thoughts on a truth commission

by E.D. Kain on April 30, 2009

Briefly, I think it’s fair that a lot of different opinions are being floated by various anti-torture types regarding prosecutions, truth commissions, etc….

Here’s my take: the result of whatever happens next should be to ensure that A) this sort of systematic, policy-approved implementation of torture never happens again, and B) that we illuminate America and the world as to just exactly what happened, why, when, and by whom  at gitmo but also at the secret CIA prisons, in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

Now, a special prosecutor if we wanted to go forward with the object of “going after” someone in particular, but we’re not really quite sure yet who all that might be – or really even the extent of the problem.  Politically, too, it’s dicey at best.  A truth commission takes – if not a neutral stance – then at least a platform that is less obviously aimed at pursuing individuals, but rather the larger story.

Then, of course, once the truth is out there and the dust has settled, maybe a prosecution will be in order, maybe not.  The truth, to me, is more important than prosecution, but not only that – I think that if anything is likely to lead to real, substantive measures at prosecution, the truth commission is the best first step.  It is also the only way to really go about this without it coming across as just political revenge.

Tagged as: torture, truth commission

E.D. Kain is a blogger and freelance writer. Currently he serves as Editor-in-Chief of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and writes a tech blog at Forbes. Visit his politics blog here. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter. His writing has appeared in The Atlantic, The National Review, The Washington Examiner, and the now-defunct True/Slant. You can also contact him via email.

{ 7 comments }

1 Mike Farmer April 30, 2009 at 3:17 pm

I agree with you — a real truth commission could define what happened and give us a principled report to go by in determining how to make changes so that we have clearer guidelines in the future.

2 Bob April 30, 2009 at 4:42 pm

E.D. – Clear, concise, correct.

My quibble with a (explicative deleted) Truth Commission is that the machinery already exists that is needed to discover the truth. Congressional investigation. DOJ investigation, and if necessary, charges.

But if some sort of third-world-cop-out TC is the only way for cowards in the legislative and executive branches to pass the buck I’m willing to settle.

(So very dull when we agree, but hey, I agree.)

3 ChrisWWW April 30, 2009 at 4:53 pm

I’m not opposed to a truth commission in the way you outline it, but I am opposed to the type of truth commission we’re likely to see.

Do you doubt that a Washington truth commission will be anything but a get out of jail free card for anybody and everybody?

4 Mike Farmer April 30, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Oh, I thought we were talking about an ideal, rational world. I lost my mind for a minute.

5 Caltha palustris April 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm

EDK,

I find it interesting that Senator Leahy has called for Judge Bybee to resign, while at the same time, and within five days, invited Bybee by letter to testify about the memos that Bybee, Yoo and Bradford crafted – with a shot across the bow (at least to me) that the Senate Judiciary wants answers.

Is this a hint that Bybee either leave or risk impeachment perhaps, in exchange for information? Truth? We shall see.

I find the following passages from Leahy’s letter, especially juicy:

According to the press account, you became the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel after coming to interview with White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales because you were interested in being nominated to a judgeship on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Apparently he asked if you would be willing to head OLC first. I am sure you would like an opportunity to come forward and set the record straight with respect to whether and, if so, how your judicial ambitions related to your participation at OLC.

You were nominated by President George W. Bush to serve as head of OLC on September 4, 2001. You were confirmed on October 23, 2001. While serving as the head of OLC you were then first nominated by President George W. Bush to be a Federal Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 22, 2002, and renominated on January 7, 2003. Along with others, I sought to explore your work at OLC but we were told by you that you would not answer those questions. You were confirmed to be a Federal Judge on March 13, 2003.

If only Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald had been able to make public his findings from Grand Jury testimony about the Bush administration dealings, or that the laws governing appointment of an independent prosecutor had not been allowed to expire.

My inner cynic thinks Bybee will be hanged, and the rest will just scatter.

6 E.D. Kain April 30, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Yeah, caltha. Look for scapegoats on crosses. Small fries in big chains.

7 Caltha palustris May 2, 2009 at 11:24 am

EDK,

Well, the scapegoats on crosses have this to say. It certainly does seem to be developing into quite the search for the truth…doesn’t it…

Comments on this entry are closed.