By any other name …

In an April 26 editorial, and an op-ed appearing the same day, Review-Journal pundits argued it was "ridiculous" to suggest that anyone in our government countenanced or engaged in torture. Because those who were subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques were not uniformed, the writers asserted, such claims are ludicrous and seeking accountability is a travesty.

Yet even with opinion leaders like the Review-Journal harping on such themes and popular TV shows like "24" promoting torture on a weekly basis, the recently released memos on prisoner interrogations written by Bush administration lawyers appalled most Americans and others around the world who have viewed our country as a moral beacon whose commitment to human rights is sacrosanct.

The memos, released pursuant to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, shocked the conscience with good reason. Their Justice Department authors defined torture so narrowly as to permit the most horrendous interrogation practices, whose trivialization on the Review-Journal's opinion pages is belied by the fact that they were prosecuted in the past by our own government as war crimes.

As the evidence of wrongdoing mounts, it is clear that any government official who was responsible for impermissibly sanctioning these deplorable acts should be held accountable if his actions are deemed to have been criminal. Like any citizen, government officials who might stand accused have a right to due process and a full and impartial airing of the facts. That would include the authors of the Justice Department memos, who would likely be the subject of any investigation into possible wrongdoing.

We are a nation founded on the rule of law. Only by holding people liable for any unconstitutional policies that were implemented and crimes that were committed in the Bush administration can we remain true to our ideals. It is imperative that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government all participate in this effort.

In addition to urging that an independent prosecutor be appointed by the Department of Justice to conduct necessary criminal investigations, the ACLU believes Congress should exercise its oversight responsibilities. A bill, recently introduced in the House, would create a select committee to review the development, implementation and effectiveness of past and present national security practices.

Some have suggested that an open investigation into our country's interrogation policies would be harmful. But a thorough and transparent inquiry is needed to help heal our wounds. We must determine how we became a nation that condones torture. We simply cannot move forward without first understanding the way we were led astray.

Opponents of this view, including those at the Review-Journal, downplay the severity of the interrogations. Joining this chorus of critics, Sen. John Ensign insists, "The United States does not engage in torture." Yet the evidence disclosed to date contradicts this. Practices that have heretofore been widely condemned as serious abuses of human rights -- forcing people to hold painful positions for long periods, depriving them of sleep for days on end, and waterboarding -- have simply and misleadingly been renamed "enhanced interrogation."

Although the Obama administration has reneged on its promise of transparency and reversed its prior decision to release additional photographs of the interrogations, these pictures could and should become public soon. The federal courts have thus far ruled in favor of the ACLU's request for disclosure of the images in yet another lawsuit, ordering the Department of Defense to comply. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court reverses this decision, the lower court's ruling will result in further public awareness of precisely what our government did.

Also, the chairmen of the House Judiciary and the Foreign Affairs Committees and other congressional leaders have requested that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton release to them a copy of a 2005 memorandum written by Philip Zelikow, a former counselor to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. Zelikow's memo dissents from the Department of Justice's approval of CIA interrogation practices. It would refute former Secretary Rice's recent assertions that these practices were legal and did not conflict with our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

Increasingly, it seems that the legal rationale within the former administration echoes President Nixon's discredited claim that "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

In fact, nobody is above the law. It must be impartially enforced against everyone, including our government officials, or one of our most cherished principles is rendered meaningless. Besides, if those who sanctioned and committed these acts are so firmly convinced of the soundness of their actions -- ethically and legally -- why not allow our Constitution and courts to be the final arbiters of those claims?

Gary Peck is executive director of the ACLU of Nevada. Caroline Fredrickson is director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.