Current Legislative and Policy Efforts Related to Torture

Below is a summary of the session:

Current
Legislative and Policy Efforts Related to Torture

Speakers:         Sephen
Rickard, Deputy Director, Open Society
Policy Center

                        Devon
Chafee, Advocacy Counsel, Human Rights
Watch

                        Linda
Gustitus

Chafee: 
I've been asked to talk to you today about the role Congress has played
in the effort to stop the use of torture and the policies that should be
advocated as we elect a new Congress and President.  Congress certainly has an important role to
play in banning torture.  After 9/11
Congress thought it had done a lot to ban torture and provide for victims of
torture.  But as we have heard, these
laws were completely undermined without any action of Congress and now it has a
lot of work today.  In Spring 2005
Congress passed laws explicitly limiting all interrogation tactics to those in
the military manual and in 2006 that manual was updated to explicitly prohibit
torture.  But these laws did not address
the actions of the CIA and were undermined by an executive order that
dramatically reinterprets the Geneva Conventions.  Limits are also needed on private contractors
charged with interrogations, many of whom were involved with the abuses of Abu
Ghraib.  As we look forward to the next
administration and Congress, if we are to return our moral authority we must do
more than to reverse the past policies that have undermined human rights.  Congress must make bold moves to show that
these practices will not be tolerated.  [
. . . ]  Congress must signal its
intention to realize a dramatic shift in its policies on torture.  It is important for Congress to hear our
challenge to restore our values and restore the ban on torture.

Gustitus:  I've been asked to talk about why it is so
difficult to get Congress to pass legislation on torture.  Congress is supposed to work by a member
introducing a bill, which is referred to committee, and then there is a hearing
on it, amendments are added, it's reported out of the committee and is voted
on; it goes through the same process in the other house and then on to the president
for signing.  The pieces we are concerned
about rarely go through this process, many of them are added as
amendments.  It is important to remember
that the margins of power are very narrow in both houses and partisanship is bitter.  In the 1970s we weren't debating whether
government was good or not, we all believed that government was a force for
good.  That changed about fifteen or
twenty years ago when Republicans became the enemy of government and partisanship
increased.  Out of this came the result
that the filibuster is used much more often. 

I have to
tell you that Congress has been complicit in the acts of the Bush
administration.  Congress did not stand
up and say no when it started happening. 
So we also have to acknowledge that we are asking Congress to examine
itself as well.  The other reason why it
is hard to get Congress to focus on torture is that leadership is only as good
as its constituency and we haven't pressed them nearly hard enough.  They won't respond until they have to, which
is why we must all get energized and push this issue.  Always remember that the most important group
of people for every person in Congress is the constituents.  What constituents are saying is really
important.  If they hear from their
people in their congregations, they hear it and take it back.  Lastly, it takes a long time to get something passed in Congress.  It takes years
in most cases.  You can't be discouraged
if it takes a long time to accomplish what you set out to accomplish.

Rickard: 
I specifically got involved in this work because I read an article in
college about missionaries being tortured and an organization fighting that
called Amnesty International.  I have
always been very proud of the role that Christians and Americans, and all faiths,
have taken to put in place protections of human rights.  I would like to be able to tell you that
looking back over the last 7 years after the Sept. 11 attacks that the passage
for a discussion today was Matt 25:40 and the concern for the least of these,
unfortunately the more apt passage is in Titus where Paul warns Titus not to
engage arguments of the law which are foolish. 
These are the rights universally acknowledged in international law,
largely out of the contribution of the United States:  not to be tortured, not to be disappeared, not
to be sent somewhere where you will be tortured, not be subjected to assaults
on your dignity.  Our founding fathers
called these rights inalienable.  In his
second inaugural address, President Bush called them non-negotiable.  If he had stuck to that we would not be here
today.  Unfortunately Dick Cheney calls
these writes a privilege.  The law has
been in place protecting human rights and is well established.  And so the quarrel we've had is quite
ridiculous, especially since the United States has reversed its position on
nearly all the arguments on torture.  In
WWII when the Japanese waterboarded U.S. troops, we brought them up on war
crimes.  When the United States does this
reversal, it is especially harmful because
of our history in defending human rights and the moral authority we once
had.