Candid and detailed testimony in exchange for immunity?
BY KATIE JACOB
Copy editor
The Detroit Free Press, in its Sunday, May 31 editorial, endorsed the formation of a commission to be made up of experienced federal judges to uncover the truth about “the record of America’s opening moves in its self-styled war on terror,” in lieu of a congressional inquiry which they fear would be too partisan. The editorial’s headline suggested that we “Give the truth its day in court.” But the Free Press also suggested that the commission be given broad authority to grant immunity from civil or criminal prosecution in exchange for candid, detailed testimony, they say, by those who formulated and executed the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies.
But isn’t that exactly what a truth commission should expect and demand and be empowered to hear from any witness: candid and detailed testimony? They should not have to barter for the truth.
Let the tribunal ask the questions and if a witness refuses to answer, take note. For when the truth comes out, and surely it will, one way or another – about torture, about the warrantless wiretapping of Americans and about why we went to war in Iraq in the first place – if it turns out that laws have been violated and that crimes have been committed, there should be prosecutions.
We are a nation of laws and it is adherence to the rule of law that defines democracy. It is a slippery slope that we walk when we suggest that security concerns, or even the need to find the truth, trump the rule of law or the Constitution. And should we find that lawless executives lead us to war in Iraq under false pretenses, as the evidence suggests, it is outrageous to suggest that they be excused from so egregious a violation of the public trust.
