On Tuesday, October 20, 2009, approximately 40 good-looking BLS students with a thirst for knowledge, a desire for justice, and hunger for lunch attended the BLSACLU debate on Investigating Torture. The debate pitted two pairs of passionate BLS students against each other to ask tough questions the Obama administration has yet to address: “Who should be held accountable for the questionable and potentially illegal methods used to interrogate detainees?” While the Department of Justice Special Prosecutor, John Durham, has been charged with investigating interrogators that exceeded the “enhanced methods” approved in the memos written by the Office of Legal Council, the BLS students debated whether other groups should be investigated, specifically:
1) the interrogators that followed the memos’ prescribed techniques;
2) the lawyers that wrote the memos; and,
3) the policymakers (like Vice President Cheney, C.I.A. Director George Tennant, and President Bush) that authorized the memos and use of the interrogation techniques in them.
Amanda Melnick and Fanny Lam represented the pro-investigation side of the debate and led their argument with calls for justice, cries for protection of human rights, and appeals to existing law addressing torture. Robert McRae and Lillian Tan represented the anti-investigation side and calmed the calls for investigation with the sobering realities of the post 9/11 world, the complexities of providing legal counsel to the president and the nation, and the number of other political priorities facing the nation. A poll taken before and after the debate showed that these issues are complex and that the populous (as represented by 40 BLS students) is divided on whether to investigate the interrogators who followed the memos and the lawyers that authored them. Unsurprisingly perhaps, BLS students were nearly unanimous in their support for investigations of top officials in the last administration. Sahadi’s falafel and hummus rounded out the afternoon.
