Of Torture and Inquiry

On July 6, 2010, the British government launched a judicial inquiry into the collusion of British officials with acts of torture carried out by U.S. officials as part of the so-called “War on Terror.”  In accordance with the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, proven victims will receive financial compensation.  This monumental decision was announced one day before the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 Tube bombings, and so somewhat ironically, coincides with heightened security measures and counter-terrorism efforts in the U.K.

Hopefully, the U.K.’s willingness to open this line of inquiry will increase pressure on the U.S. government to investigate this inglorious part of its own history and to reconsider the strategies it currently employs as part of anti-terrorism campaigns. There has been wide-ranging resistance from U.S. officials to exploring claims, prosecuting perpetrators, and compensating victims.

This issue seems particularly relevant here and now because of the recent trial of former Chicago police detective Jon Burge. Burge’s alleged torture of African Americans on the South Side of Chicago has been documented by the Chicago Reader for two decades.  Burge was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice as related to past abuses, but the statute of limitation has expired for prosecution for the torture itself.
The South Side of Chicago, Guantanamo Bay, secret detention camps in Pakistan, Abu Ghraib:  very different settings, all too similar stories. People detained (often without just cause), abused, and eventually released. Public officials colluding with cover-ups. Racial and religious profiling and persecution.

I don’t know if it was a coincidence that the U.K.’s torture inquiry opened the day before the anniversary of the Tube bombings. It seems to me an acknowledgment that an essential component of assuring the security of any country is a willingness to openly discuss and redress past injustices.