Declassified memos explaining the Bush administration’s reasons for believing the Geneva Conventions did not apply to “our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world” describe an attitude determined to characterize the war on terror as something wholly new while at the same time urging interrogators to observe well-established norms of human rights in the use of tough interrogation techniques.

This tension reflects what reportedly were weeks of debate within the White House, with the Justice Department strongly concluding that protections under the Geneva Conventions did not legally apply to al-Qaida and the Taliban, and the State Department arguing that this direction jeopardized the United States’ reputation in the world.

On Feb. 7, 2002, President Bush, while emphasizing the need “to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment,” sided with the Justice Department, although Tuesday aides to President Bush disavowed the argument from Justice, saying its memo had created the misimpression that the administration claimed the right to use interrogation techniques banned by international law.

During the debate over this argument objections eventually came not only from State but also from lawyers from the Pentagon, and after approving some harsh interrogation techniques for those detained at Guantanamo, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly rescinded permission for their use. A key question is whether this White House debate, its conclusion and the interrogations at Guantanamo established a tone that produced the abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq.

That question cannot be fully answered, but it is possible to conclude that the State Department’s concern over the nation’s image in the rest of the world was justified. On Monday, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the prisoner-abuse scandal had had a “terrible impact” on America’s international image. His department has spent a fair part of the spring working to repair that image, but everything that happens in the Middle East concerning the United States will be colored by Abu Ghraib for years. The world’s expectation is not that U.S. officials always will be perfectly civilized but that they always will try to be. That expectation was nowhere near met in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

This is especially difficult in the presence of barbaric acts against Americans and, most recently, a South Korean interpreter, who were beheaded. But these horrible deeds of violence are even more reason for the United States to stand as an example and conduct itself not down to a standard of what may be legally permissible but up to an ideal for others to emulate.