Op-Ed Columnist – A Torturous Compromise – NYTimes.com
In a New York Times editorial, columnist Thomas L. Friedman discusses President Obama’s decision not to pursue legal action action against the lawyers and advisors involved in the “enhanced interrogation” techniques of the Bush administration. Without ever invoking the words “truth” or reconciliation,” he articulates the basic mission of the commissions that Desmond Tutu describes. Although Friedman is unsatisfied with this course, he acknowledges the logic behind Obama’s decision. He argues that the light which the President is shining on the problem is a step in the right direction, and is ultimately the only step that can be taken at this point. He notes that there are several factors which have guided his thinking on the matter. He speaks of the many problems that would arise from selectively assigning blame and culpability.
He lauds Obama both for wanting to expose the way in which America’s firm stance against torture has been weakened by the actions of many member of the previous administration. He also, however, compliments the President on not viewing the impact of “enhanced interrogation” in a vacuum. Friedman understands the problems that legal action would bring, both inside and outside the United States. Sometimes it is more productive to acknowledge the truth about unlawful and immoral conduct without officially sanctioning those responsible for it. Sometimes there are higher prerogatives that just punishing the guilty. If a criminal action has had a far-reaching a society, it may be easier for the society to accept, learn from and move past the problems it faces by encouraging open dialogue without imposing punitive measures on the guilty. As we discussed in class, this solution does not amount to blind forgiveness. Rather, it constitutes the most appropriate and productive response that a society such as ours can offer to the human rights violations committed over the last 5 years.
