Written by John H. Sucke   

As an ardent, long-time Obama supporter, I must confess my great disappointment with one enormous failure of his largely positive administration. It is his refusal to hold to account those who ordered and practiced illegal torture in our name. As Obama has insisted virtually from his first day as our President, he wants to "look forward," not back at this unconscionable period in our history.



It took little more than 50 years and a ghastly attack on American civilians for our country to transition from a righteous prosecutor of torture and war crimes at Nuremberg to a determined and deliberate official practitioner of torture. There were many mendacious excuses. There are always rationalizations that seem to justify unethical behavior. But such acts are, without exception, inexcusable and unacceptable in civilized society.



If some find it alright to subject captive and helpless human beings to forced sleeplessness, near-drowning, nudity, "walling" and severe temperature extremes, these persons lack humane judgment. They are not to be trusted with the responsibility for others. By practicing these despicable acts on our captives, they have drawn us all into their crimes.



Their primary excuse was, in essence, fear. They feared another attack on our country and felt duty-bound to break our laws to defend us. This was an understandable emotional response, but our officials are held to more. They were sworn to uphold our Constitution and our country's laws. The nature of the oath they swore was not conditional. It was and is absolute.



In order to avoid seeming to break that oath, these officials set out to find a way around it. First, they quibbled about the definition of torture, as if some inhumane treatment of prisoners was acceptable. Next, they argued locality. If the prisoners were not on American soil, surely it was legal to mistreat them however we wished. Finally, as a last ditch effort, they argued that torture worked; it had saved lives.



It should be unnecessary to point out that all these arguments are irrelevant. If there is any doubt whether a particular treatment of a helpless captive is torture, it is torture. Period. No parsing of any law can justify even semi- inhumane treatment. Next, the nature of captive treatment does not shift according to its locale. Water boarding in foreign country is no more acceptable than is water boarding on the steps of the US Supreme Court building. It is unethical and inhumane. Period. Finally, the nature of the action cannot be justified ethically by its results. While I would like to believe that torture does not produce practical results, it does not matter. It does not become legal or humane just because it may on occasion produce some useful information. It is still an indecent and degrading way to treat another human regardless of what that person may have done. Period.



There is one additional argument to justify torture. It is not made openly very often because of its obvious imbecility. It is vengeance. "They deserve it." Most civilized societies have blocked this kind of reptile-brain thinking by insisting that some due process of law intervene to prevent a return to blood feuds and an-eye-for-an-eye private justice. But the temptation still dwells in all of us. It has to be stopped. For the good of all of us.



So, what should Obama have done? It is not an easy choice, but those who violate the law in such an open and egregious way, must be held accountable. They cannot be given a pass. Federal indictment and prosecution is required -- unless the criminals accept a presidential pardon. To do so, they must admit their guilt and express regret. That will be nearly impossible for those like Dick Chaney, George Tenet, Porter Goss, John Brennan and others who continue to insist that they did "the right thing" under the circumstances. If they cannot admit their error, they must face a court of justice. Otherwise, we as a country have condoned torture by our silence.