|
||
The Cheney Torture Tour: What's the Deal?
Monday's NYT piece on the unraveling of the torture program during the second Bush term provokes a key question, and provides a stark answer. If, as the article reports, the Bush administration, due to rampant internal debate, had stopped waterboarding and walling and all the other repellent practices by 2005, what is Dick Cheney doing in 2009 saying that the Obama administration's rejection of those practices is making us less safe?
Of course, Cheney's resort to old-style Republican "the Democrats hate America" rhetoric is amusingly disturbing in any case. But if he's re-fighting an internal argument he lost four years ago, what's the point?
Three words: "don't prosecute me."
Cheney's goal is now revealed: to stir up enough passion on the Republican side to make a decision to prosecute the Bush administration's torture syndicate a political hot potato.
Without the former Vice President's publicity tour ginning up a "torture debate," public revulsion at the revelations in the declassified torture memos, and at the photographs the Pentagon is preparing to release, might have made prosecution not only politically desirable, but, to use a Tenetism, a slam dunk.
So why didn't the Obama administration react by saying publicly that Cheney was defending practices his own boss had disowned? Why was it necessary to set the usual "high administration officials who insisted on anonymity" loose on the Times?
Whatever the answer to that question, one waits eagerly to see what Cheney says now, as he sits down with Regis and Kelly and the ladies of The View.
Follow Harry Shearer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/letwits
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Now, instead of focusing on the three terrorists Bush/Cheney waterboarded, tell us about Dresden and FDR, HST and his Korea atrocities, LBJ and his Vietnam atocities and the Clinton renditions, all of which involved real torture..
Shhhh, you can only employ "moral equivalence" when it makes Republican leaders look bad.
There is no moral equivalence in this latest, only-so-recently-regurgitated-ad nauseam talking point. Murder is more moral than torture in any form.
Bombing innocent people in their homes in foreign nations is still a legal act of war in lots of circumstances; mistreating, abusing, dehumanizing or humiliating individuals in custody has NEVER been a legal act of war, and for perfectly understandable reasons.
Funny how anyone reciting any American war atrocities in history was instantly labeled unpatriotic and part of "blame America first" just a few years ago, when we could and had never done wrong in our history. Now that outright denial can no longer be sustained, moral relativism is all the fashion with wing-nuts, and the history of American atrocities is fertile ground for folks who would otherwise never in their lives admit even a question of morality surrounding those actions. Funny...
Whenever there was the slightest hint that Clinton might want to insert troops on the ground, he was lambasted by the right for a naive, water-walking desire to engage in "nation building", rather than rely on America's long standing foreign policy and singular, universally accepted combat tactic. Bombing something from the air with impunity without ever being able to know the results, much less show them. Funny...
Carpet bombing isn't torture, it's murder. And murder has always been more moral than torture.
Like it or not- look up any code of honor in history. Just as swift execution was always more merciful than execution preceded by torture- look up any "draconian" code of laws in history, or look up the reservation of steel for aristocratic executions vs hanging or quartering for the peasantry.
And even as objectionable and antithetical to America as renditions are, guess what they don't require- they don't require rewriting American law or drafting memos and executive orders that make torture official policy. More than merely a substantial difference, it is all the difference.
Of course, if your hero Reagan hadn't rejected ratifying the 1977 Geneva protocols as a result of his love for Latin American death squads, even renditions wouldn't be an issue and they wouldn't have even been possible since the 80's. We would have had to regard all detainees as de facto POWs, and would be forbidden to repatriate them to any nation we believed might torture or violate human rights.
If your objection was based on a sincere belief in human rights, that would be one thing. But if your belief is in expedience and practicality and rationalizing any means to a desired end (which is what the terrorists believe in, btw), EVEN THEN the Bush decisions are not only demonstrably counterproductive- they are quite clearly designed to protect politicians from legal accountability, not to protect the country from anything.
Dresden was the bombing of an enemy city during a war that had raged for years. It was clearly overkill but in no way constituted torture. You mention no specifics about Truman authorizing torture during the Korean war. If you have examples, please cite them. Otherwise, I take issue with your conclusion. During the Vietnam War (a war I have strenouously opposed for years) we again engaged in much indiscriminate bombing somewhat, but not completely, akin to Dresden. As for the Clinton renditions, if you have proof that any American officials tortured during those renditions, present it. Otherwise, you are merely engaging in speculation.
Using your logic, any evil that we perpetrate in our country is defensible so long as a prior administration engaged in immoral behavior even if it is of a different kind (bombings v. torture). You could say that since we used to allow slaves, we cannot complain about violations of labor standards. Or since the CIA overthrew Mossadegh in 1954 we can overthrow anybody we want today.
If we subscribed to those standards, then we can never improve (in fact, would not have improved during given periods of time) as a nation. Your approach would consign us to being a flawed, arbitrarily evil nation for perpetuity.
'smatter Hairy? Now that a Dem is sitting the Oval Office, you now decide to abandon y'all's Nawlins obsession?
Look at his blogs over the last few months. Harry has continued to advocate strongly on behalf of New Orleans. Is he banned from commenting on any other topics or are you desperate to dis the left-wing bloggers for alleged, but unconvincing bias.
See Harry Shearer's Profile
Not at all. Stay tuned.
Every day that goes by signifies the fact that Cheney is above the law and will never be prosecuted. Cheney pisses on the Constitution, he pissed on Eric Holder, he pisses on Obama. Everyone says it's raining. Cheney can spend the rest of his days promoting the goodness of torture, and he'll make millions of dollars in the process. No one's interested in arresting Cheney because it's politically naughty. In fact, it would blow down the house of cards because of all of the Democrats who were complicit or who conspired to keep torture programs going by remaining silent.
Cheney's outwardly blackmailing the Democrats into keeping their mouths shut. The blackmailing is going all the way to the top of the Obama Administration.
Read this article by Elizabeth De Vega a former prosecutor showing how the Feds have time (and should use it) before convening grand juries and if they want to do a professional thorough job, should take their time:
http://www.truthout.org/051009A?n
The notion that one should publicly rush the proesecution to satisfy the public craving for prosecution (an appetite I possess) is counterporductive. Most prosecutions (particularly of this magnitude) take months, if not years, to investigate, present to a grand jury and try. I've represented criminal defendants in federal court; it would be unusual for something like this to be done in less than 2 years.
Cheney was in command of the Presidential emergency operating center on 9/11 which tracked the missle as it approached the Pentagon. Since the Pentagon has surface to air missles with which defend against attacks, the question is why did the military stand down that day?
There was NO military response that day except confusion and obstruction.
Is it not a possibility that the high levels of the government allowed these attacks on its citizens to allow for popular support for the upcoming war of aggression and repeal of citizens rights?
Most people fear considering this possibility. However a critical analysis of the facts demands that we at least consider the possibility. Look at the facts. Look at the results. Remember what we would accept in our name before that day, and look at what we have become since.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1LX-9Gajyg
www.infowars.com
This Cheney bravado is like Robert Conrad's battery commercial. He dares us to prosecute and given the fact that the fiber and integrity of our country is at stake, we need to do so.
What Cheney, Bush and the rest of their mega-wealthy elitist cabal have been practicing, reminds me of Chicago gangsterism on a massive international scale. They have been running what amounts to an enormous protection racket against the American people, and others, for years now. They have systematically lied, robbed and impoverished your country and others in order to enrich themselves beyond most of our wildest dreams.
There's a particularly good bumper sticker available which reads;
"Be nice to America, or we'll bring democracy to your country"
Perhaps another one could read;
"Nice country you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything bad happened to it"
What's got me sctatching my head is that so many Americans are still falling for it, and that many even seem to LIKE it. I think it must have something to do with the concept of 'American Exceptionalism', which it seems many Americans have drummed into their heads from a very early age. Their minds seem to work like Condoleezza Rice's ie. If Americans do it, then it can't be wrong.
If this wasn't the case, then why else would Americans such as Bush and Cheney think they have the God given right to lord it over every other country on the planet, and be permitted to torture with impugnity?
Prosecutor's coming, cheney. Better dive into your undisclosed location.
We are also not paying attention to the asbestos lawsuit against halliburton that was surprisingly, defeated in court, of late. That's the same halliburton that was nearly bankrupt after chinney's CEO stint but got unparasleled free money contracts from chinney's administration and paid him huge sums to him WHILE he was vp.
Get ready to put the shackles on this guy and save an appropriate cell in some federal penitentiary.
I hear that George W. Bush does not speak to Dick Cheney any longer, gee whizz I didn't think there was anything Bush could (not) do that would make me feel good.
I'm with you. G. Bush actually did something right by not pardoning 'Scooter'. As a convicted felon Libby cannot practice law and Cheney will not be able to claim 'Lawyer-client' privilege if Cheney ever finds himself in a courtroom with a jury listening to the facts rather than his favorite TV station FOX.
Three words: "you are right."
Cheney...doeth protest too much....is there something more we dont know yet that is so morally reprehensible we will be further outraged...I think yes.....
How can anyone debate the legality of torture when Charles Graner and Lynndie England are serving time for their antics at Abu Ghraib? So much for supporting our troops...
Yes. I don't see anything that they did that fell outside of official policy.
That doesn't mean they don't deserve prison time
They tortured someone to death and were caught red handed with pictures of them smiling ang giving thumbs up. And they all got slaps on the wrist anyway
Bu your logic any member of al-queda should be set free because they are only following the policy of Bin Laden
Good point. A lot has been written about the danger of the Obama administration alienating the people serving in the army, the CIA etc.
If I had the choice serving under an administration that outs CIA-Agents out of political reasons, that secretly establishes rules and lets the ordinary servicemen and women be prosecuted if they follow them, not backing them up but denouncig them as 'bad apples',
or serving under an administration that sets clear rules, not leaving the legal risks up to the individual, I'd choose the second option.
If you watch the movie 'A few good men' you'll see a lot of parallels: The worst thing might not be the cruel treatment that the high ranking officers encourage, it's the fact that they leave those in the lurch who do exactly as they we told an encouraged to do.
For the record: I agree with WarSceptic, that these people deserve prison time for what they have done. I just think that the Bush administration created an environment where the servicemen and women had to choose between two bad options.
Vice President Cheney to the American people:
The masochistic misery tour is dying to take you away,
Dying to take you away, take you today.
- Tom
ps. Could Dick Cheney have a twisted fondness of both The Beatles and beatings?
I am tired of the stance that we will not investigate and prosecute members of the Bush Administration for authorizing torture because it "would tear the country apart". Are we that weak the we can not face up to people who have (allegedly) committed war crimes in our country's name? Is our democracy too frail to seek out and try those who violate the very basic tenets of our government? All men are equal before the law and have the right to due process. Also according to our laws, cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden. Are we so powerless a people, so frail a nation or so divorced from reality that the shame (which many of us already feel) of our representative government's (alleged) crimes against humanity will break us apart like some soap bubble drifting helplessly in every breeze? I do not think so.
I think that such an investigation, trial and probable conviction would strengthen us as people. I see no harm in assuring by action that we are all equals before the law, even if that means jailing a recently retired President, his vice president and their cronies.
Or are words such as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,.." merely words worth less than the paper they were written on?
I agree, we can handle the truth.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
