Ends vs. Means: A Gross Misunderstanding of Our Nation's History

Dick Cheney has discovered transparency. His pious call for declassifying certain memos regarding torture is like Pat Robertson advocating for atheism. The former Vice President has built his career on secrecy and utter disdain for government disclosures. He refused to provide transcripts from meetings on energy policy. To avoid compliance with archiving laws, he made the absurd claim he is not part of the Executive Branch. But now Cheney insists, on the ironic argument that the American people need to know about their government, that Obama release secret memos showing how effective torture can be in soliciting vital security information from high-value captives. He is making this request in an attempt to offset the damage done from recently released memos written by the Office of Legal Counsel to justify torture on spurious legal grounds under the Bush Administration.

As pundits debate the merits of releasing these memos, something important has been lost in the discussion. Cheney assumes that if we find evidence that proves valuable intelligence was gathered as a result of torture, then his actions to support torture require no further explanation. He believes, and has explicitly stated, that the ends (our security) justify the means by which we achieve that security. That perspective denigrates our history as a nation, and ignores the principled sacrifices of those who came before us.

Let's go back to the winter of 1777 in Valley Forge. Following the battle of White March, General Washington had to move his troops to a secure location to over-winter before the next season of fighting began. For reasons of logistics and geography, Washington chose to encamp at Valley Forge, just over 20 miles northwest of Philadelphia. His 11,000 troops were sick, hungry, cold, wet, and poorly clothed. If Washington followed the tradition of warfare throughout human history, he would have appropriated by force the provisions necessary to support his troops from local farms. But he did not do so because he lacked legal authority for such actions. Instead, his troops suffered deprivation because Washington knew something that Cheney clearly does not: the ends do not justify the means.

The very existence of the new nation was at stake in 1777, yet Washington did not succumb to convenience or invoke national security to take illegal actions. He chose, instead, to send repeated requests to the Continental Congress for the appropriate authority that came too late due to the limitations of communications, which proved slower than the passing season. If anybody could ever reasonably invoke the idea that the end justifies the means, Washington would be that man. Yet he did not, because he believed to his core in the value of laws in a nation struggling to come into existence on the principles of inalienable rights for its citizens. Cheney's actions are a wicked inverse example of General Washington's stand on principle.

When we appeal to the corrupt idea that ends trump means, nothing constrains our worst instincts. We end up with Japanese detention camps, witch hunts for "communists" by the House Un-American Activities Committee, illegal wire tapping, falsified evidence for war, and torture -- a gross and callous disregard for law that Washington fought specifically to prevent.

Cheney and friends invoke national security as some blanket amnesty for any past or future ethical or legal violations. Our Founding Fathers would find that offensive. Cheney's ideology is a terrible perversion of our founding vision and in direct contradiction to the actions that Washington himself took in the most difficult of times.

The notion that any means can be justified by an appropriate end has been discredited throughout human history. All major ethical theories from Socrates and Plato to Hume to Kant universally reject the idea. Cheney is on the wrong side of ethics, on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of common human decency. We are all fortunate that the man is no longer in power.

Comments

[AmbivalentGuy]

Recall that Cheney is strongly influenced by Nixonites -
remember the line - "if the president does it, then it's not illegal".

Cheney didn't have a good enough attention span to
find out where that lead Nixon though.

[dsws]

I have a book and CD that my two-year-old is very fond of. Some anthropomorphic kittens tell a lie, and everyone on Paw Island starts moping and fretting -- because no lie, no matter how big or how small, is ever a good thing. I call it "Anne Frank's Paw Island Adventure": lying to the Nazis was obviously unacceptable, according to the stupid book, because no lie is ever justified.

A policy of torture is unjustifiable. It would be unjustifiable even if torture worked, which it doesn't. But to arrive at that conclusion honestly, we need to do more than recite the words "end" and "means".

[ConstitutionAvenue]

Dick Cheney is starting to remind me of Walter Matthew in Grumpy old Men. Without the laughs though. The former Vice President seems to have embarked on a mission to single-handedly rewrite the history of his and his bosses tenure in the White House into something wholly detached from historical reality. Mr. Cheney is now demanding gleaned intelligence from the torture, excuse me, "enhanced interrogation' sessions to be released. Of course releasing this information would reveal to the enemy precisely what we know about them, their tactics and future plans. The former VP can't be bothered with that of course, there's a reputation to be repaired here and damned if declassifying intelligence will stand in the way of some much needed damage control. Another issue of equal weight is that in no way would releasing these documents prove that torture works. One could look at whatever information was gathered and say if they had been humanely and legally interrogated instead, the same information would have been gathered days or weeks earlier. This point was also asserted by Dennis Blair.
This country tortured it's supposed enemies. It was wrong. It was immoral and it was illegal. Dick Cheney can have any damn document he wants but he will not convince a single thinking person that what he sanctioned did anything but fill the souls of true patriots with fury and indignatio­n...

[ProudAmerican23]

Follow your logic and the theme of "means to an end" The founding fathers would also despise the fact that WE used guerilla tactics in fighting the Red Coats for our freedom (read Robert Rogers aka Rogers Rangers). Or that we hit the city of Dresden Germany so hard that the fires of the burning city actually caused tornadoes of flames. Or the use of flamethrowers on Iwo Jima. Or dropping Fat Man or Little Boy on Japan was to extreme in finding the means to an end. Or the logic behind the nuke arsenal of the cold war. ("unilateral destruction" sounds like madness today right?
At each of those moments in time it didnt, and we quite possibly are able to debate it today because of actions taken during those times. 1 or 20 years from now we may have to rethink Obama's change to our policies on torture or Gitmo. All it will take is another 9/11 to reshape the mentality. If a chemical cloud pops over New York tomorrow and its later found out that a wiretap couldve keep a former Gitmo prisoner from doing it or that another knew it but was never fully interrogated. will you still feel the same way when the images of 10,000 bodies are carried out with chemical burns? Will you thank Obama or want him crucified?

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

You create a false dichotomy, and fall into the same trap as Cheney. Your premise is that we can only protect ourselves by taking actions outside our laws. You claim that we either can be unsafe and lawful or safe and take unlawful actions. You are wrong. We can protect ourselves from future attack and stay true to our values; if not, we become our enemy, and no different from those we fight.

[afgail]

It is almost over for Cheney. He would do well to flee the country before he is charged and hauled off to prison.

[solvseus]

Where's he going to go? Many of them want him in prison more than we do.

[ebanks84]

I HOPE WE DON'T RELEASE ANOTHER MEMO.

And I hope he squirms in his pants everytime he demands that they be released. It's about time this man NOT get what he wants. He didn't give us nothing so why should we give him anything. Make him sweat!

[ProudAmerican23]

Yes! Lets release everything we know to everyone!. Then lets post a list of the duration of questions we can ask them. Lets extend this to our US Jails and Prisons too. Next we will make everything available to everyone before they show up in court. Publicize the records from the NSA, CIA and FBI too.

Or maybe we oughta think this thing thru a bit longer and determine if he just might have a valid reason... Oh maybe a reason like NATIONAL SECURITY.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

Here again the premise of the comment is wrong. First, we no longer use the techniques in question, so publishing memos about their use does no harm; second, the comment assumes that our enemies did not already know about waterboarding, and absurd idea; and third, you equate torture with national security. That idea is discredited on multiple fronts: the military, former CIA FBI directors, former Secretaries of State and the soldiers actually doing the deed all agree that torture does not work; but even if it were effective, that would not justify its use. If you believe that any action is justified in the name of national security, you have given up the very rights you think you value so highly.

[Rocklyn]

Once we begin waterboarding the enemy how long before the authorities feel it is okay to waterboard Americans who are arrested for crimes? Once we begin waterboarding Americans who commit crimes how long before we begin pulling out the fingernails of captive terrorists? Once we begin pulling out their fingernails how long before we begin pulling out the fingernails of Americans accused of bank robbery, embezzlement, or kidnapping. There are already a large number of right wingers who would advocate torture of American citizens arrested for suspicion - especially if they were black, or brown, or yellow, or poor. But then one day, their kid grabs a car for a joyride and gets cought and all of a sudden its their kid with his kneecaps gone and his testicles crushed. but they never see that day coming, they never do.

[ProudAmerican23]

Quote - "There are already a large number of right wingers who would advocate torture of American citizens arrested for suspicion - especially if they were black, or brown, or yellow, or poor."

Really??? Do you know any? Read this in the Nat Enquire? Heard it for a cousins friend who know this guy who got it from a reliable source in the government right?

Psst... I heard that there was a large number of liberals who would declare the death penality unconstitutional, then put in express lanes for 14 year olds to get abortions. "Im sorry Sally your only 15 and I cant give you a tattoo without your parents consent... However you can get that inconvenent fetus your carrying, sucked out your *$#@ - right across the street for just $99 You see the irony in your comment yet?

[SJBrown]

"...Yet he did not, because he believed to his core in the value of laws in a nation struggling to come into existence on the principles of inalienable rights for its citizens..­."

Well, except those enslaved Africans. But they weren't citizens so they don't count, right?

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

An excellent point. That our founding fathers accepted slavery is a horrible blight on our history, and their actions concerning slavery are immoral, unethical and ugly at every level. No doubt about that. They knew it was wrong, and yet supported the institution anyway. So we have a choice now as we evaluate their words and actions. We can rightly condemn everything they did because of their support for slavery, and such a perspective is easily justified and reasonable. Clearly everything our slave owning founders said about human rights and equality is steeped in hypocrisy, and so can be dismissed as empty rhetoric. So perhaps you are right we can not use them as examples of upholding principles of human decency - a reasonable debate. But I would not use their flaws, either, to justify today using our ends to justify our means.

[JillQ]

Be careful in finding fault with our Founding Fathers. They are oft quoted, and sometimes misquoted, when defending our "Judeo-Christian" Constitution. As with the point of this article, General Washington followed the law. Unfortunately, slavery was the law as well.

[Jeff Schweitzer - Huffpost Blogger]

True, but the founders themselves created those very laws, so the argument is a little weak in this case. But that does not diminish, as I was trying to imply, that Washington's adherence to the rule of law, however flawed, sets an important example that we would benefit from today. Concerning finding fault with our founders, I think an honest evalution of who they were and what they did is the only way to truly understand the genius of their collective accomplishment, blemishes and all. No matter what, we simply can't ignore the fact that they were slave owners -- that reality has to be addressed.

[grooveygrover]

If "our" means justifies "our" end, doesn't that mean that "their" means justifies "their" end?
the end justifies the means is such a stupid argument
how did we ever devolve into the Bush/Cheney years

[jakiew]

they stole the elections, rigged machines and disenfranchised voters in democrat areas. they should be in jail for that also.

[Kaves]

You cant count on the best future unless you build towards it with the best bricks.

Thanks for the article. If only our leaders today had the principles of the founders. As is obvious from their warnings, our current government has become the oppressive kind they were rebelling against.

[salamanca1]

And Washington's principled stand survives in our armed forces, every one of which protested the torture directives, not to mention the F.B.I., whose business is debriefing criminals.

[Matthew Johnstone]

Except Nietzsche, Machiavelli, and Rand. They TOTALLY thought the ends justified the means. Twice.

[IndianaJoyce]

I can't imagine very many people using any of these individuals as role models for virtue, except maybe far right-wing Republicans.

[dynwitch]

They might use those guys as role models, except for the fact that most of them have never read anything beyond USA Today or Sports Illustrated.

[Donnat]

Rove used Machiavelli and there was recently a renewed interest in Ayn Rand. The GOP have been brainwashed to believe all of their evil is 'good' or at least 'justifiable' because they've cloaked themselves with the veil of "Christians"

If I read it in a book, I wouldn't have believed it, but I've seen it with my own eyes for the last 20 y ears.

[tdougherty101]

"it's not about who they are. It's about who we are". ... John McCain

[freethinkergirl]

"The notion that any means can be justified by an appropriate end has been discredited throughout human history. All major ethical theories from Socrates and Plato to Hume to Kant universally reject the idea."

All the way to Reagan:

"BY GIVING ITS ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION OF THIS CONVENTION, THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES WILL DEMONSTRATE UNEQUIVOCALLY OUR DESIRE TO BRING AN END TO THE ABHORRENT PRACTICE OF TORTURE".

RONALD REAGAN

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was signed by Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead on April 18, 1988, at the United Nations. The United States became the 63d nation to sign the convention, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 1984 and entered into force on June 26, 1987, after it was ratified by 20 nations.

Somehow Bush/Cheney et .al. think their convoluted interpretation of the Rule of Law and treaties will not be prosecuted??? Talk about being in denial....­........it will take a long time for the US to recover from these criminals and get our footing and reputation back in the world.

[ringeroo]

A country that gives up Freedom for Security has neither Freedom or Security..­...Frankli­n, right?

[Wotopian]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin