NYTimes | BEFORE President George W. Bush left office, a group of conservatives lobbied
the White House to grant pardons to the officials who had planned and
authorized the United States torture program. My organization, the American Civil Liberties Union,
found the proposal repugnant. Along with eight other human rights
groups, we sent a letter to Mr. Bush arguing that granting pardons would
undermine the rule of law and prevent Americans from learning what had
been done in their names.
But with the impending release
of the report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have
come to think that President Obama should issue pardons, after all —
because it may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that
torture is illegal.
That
officials at the highest levels of government authorized and ordered
torture is not in dispute. Mr. Bush issued a secret order authorizing
the C.I.A.
to build secret prisons overseas. The C.I.A. requested authority to
torture prisoners in those “black sites.” The National Security Council
approved the request. And the Justice Department drafted memos providing
the brutal program with a veneer of legality.
My
organization and others have spent 13 years arguing for accountability
for these crimes. We have called for the appointment of a special
prosecutor or the establishment of a truth and reconciliation
commission, or both. But those calls have gone unheeded. And now, many
of those responsible for torture can’t be prosecuted because the statute
of limitations has run out.
To his credit, Mr. Obama disavowed torture
immediately after he took office, and his Justice Department withdrew
the memorandums that had provided the foundation for the torture
program. In a speech
last year at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama said that “we
compromised our basic values — by using torture to interrogate our
enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule
of law.”
But
neither he nor the Justice Department has shown any appetite for
holding anyone accountable. When the department did conduct an
investigation, it appeared not to have interviewed any of the prisoners
who were tortured. And it repeatedly abused the “state secrets” privilege to derail cases brought by prisoners — including Americans who were tortured as “enemy combatants.”
What
is the difference between this — essentially granting tacit pardons for
torture — and formally pardoning those who authorized torture? In both
cases, those who tortured avoid accountability.
