Chris Wallace recently gave Dick Cheney a forum to lecture about how Obama's Justice Department is making a horrible mistake in looking into things that were done during his administration. (It's also often referred to as the Bush administration, but I think we all know who was the marionette and who was the puppeteer.) Wonder of wonders, Cheney doesn't like this new practice of "looking backward." I'm guessing he'd like it a lot more if he were absolutely positive he couldn't be indicted.
Anyway, when asked specifically about the controversial C.I.A interrogation practices, Cheney said, "It was good policy. It was properly carried out and it worked very, very well."
Then Wallace asked, "So, even in these cases where they [the C.I.A interrogators] went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're okay with it?"
Cheney answered emphatically, "I am."
Then Chris Wallace went on to a different topic.
Now, had I been Chris Wallace, I think I might have asked another couple of questions.
I would have followed up with, "So, in your view, it's perfectly okay to break a law as long as it's one you disagree with?"
Cheney, I'm guessing, would have emphatically answered, "I do."
Then I might have asked, "So, let me get this straight. Is it okay for anyone to break a law they disagree with, or just you?"
Then, Cheney, I'd guess, would have taken umbrage at my impudence, grimaced, then started in on how his administration kept us safe for eight years.
Then I would have tried to keep myself from mentioning the now infamous and ignored "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." memo and said, "Please, don't change the subject."
Because, you see, that's what Cheney always does. He says outrageous things about how he endorses the breaking of laws and reminds us to be afraid -- something none of us ever forget to be, especially when we hear his voice.
And, then, if anyone raises an eyebrow -- which too few people do -- he equates terrorists not attacking the United States with his administration breaking the law.
Did any of the Cheney administration's policies keep us safe? No way to absolutely prove that they did or didn't.
Have we not been attacked because the terrorists are very patient zealots? No way to know that for sure either.
And I'll even go out on a limb here, give the Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt, and say that they did what they did because they hoped they would be able to keep us safe.
But, I digress. The former vice president (really president) of the previous administration went on television and said that he was in favor of the C.I.A. going beyond specific legal authority. He endorsed breaking the law. And his interviewer chose not to point out that breaking the law makes one a criminal.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I don't think it says anything about only upholding the laws you like.
We either have rules of law and ethical standards or we don't.
In Cheney's administration, I don't believe we did.
Now we're trying to get them back.
I, for one, hope we succeed.
But do you know what the worst fallout from Cheney's remarks will be? Now his daughter, Liz, will be out on the faux-pundit circuit defending them.
There ought to be a law.
'I'll be honest -- I'm not sure I understand your point. The Russians in Chechnya tortured but didn't waterboard so that means waterboarding isn't torture? If that's your point, I disagree
I don't care what kind of bow your put on it, torture is not only wrong it's against the law. If people torture under the name of religion -- any religion -- that's against the law, too....
All due respect, but I believe that "enhanced interrogation" is a term that was invented to excuse torture. Not sure how you can know there was "no permanent physical'
To the rhetorical question of whether it is okay to torture somebody in order to extract information allowing one to immediately save the lives of thousands of people at risk of attack, the answer is, if you are willing to be punished for torturing the person, go ahead and torture them.
Your punishment will be the price that must be paid in order for you to save thousands of people.
If anything, I believe the laws in North America have fallen behind international standards, stuck in a time warp and in need of updating, they are weak and ineffectual and allow all sorts of obvious cruelties that I disagree with to continue with impunity.
But, when the law catches up, and the chicken gets the right to a range, and the pig gets a right to sunshine, and if an old fashioned farmer was to disagree with the new law, in the last defense of the farmer's opinion, the farmer could invoke civil disobedience, disobey the law and accept punishment, which tests the resolve of all parties.
If we feel such a law is just, we will jail the farmer for disobeying the law. Or the farmer might convince us by disobeying the law that changes need to be made to the law. Or both, first we will jail the farmer, then we will check to see if changes are necessary to the law because farmers are going to jail.
Civil disobedience is the peaceful alternative to civil war.
Personally, I'd say jail the farmer, but I'd respect his method, even as I'd vote on his jury to convict.
VP Chaney, & to those who support him. The Nile is not just a river in Africa ! !
http://www.kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf
http://www.judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/110th/IPres090113.pdf
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090824.html
The CIA Inspector General Report shows people beaten to death in our custody, not given a single legal or human right & in fact abused, killed, lost or treated as Concentration Camp Prisoners in Nazi America. Cheney is right; the people in the CIA who followed orders that generated from Cheney should have our compassion & sympathy, misled by Cheney to commit horrible acts, now living with what they did, my heart & soul goes out to them as heroes. They will live with the Warmares of torturing people, favorite quote of the CIA Report from our own US Soldiers:
Concerns Over Participation in the CTC Program
231~ During the course of this Review, a number of Agency officers expressed Unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation in the CTC Program. A number of officers expressed concern that a human rights group might persue them for activities…
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot/
The only things we have to fear are fear itself and the constant fear-mongering of politicians with a vested interest in fear.
Maybe Obama is hoping to get the Right to realize the power of the current (Black) president and react with fear? If the Republicans dismantled the Patriot act and wrote strong laws to prevent anything like it from re-occuring, and several Democrats "defected," and supported those laws, it might be the fastest and (in political effort) cheapest way to restore the rule of law.
Or it is just an example of power corrupts...
Although you're right that dismantling the Patriot Act and enacting laws to prevent such totalitarian legislation in the future would go a long way toward re-establishing the rule of law, it's extremely unlikely that that will ever happen, as both Republicans and Democrats have an enormous stake in appearing, rather than actually being, "tough" on crime in general and terrorism in particular.
I wish I could be more optimistic.