Defending the Indefensible

Dick Cheney has appointed himself as the advocate for continued torture. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. As he has often done before, he's willing to be the bad guy. One might think he enjoys it.

I believe Cheney may be right when he says that Obama will not categorically exclude the possibility of using "enhanced interrogation procedures". Where they differ is that Obama does not seek to gain advance approval for them, and that Obama does not view what the Bushites did as being justified, or successful.

Cheney claims success under Bushite Misrule for an overall policy of attack on terrorists to prevent future 9/11's. It is true that there have been no comparable attacks within the US but there have been in other countries, so the policy could be viewed as successful in a limited, selfish way. And that's OK with Dick, and with many other Americans.

A part of that Bushite Strategy (B.S. for short) was "attacking regimes giving support to international terrorists" or "with the capability of developing weapons of mass destruction" (approximate quotes from Cheney's speech), one or more of which refer, indirectly, to That Country Which Shall Not Be Named. So, the decision to invade and the methods of occupation of Iraq can only be considered as part of some grand, successful GWOT. Cheney's key objective is is to protect the Bushite Doctrine of Preventive War, which Cheney holds in the same esteem as Article 2, which pretty much authorizes the Executive to do whatever to preserve the nation and the constitution. Again, the point being that what must be done will happen, but that doesn't mean those responsible are not culpable.

Prosecution for the Unprosecutable (sp?)?

Cheney and the Bushite Torture Apologists are like some of the worst Guantanamo detainees in one regard--though their behavior is criminal, no court can touch them, nor would want to.

Whether the Bushites can be prosecuted is less interesting to me, or to Obama, than whether detainees can be prosecuted successfully. There's a covert cops-and-robbers game going on with Eric Holder's Justice Department, as they try to execute a triage delayed for several years. They must decide individually either to let them go (somewhere, but not in the US), or to prosecute them (somewhere) if there's a legal case that's sufficiently unsullied, or kill them (or the equivalent--put them out to sea on a boat) if they're in that special class: guilty to a certainty but with no case that could stand up to the accusations of abuse. All three options are difficult to execute, so it is perhaps fortunate that the Senate is forcing them to go more slowly by cutting off funds for closing Guantanamo.

As for Cheney & Co., the most important way to defeat them is to change the policies and explicitly reject the precedents set by the Bushites. Some legislation should be introduced to back up these rejections with force of law: Wars of choice need to be explicitly endorsed--any endorsement during an electoral period (up to six months before an election) needs to be re-affirmed 90 days after election day to remain effective, when fears and tempers have cooled; Pre-emptive war needs an imminent threat to justify it; conspiracy to expose a US undercover agent through the press is a crime.