Putting the "Human" in human rights

Normally I blog about the interaction between religion and politics, but this is a subject near and dear to my heart, so I thought I'd respond. Today, President Bush issued an Executive Order directing that torture is not to be used on terrorist prisoners. Finally.

Torture is a subject that I know a lot about. Two years ago, I wrote a grant to study in Europe on the development of the international norm against torture in international law. I've read the primary sources from the Nuremburg trials and the ICJ/World Court findings on torture. I've talked to victims and Amnesty International specialists. I can quote the history of torture beginning with the ancient Greeks, up through medieval France, to modern day conflicts in Algeria and dictators in small Latin American countries. I know the sobering statistics. I've written the first draft of a book which will ouline a history of torture in international law. I know torture law as well as anyone might be said to know it.

The current Executive Order (EO) is both a step forward and a step backward for human rights law. In the order, Bush asserts that the US is still not pursuant to Geneva III, the most recent international convention on justice in military law, where terror suspects are concerned. Geneva III outlines the torture guidelines followed by nearly every other country in the world. For the President to continue to deny US participation is a danger to our troops, and to our international reputation. The President cannot claim that we are in Iraq on a human rights mission to aid the Iraqi people until we are fully party once more to that treaty, not just for some but for all our prisoners. It is a larger disgrace upon our country's reputation than most people realize.

On the other hand, at least the current EO does expressly forbid torture, in the same language that Geneva III uses. It also forbids degrading treatment, and mandates the provision of basic necessities like food and clothing. That the US has not thus far seen fit to write into law these basic human rights is a mark upon our national honor, but better to right a wrong later than never.

The biggest problem with this EO is that it continues not to provide due process to CIA prisoners. The biggest difference between the current (as of this order) policy and the official Geneva conventions is that Geneva III provides that prisoner sentences must be decided through a court. Bush doesn't think that he should have to provide legal rights to his prisoners. Frankly, I'm not surprised. Yesterday he issued another EO declaring that all executive branch employees are immune to prosecution from a US Attorney (a position which decimates the constitutional idea of checks and balances). Bush sneers at the idea of rule of law in this nation, so why should he afford the rule of law to suspects in another nation? The order also fails to ensure oversight from international groups like the Red Cross, whose traditional job it has been to ensure the health and safety of prisoners. The fact that there is no ensured impartial oversight means that frankly this order lacks teeth. It's a feel-good measure more than a serious policy change.

Even with that bad news, however, this EO may be viewed as a victory for those like myself who have claimed that the international moral norm against torture is strong enough to withstand the testing of even a superpower like the US. The pressure from both US citizens and international powers has finally caused Bush to cave and protect US prisoners from torture. He places the decisions about interrogation regimes in the hands of the director of the CIA, which means that now we can only pray that the director is a sane and humanistic man. I will continue to believe that no one with compassion could authorize a torture regime, so now we must pray that the person in whose hands these decisions rests will find the morality to do the right thing.

The right to bodily integrity is at the very heart of every other human right that mankind has ever held dear. Without it, there is no right to freedom, property, happiness, democracy, or religion. Every other debate pales in the face of the debate over whether it is moral to harm a prisoner in your control. Nearly every other nation on the face of the planet has come to the enlightened conclusion that to torture prisoners is a policy that degrades them both as a nation, and as human beings. I'm glad to say that as of today, the US has taken steps toward rejoining the community of civil nations.