Abstract:
This thesis examines whether a truth commission could be an effective means for
establishing truth and serving justice for the abuses committed in the war on terror.
Although truth commissions have generally been implemented in contexts that fall within
the realm of transitional justice, this study applies the work of previous truth
commissions to the non-transitional context in the United States. As such, this thesis
includes research focusing on methods that previous truth commissions have employed in
their pursuit of truth and justice, and evaluates whether and how such methods could be
applied to the war on terror. Among other things, previous truth commissions’ efforts to
express the complex origins and consequences underlying widespread human rights
violations could be applied to establish a comprehensive understanding of the genesis and
fallout for the abuses committed in the war on terror. In a similar respect, the victim-centered
approach employed in previous truth commissions could serve restorative
justice, which promotes concepts such as reform and reconciliation in a manner that
augments traditional tenets of justice that tend to focus on wrongdoer accountability.
While the relative effectiveness of a truth commission for the war on terror remains
theoretical because there is no specific precedent for non-transitional governments, this
thesis concludes that a truth commission could be uniquely tailored to suit the needs of
the United States in order to establish the truth and serve justice for the abuses committed
in the war on terror.
