About
Academics
Multisport
Photography
Writing
Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

www.adamhodges.com

Adherence to law and equality before the law are fundamental tenets of modern democracy. A democratic society necessarily entails respect for the human rights and dignity of all individuals. Violating such tenets in any shape or form is unacceptable. Period.

The Bush administration stepped onto a slippery slope by considering the use of torture as a viable tool in its anti-terrorism arsenal. The United States is now sliding down the slope head first.

The pictures of abuse from Abu Ghraib supplied vivid images; and now documents and memos are coming to light that paint an even clearer picture of the Bush administration's policy.

On Monday, June 7, The Wall Street Journal broke a story about a classified document prepared by administration lawyers over a year ago. The March 6, 2003 draft viewed by the WSJ outlined legal justifications for circumventing established domestic laws and international treaties against torture. William J. Haynes II, the Defense Department's general counsel, appointed Air Force General Counsel Mary Walker to head the working group of military and civilian lawyers that compiled the report. The final version of the report was released in April 2003. The WSJ quoted the draft as follows:

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority," the report asserted. (The parenthetical comment is in the original document.) The Justice Department "concluded that it could not bring a criminal prosecution against a defendant who had acted pursuant to an exercise of the president's constitutional power," the report said. Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

If the laws hinder presidential power, then put him above the law. It seems this latest memo all but terms the President's position vis-à-vis domestic and international law as "quaint," the term used by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez in a January 25, 2002 memo to the President that came to light a few weeks ago. In that memo, Gonzalez wrote, "In my judgment, this new paradigm [the war on terror] renders obsolete Geneva's [i.e., the Geneva Convention's] strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

Many criteria can be used to define a democracy. One essential criterion is full recognition of the human right against torture, regardless of nationality, affiliation, circumstance or technical legalistic maneuvering concocted by lawyers interested in asserting "presidential power at its absolute apex," as the WSJ quoted one military lawyer working on the draft report to say.

US law and international treaties make clear that laws against torture apply without exception. Contrary to what administration lawyers are trying to claim, how could modern democracies working within a framework of law allow otherwise?

Human Rights Watch provides a summary of international and US laws against torture on their website, and states, "Torture and other mistreatment of persons in custody are also prohibited in all circumstances under international human rights law, which applies in both peacetime and wartime. Among the relevant treaties are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 7 & 10) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture), both of which the United States has ratified."

Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, stated , "Senior administration officials tried to drape a thin veneer of legality over abuse that has been unconditionally prohibited, even during war, throughout modern times. If this legal advice were accepted, dictators worldwide would be handed a ready-made excuse to ignore one of the most basic prohibitions of international human rights law."

The key phrase here is the unconditional prohibition against torture. That's Democracy 101. As the Bush administration dives down the slippery slope at increasing speed, the role of the American public in ensuring adherence to democratic and humane principles is clear. Whether through the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, the impeachment of administration officials or ultimately the ballot box in November, regime change in Washington is an essential step to reinvigorating America's democratic principles and reestablishing our place among the community of nations that stand for human rights.

Further reading: