it's strange how the truth commission for bush-era torture allegations is being treated in this country's discourse. the "truth commission" idea is modeled after the south african truth and reconciliation commission. that model has been successfully used in several other countries that have emerged from a period when their leaders committed serious crimes.
truth commissions, as they have been used internationally, are generally viewed as an alternative to criminal prosecution. truth commissions hand out legal immunity to people willing to tell the truth to clear the air and document the nation's past crimes. the country uses a truth commission to avoid the pain of politically charged prosecutions.
but the way the truth commission debate is shaping up here in the u.s. seems to be completely different. it's not portrayed as a choice between a truth commission or prosecution, it's portrayed as a choice between truth commission or just letting them get away with it. in fact, for some reason both the media and politicians who have addressed this issue seem to think that a truth commission would be a precursor to prosecution, rather than an alternative track.
sometimes an entire debate is won or lost by how the issue is framed. if the choice is between criminal prosecution or a truth commission, the truth commission is the one that looks like the reasonable moderate position. if, on the other hand, the issue is "truth commission" versus "doing nothing", "doing nothing" is the clear favorite to win.
