitung
(Germany) on 17 April 2009
by Christian Semler (link to original)
If Torturers Aren’t Punished, Human Rights Are Obsolete
President Obama has decided not to prosecute CIA employees who tortured prisoners in the “War on Terror.” This decision is legally problematic, but more importantly it is politically devastating.
Legally, the prohibition of torture is based in fundamental human rights that can’t be arbitrarily suspended because of “national interests.” Politically, the protective hand of the president means that America’s commitment to the international validity of human rights suffers further damage.
Obama’s decision provides more ammunition to governments that reject expanding human rights in their own countries by arguing that Western democracies use a double standard when measuring human rights violations. The torturers defend themselves by pointing to the U.S. Justice Department’s legal opinions on interrogations dating from 2002 to 2005. Obama made those memos public yesterday. They support the legality of “more rigorous interrogations” and define their scope. They also say that the president is at liberty to repeal his own edict against torture.
In his explanation for publicly releasing the memos, Obama says he has determined that the CIA torturers believed in the validity of these legal opinions and thus acted in good faith by torturing prisoners. But it must be obvious to every man and woman that torture methods like water boarding are simply wrong, which leads then to the inevitable conclusion that not only should the CIA torturers be indicted, but also the lawyers who supplied them with unlawful legal advice.
In his explanation, Obama defended his decision by saying, “But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
How familiar that argument sounds – and how useless.
President Obama has decided not to prosecute CIA employees who tortured prisoners in the “War on Terror.” This decision is legally problematic, but more importantly it is politically devastating.
Legally, the prohibition of torture is based in fundamental human rights that can’t be arbitrarily suspended because of “national interests.” Politically, the protective hand of the president means that America’s commitment to the international validity of human rights suffers further damage.
Obama’s decision provides more ammunition to governments that reject expanding human rights in their own countries by arguing that Western democracies use a double standard when measuring human rights violations. The torturers defend themselves by pointing to the U.S. Justice Department’s legal opinions on interrogations dating from 2002 to 2005. Obama made those memos public yesterday. They support the legality of “more rigorous interrogations” and define their scope. They also say that the president is at liberty to repeal his own edict against torture.
In his explanation for publicly releasing the memos, Obama says he has determined that the CIA torturers believed in the validity of these legal opinions and thus acted in good faith by torturing prisoners. But it must be obvious to every man and woman that torture methods like water boarding are simply wrong, which leads then to the inevitable conclusion that not only should the CIA torturers be indicted, but also the lawyers who supplied them with unlawful legal advice.
In his explanation, Obama defended his decision by saying, “But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
How familiar that argument sounds – and how useless.
Previous article![]( "The Next Torture Scandal Already Threatens")
