The Foreign Service Journal, September 2004

T he story of Abu Ghraib had just hit the news, complete with its crisp, ugly pho- tographs, evidence of a system gone wrong. A lawyer who works in the field of human rights and who knew I had been in the military asked me if such behavior was illegal in the Army. Somewhat stunned by the question, I said of course it was. I went on to raise the conditions of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, and argued that they needed lawyers and access to the Red Cross and other human rights observers in order to avoid similar mistreatment, as well as to protect our reputation. My col- league replied that those prisoners have no rights, since “they are pirates.” If an attorney that works on human rights issues doesn’t know the proper answers to those basic questions, then small wonder West Virginia reservists were confused when aberrant intelligence officers claimed that the rules of war changed after 9/11 and therefore their “high-value” prisoners had no rights. Of course, unknown to both of us was a memo from Justice which contends that the president isn’t bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direc- tion can’t be prosecuted for doing so. The memo reportedly even says that the president, as commander-in- chief, can approve torture as a method of interrogation. Clearly my colleague was therefore justified in asking the question; but there can only be one comment on this policy. Hooey! For a beacon such as our nation to appear to be an advocate for torture is to seriously undermine our credibility as an advocate for human rights. It also weakens our ability to convince rogue nations to join the civilized world. Such ignorance of what is appro- priate — that America can’t be above the law or even appear to trying — demonstrates the need for a long- overdue national discussion on the importance of civil rights in the war on terror. Many Americans are prob- ably also confused. This dialogue could perhaps be conducted via a televised discussion by a panel of legal experts who would take questions from ordinary citizens in the audi- ence. This is not an attack on the current administration. It is an honor to serve in the government. The trouble is that what happened at Abu Ghraib is not unique. Many administrations have held positions that went over the line. But the events of today offer bold proof that the system itself has broken. For example, evidence has now come to light that many alleged terrorists have died while in U.S. mil- itary custody. In one particularly notorious case, U.S. interrogators may have strangled an Iraqi general during questioning. If true, that was murder, no matter how valuable the prisoner. As a result, we need a change in atti- tude; our failure to maintain a system of full civil rights for prisoners and detainees only encourages terrorism (though evil never needs encourage- ment) and weakens our alliances. Let me be clear: I am not calling for a debate on the appropriateness of the war on terrorism, which I support, or the Iraq conflict itself — both important topics upon which good, fair-minded people can disagree. Nor should this be an election-year fight. Rather, speaking as a professional civil servant, I am advocating the impor- tance of managing our involvement in such wars in the proper way, and urg- ing a recognition that even noble ends do not justify unethical means — cer- tainly not those alleged to have been proposed in the Justice Department memo. Universal Principles After 9/11, we were told the world had changed, that al-Qaida was a new, unprecedented threat. But that claim overlooks the long history of terrorist A Cry for Justice B Y L ARRY W. R OEDER J R . S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 4 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 17 S PEAKING O UT Our failure to maintain a system of full civil rights for prisoners and detainees only encourages terrorism and weakens our alliances.