Oct. 1, 2006
 
COMMENTARY: Torture vs Rule of Law
 
By Tony Rutherford
Huntington News Network Writer
 
Calling 9/11 a moral crossroads of the same importance as World War I and II, a gathering of international lawyers met in Chicago last weekend to discuss the Bush administration’s handling of enemy combatants, especially interrogations that are tantamount to torture.
 
“Historically the U.S. set the example for the rest of the world to follow,” mused retired Huntington attorney James St. Clair. Fuming at the “end justifies the means” policies, the attorney asked, “We thought torture went out with the rack.”
 
Having taught law classes in a variety of foreign countries, St Clair stressed that democracy and rules of law had convinced many countries to accept America’s idealistic view of its legal principles. The Bush Administration’s policies on handling terror suspects undermine rule of law standards, said Francis Neate, a London lawyer who is president of the International Bar Association.
 
The war on terror has, according to Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and the bar symposium keynote speaker, “made it easier for some governments to introduce new repressive laws to extend security policies, suppress political dissent and strife expression of opinion.”
 
During the Cold War, the United States took a moral high ground which eventually helped “win” the strife that led to the demise of the Berlin Wall and the U.S.S.R. America’s new reliance on torture has made it more difficult to “introduce stable [democratic] legal systems in troubled regions” where issues such as illegal trafficking of women and children, corruption, poverty, and human rights violations abound.
 
“What is needed now is legislation that reaffirms the United State’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the McCain Amendment, which establishes an absolute ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of all detainees in U.S. custody or control by any U.S. personnel,” said Robinson at the symposium. “The language of the fight against terrorism has also led to “Orwellian euphemisms so that coercive interrogation is used instead of torture or cruel and inhuman treatment. Kidnapping becomes extraordinary rendition.”
 
Lord Peter Goldsmith, attorney general of the United Kingdom, told attorneys that governments face the challenge of balancing the need to fight terrorism versus preservation of fundamental legal principles, such as a fair trial and prohibiting torture or other forms of hearsay evidence.
 
So, who defines what is a terrorist act? Congress and the Bush Administration have struggled with a compromise, as the administration supported exceptions to the Geneva Convention for terrorism suspects.
 
Does a pregnant woman who forgets about then newly instituted bans on gels and liquids qualify as a would-be terrorist? How about someone who feels uncomfortable with body searches at airports? When would an objection to a straying and probing hand place the passenger in danger of an even more invasive search?
 
Civil liberties, the moral high ground, and following rules of law placed the U.S. in a leadership position for other countries to emulate. But, now, like steroid or drug using fallen role models, our country can no longer point to the way we do it, instead, our methods of interrogation after 9/11 has placed us in a hypocritical position -- do what I say, not as I do.
 
(Portions of this article were summarized from “Principles in Play” from the ABA Journal E Report for Friday, Sept. 22, 2006).