But
let’s face it: Mr. Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions — no
matter how great the outrage, at home or abroad, over the disclosures —
because of the political fallout. He should therefore take ownership of
this decision. He should acknowledge that the country’s most senior
officials authorized conduct that violated fundamental laws, and
compromised our standing in the world as well as our security. If the
choice is between a tacit pardon and a formal one, a formal one is
better. An explicit pardon would lay down a marker, signaling to those
considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted.
Mr. Obama could pardon George J. Tenet for authorizing torture at the C.I.A.’s black sites overseas, Donald H. Rumsfeld for authorizing the use of torture at the Guantánamo Bay prison, David S. Addington, John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee for crafting the legal cover for torture, and George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for overseeing it all.
While
the idea of a pre-emptive pardon may seem novel, there is precedent.
Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate
soldiers as a step toward unity and reconstruction after the Civil War.
Gerald R. Ford pardoned Richard M. Nixon for the crimes of Watergate. Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam War draft resisters.
The
spectacle of the president’s granting pardons to torturers still makes
my stomach turn. But doing so may be the only way to ensure that the
American government never tortures again. Pardons would make clear that
crimes were committed; that the individuals who authorized and committed
torture were indeed criminals; and that future architects and
perpetrators of torture should beware. Prosecutions would be preferable,
but pardons may be the only viable and lasting way to close the
Pandora’s box of torture once and for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment