American citizens reading a 1981 Amnesty International report documenting torture in Guatemala would never have believed that its own government would authorize torture a quarter-century later. But it did.

"The human rights issue that dominates in Guatemala," Amnesty International concluded, "is that people who oppose or are imagined to oppose the government are systematically seized without warrant, tortured, and murdered -- as part of a deliberate Guatemalan government program."

Frantz Fanon, writing in 1959 of French torture in the Algerian War ("A Dying Colonialism"), reported, "Doctors at torture centers intervene after every session in order to put the tortured back into condition for new sessions. Ten times the doctor intervenes; 10 times he gives the prisoners back to the pack of torturers."

No American reading Fanon would have imagined that the U.S. government, in the name of "anti-terrorism," would employ doctors to abet torture 45 years later. But it did.

Some contend that those who advocated torturing prisoners and those who actually did the torture following orders endorsed by George Bush should go unpunished in the name of "national unity." In other words, in a time of war and economic malaise, sweep such crimes under the rug so political amity may exist. Why rock the boat? Why indict prominent political personalities?

The answer is simple; Americans don't torture. International and U.S. laws deem torture a punishable crime. If an American president could be almost impeached for lying under oath, then surely a U.S. president, vice president, CIA director, national security adviser, or secretary of state or defense can be indicted for ordering torture.

The New York Times ("Using Torture in Israel" -- May 1995) wrote, "The character of a country is determined in some measure by how it treats its enemies and prisoners." Great Britain tortured suspected members of the Irish Republican Army. When that was revealed, demonstrations and protests prompted Prime Minister Edward Heath to ban torture.

The very same torture practices used against IRA suspects were authorized by George W. Bush against prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, in overseas centers and at foreign rendition sites. George Orwell presciently anticipated such behavior in "1984," writing: "There were times when his nerve so forsook him that he began shouting for mercy even before the beatings began, when the mere sight of a fist drawn back for a blow was enough to make him pour forth a confession of real and imaginary crimes."

Those reading Orwell in the 50s wouldn't have believed the U.S. would ever act in such a manner, but it did.

Japanese officers and soldiers were tried after World War II specifically for the water-board torturing of American prisoners. At the Nuremburg war trials, the common defense was, "We were merely following orders." The courts rejected that argument. Those who gave orders were found guilty as were those who blindly followed them, knowing they were committing obvious criminal acts.

Before Holocaust plans were systematically executed, special laws had been passed by the Nazi to justify their evil acts and make them appear "legal." But it didn't work. Torture and murder are always criminal acts. Legal opinions condoning torture by Bush's compliant and complicit Justice Department lawyers are equally indefensible in law.

The International Red Cross has assembled a vast file documenting torture of prisoners in Bush's "War on Terror." It has prompted a Spanish court to consider criminal investigations of six Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and John C. Yoo, a Justice Department lawyer.

The Spaniards claim jurisdiction because some prisoners tortured were Spanish citizens. Spain signed the International Convention on Torture, which is binding on 145 nations including the U.S.. This is the same court that indicted Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

In January, former Liberian leader Charles Taylor was sentenced to 97 years for torture in U.S. federal court, an opinion praised by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who said, "I hope this case will serve as a model to future prosecutions."

The ball is now in the hands of Obama's Justice Department. Does it have the strong commitment to the rule of law needed to ensure justice is served? I frankly doubt it.

Paul R. Dunn may be reached at paulandbj@nc.rr.com.