On March 13, the Obama administration announced that it would no longer use the term “enemy combatants” as grounds for detaining terrorist suspects, which suggests a change from the prior administration. Of course, we’ll need to wait and see if these executive orders actually eliminate the use of torture by America.

While many critics of the previous president would like to see torture being addressed more concretely by Obama, his actions thus far seem to be headed in the right direction. And he’s not afraid to shake things up. Obama’s appointment of Leon Panetta as head of the CIA came as a surprise to many, especially since he lacks experience in the intelligence world. As former President Clinton’s chief of staff as well as director of Management and Budget, Panetta doesn’t bring much hands-on expertise to the position. What he does bring, however, is a steadfast contempt for many of the controversial Bush administration policies such as rendition and excessively brutal interrogations. In a 2008 article he wrote for Washington Monthly, Panetta said, “We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.”

And then there is the growing public outcry for a criminal investigation into the Bush administration’s use of torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Obama hasn’t exactly led the charge to determine what persons were responsible for this outrageous behavior, but in the end, he may not have a choice. On Feb. 9, Sen. Patrick Leahy, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called for a “truth commission” to look into the Bush administration policies on torture, interrogation and surveillance.

The truth commission would serve as something of a compromise: there would be a formal investigation to satisfy those who demand it, but immunity would be available to those who come forward and confess all. Leahy envisions a commission that not only would allow for prosecution of the guilty, but also set a new standard for government leaders. Leahy gave a detailed explanation about the commission to Rachel Maddow, which you can see below.

[flashvideo filename=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q568YyRoqQ width=300 /]

So, it seems our time for repentance has finally arrived. Whatever your political stripes, I think it is fair to say that we need to evaluate our past actions. Even if you believe that the former president did nothing wrong, we owe it to ourselves to find out. For the sake of unity and global standing, Leahy’s truth commission may bring us the closure we need. If done properly, it could usher in a new age of political responsibility, as well as help restore the trust Americans have for their leaders.

America was founded under the principle that all are created equal, and that none should endure cruel and unusual punishment under the law. Though we may have strayed, our core constitutional values have a way of reasserting themselves after every trial. I am glad to see that in this ordeal, it appears we have finally turned the corner.

No related posts.

In a January interview with The Washington Post, Crawford explained her May 2008 decision to dismiss war crimes charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the suspected “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks. The evidence showed that he was tortured. “[Mohammed al-Qahtani]‘s treatment met the legal definition of torture,” Crawford told the WP. “And that’s why I did not refer [al-Qahtani's] case” for trial. In November, military prosecutors said they would seek to re-file charges against al-Qahtani, but since he recanted his coerced confession, it is doubtful he will ever be brought to trial.

Let’s think about the implications for a minute. All American citizens, especially those related to the victims of 9/11, were counting on our government to bring the guilty to justice. However, rather than using legal, appropriate means to discover what happened, our leaders exercised inhumanity. They broke U.S. and international laws, and allowed our honor to be tarnished due to their actions. Many of us would consider those actions sufficient to warrant removal.

However, for those who believe that this behavior was warranted by the situation, consider this question. Even if you hate terrorists, and you want to see them rot in prison for the rest of their lives, what have we accomplished? In an ironic twist of justice, our weakness in choosing anger over restraint has virtually assured that men like al-Qahtani will never be tried. Our leaders are responsible for preventing our justice system from prosecuting the criminals being held there. And that, by any account, is inexcusable. 

The conditions at Guantanamo are by no means the lone example of torture. Indeed, the Bush administration amassed a large number of incidents, such as the shocking conditions at Abu Ghraib, or the hundreds of complaints received by the office of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in regard to the practice of torture.

Perhaps the most telling example, however, is not an incident but a series of internal memos nicknamed the “torture memos.” In essence, these documents advocate the use of “enhanced interrogation.” This comes as little surprise, given the number of episodes we’ve already seen. What might come as a shock, though, is that the Bush administration actually re-defined torture in order to legalize their actions. That’s right: upon receiving legal advice that the Geneva Conventions would not support its policies, the American government advocated for a new definition with only the most severe violations qualifying as torture, like killing someone or inducing a heart attack. Sleep deprivation, water boarding, 20-hour daily investigations, freezing temperatures, were not considered torturous. According to the memo, “physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

As a proud American citizen, I find these facts genuinely disheartening. Especially difficult to reconcile is the notion that our country’s standing among the world has suffered because of the actions of its government. The America I know, the land of diversity and opportunity, would not embrace the torture of other human beings. Regardless of ideology, as a nation, we must pay more attention to what our government is doing in our name.

No related posts.

In the rapidly changing 21st century, American values have come under fire. Have no doubt about it; our Constitution and individual liberties have faced almost a decade of subtle decay in the name of security. Not so sure? Consider this: today, the government can tap your phone lines, monitor your Internet activity, search you without a warrant, arrest you without charges, and hold you indefinitely without counsel. All these things Americans have accepted in the name of protection.

While many Americans may be uncomfortable with the changes at hand, we allow them to persist. This may have more to do with public perception than lack of organization or motivation. Underneath each modification of civil liberties, we have chosen to see a noble aspiration: our collective safety.

Yet not every new law threatens our freedoms. To be fair, we must acknowledge that the balance of government power and individual liberty is likely something that changes to fit the times. The citizenry has often been the catalyst of these changes. When Rodney King was beaten in March 1991, public outcry resulted in new groups, such as Copwatch, that attempt to limit police authority. Conversely, crime conditions in mid-90′s New York City impelled the public to demand a drastically increased police presence in the city.

Through all of these changes, however, Americans continually strive to maintain the dignity of human rights that has made our country a strong, morally sound example to the world. Despite the variety of each election cycle, with our perpetual oscillation between liberal and conservative ideals, a majority of Americans do not tolerate abominable acts directed towards other human beings. Thus, we face a discrepancy. Citizens have accepted measures that are designed to increase security at the cost of their rights. At the same time, Americans on the whole decry human rights violations when they occur.

At the crossroads of these conflicting forces is one of the most controversial issues of our time: torture.

Imagine that a bomb is set to go off in one hour in your hometown. You have captured the man responsible. He isn’t telling you anything, and why should he? He expects to die, like everyone else who does not flee the city. Would you resort to using force? Just how far would you go to learn where the bomb was hidden?

Likewise, imagine that you are a citizen of Iraq. A non-discerning CIA agent has accused you of being a war criminal, and you are taken into custody. Rather than being given a lawyer, a trial, or even formal charges, you are subjected to humiliation. You are blindfolded, deprived of sleep, and subjected to waterboarding. Every right you have is disregarded.

Both of these examples illustrate the immense diversity of circumstances that must be considered when taking a stance on torture. Like with most dilemmas, extreme conditions cause our sense of morality to break down, and we are capable of doing terrible things. Though never fully justified, actions taken under intense stress are at least understandable.

Therefore, Generation Y, the question we must ask is simple: how dire is the situation? Have global circumstances justified America’s decision to disregard not only our own Bill of Rights, but the Geneva Conventions and a multitude of other laws as well? As always, the final decision lies with you. However, our cohort has been presented with the first truly potent threat to the Bill of Rights in years. The responsibility to be informed lies with us all. 

No related posts.

Obama should also take the opportunity to establish new diplomatic relations with nations around the globe. As we move toward an increasingly globalized economy, international communication and trade will only rise in importance. Obama should make an effort to strengthen existing ties and establish new ones. Despite the critics who claim that unconditional negotiations will somehow hurt America, Obama knows that diplomacy can be used to further our interests both in national security and the economy. Particularly in tumultuous areas, such as the politically volatile Pakistan / Afghanistan region, strong alliances will bring about a more efficient and cost-effective solution than brute force.

Lastly, Obama should continue to communicate openly and honestly with the American people, especially through modern channels like YouTube and e-mail. His weekly updates on his Web site, www.change.gov, are keeping Americans interested and involved in our political process. After all, the only way to check the power of politicians in this country is to be informed and vote, and Obama should continue to encourage those behaviors. Also, his use of modern technology will continue to appeal to young voters, as it did so successfully during his campaign. Obama may have a lot on his plate, but for once I have confidence in the ability and competence of our government. I am thoroughly optimistic about his first term!

No related posts.