Red, White, and Truth

Earlier this year Senator Leahy called for the establishment of a "truth commission" to investigate crimes committed by the Bush administration carried out during "The Global War on Terror." Aside from a committee hearing and a House bill that failed to gain any traction, the idea of prosecuting US government agents for gross human rights violations faded away. That is until late last month when Attorney General Holder officially opened an investigation into whether any CIA interrogators crossed legal boundaries.

This investigation poses an interesting question--should we investigate the crimes of past administrations? The answer is, of course, an absolute yes. Even if they were done under the guise of protecting American lives the actions of leaders should not be immune from scrutiny and, if necessary, prosecution. However, in this case a truth and reconciliation commission would be an error.

To begin with, American society does not place very much value on truth and reconciliation commissions. This is not to say restorative justice is without its merits or even that one theory of justice is better than another. The opinion of the average American is that criminals should be punished, they should not spend months recounting their crimes and then receive immunity. Widespread support of the death penalty is but one example of the rigid view Americans have justice. For many citizens a TRC would not bring sufficient legal closure to the crimes in question.

A critical element of restorative justice is that the victims and the prepetrators establish a dialogue. However, in the case of this proposed committee the only dialogue will be between different branches of government. Those who were tortured will not have an opportunity to address their traumas or demand confessions from their interrogators. The US government would be putting the US government on trial. One political party would be tsk-tsking another. It is an act of political theater in the highest degree. Prior TRCs, like those in South Africa and East Timor, are a symbolic breaks with the past and a declaration to the world that new states have risen from the ashes of the old. A commission established by the United States would have no such symbolic weight.

Another critical element of TRCs is the confessional aspect. Confessions and testimonies create an unassailable historical record and contribute to the victims sense of healing. There is a repentant aspect to this--perpetrators need to admit they committed wrongful acts. I cannot speak to the thoughts of all the interrogators, but based on recent statements by a high-ranking Bush administration official there appears to be no form of regret for the possible illegal actions taken. I realize Senator Leahy was careful to designate his proposed commission only a "truth commission", leaving out any reconcilation aspect. But again, as discussed in the paragraphs above, just airing the truth lacks any closure.

It is obvious that any human rights violations committed by the Bush administration cannot go unpunished. Those who responsible must answer for what they have done. The two paths proposed have their strengths, but they also have their weaknesses. We should find a solution where justice is pursued, but not weighed down by politics.