Editorials

This editorial is for future historians perusing the archives of The Anniston Star. (The rest of you in the here and now are welcome to read along.)

We suspect historians at some future date will wonder how the United States in the early part of the 21st century looked the other way at government-sanctioned torture. How, they will ask, could the nation betray its values and several international treaties banning prisoner mistreatment? Who aided this shift?

March 11, 2008, was an important date. On that day, the House of Representatives failed to muster enough votes to override a presidential veto of a bill explicitly banning many forms of torture.

What interrogation tech-niques did the bill ban? One was the simulated drowning of a prisoner, also commonly known as waterboarding. Strikingly, six decades ago the United States prosecuted a Japanese soldier for waterboarding U.S. citizens. We knew it was torture then. Today a presidential spokeswoman defends the practice and others "critical" to "protect[ing] our nation."

The bill would have banned other techniques such as electric shock, beatings and mock executions. These methods are expressly banned by the U.S. military, and for good reason. In the 20th century they were the methods of our enemies. While not perfect, the United States held to a higher standard, one that worked to its favor in the eyes of the rest of the world.

No more.

Assisting the president in this rejection of American values were five Alabama congressmen, who, along with many of their House colleagues, upheld the veto. Voting with the president were Reps. Robert Aderholt, Spencer Bachus, Jo Bonner, Terry Everett and Mike Rogers. It's difficult to categorize the votes, as well as the Bush administration's stance, as anything but pro-torture.

Making sense of the fullest ramifications of all this is something best left to historians.