During the Republican primary debates—before McCain secured the nomination— each of the candidates had, at some point, declared America's role as the defender of democracy against its (Islamist) enemies. Scarcely ten minutes after these declarations, each candidate other than McCain also declared their support for some form of torture. McCain has, however, secured the nomination and their bombastic rhetoric has somewhat faded to gray. Yet, the problem lay in the reception of those candidates' words by the audience in attendance, which cheered zealously at their declarations.

Torture flies in the face of any minimal conception of rights—democratic or otherwise— but, paradoxically, reference to its defense could be articulated along with torture without a pause. To view this as simple hypocrisy would miss the true danger: that people really believe there is no contradiction between the two positions. This reveals a scary tolerance for accepting this betrayal of principles in their defense. Torture is not just one component of the war on terror but rather its very existence throws democratic principles into question. All compromise solutions are themselves complicit of this corruption. The call for "court-ordered torture" does not democratize torture but its opposite. One should place the blame deeper than jus the superficial support of torture. The very fact that it can be rationally discussed without minimal empathy with the victims is a sign that the American public has been victimized by its fear. The last time torture was so openly discussed was during feudal times. All the norms and ideas that are ostensibly held dear are being rolled back in their defense.
    The recent setup of military tribunals seems heartening in contrast to overt brutality but, upon closer scrutiny, one sees that the shift is merely formal. The tribunal system does not protect rights and allows detainees access to lawyers only until they are charged. The speed at which trials are being held is pitifully slow, damning detainees to abject conditions for the foreseeable future. In the name of "security," detainees have been refused the right to see the prosecution's evidence against them. Information under duress and hearsay are also potentially admissible. A death penalty case is currently underway against six detainees. The burden of proof in a capital punishment trial is normally much more rigorous than other cases precisely because a sentence of death for an innocent person is unconscionable. In the detainees' trials, however, these rules of conduct are being flaunted and it is becoming increasingly apparent that these tribunals are becoming closer to kangaroo courts. Most legal analysts and the majority of the Supreme Court agree these tribunals fail to meet reasonable standards of due process.
    Most importantly, however, is that testimonies are already tainted because of the months of torture. There is no ability to guarantee a fair trial in a world where people have been subject to brutal conditions. Even if confessions under torture are miraculously made illegal, the permanent psychic trauma that has accompanied detention makes it impossible to have any kind of un-coerced testimony. These are eerily similar to Stalinist show trials where detainees were given the chance to prove their innocence but in reality the result was set in advance. The trials mobilized the law in order to show its utter impotence in light of the desire for revenge. The "legal victories" regarding torture are not really "victories" but rather signs that the law is more willing to abase itself in order to maintain a semblance of relevance. These trials have emerged more out of a paranoiac defense of American ideology than justice. America's claim to a city on a hill is fast revealing itself as smoke and mirrors to prosecute a much more banal and unromantic repression of the "enemy" (everyone around the world knows this already; torture is a rallying point for anti-Americanism). There is an understandable thirst for revenge in light of what occurred on September 11th, 2001. Yet, it is at these moments when it is the easiest to succumb to our passions and fears that one must uphold the full exercise of one's principles. If the protections of the law do not uphold in the most extreme circumstances, then the law has no meaning at all.