THE BLOG

Abomination

05/28/2009 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

An abomination is defined as anything greatly disliked or abhorred: a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc. For the purpose of this article I will accept that torture is illegal in the United States and violates international laws. Torture is indeed an abomination.

Former Vice President Cheney is shamefully claiming that enhanced interrogation methods [torture] yielded positive results in obtaining information that protected our homeland. It is an incredible assertion coming from someone sworn to uphold the laws of our country as well as our Constitution.
What he might have said was the truth: WE BROKE THE LAW, BUT LOOK WHAT WE FOUND OUT.

How dare he say what he does?

What would have been said if he and our President had incarcerated all criminal suspects in our country and claimed a year later it was acceptable to have done so because there was a measurable decrease in criminal activity in our country?

Vice President Cheney would have been proud that our nation incarcerated many thousand Japanese Americans during the second World War. He could then say that it was because of those detentions that there was no sabotage committed by a Japanese national in our country. Adding, it is apparent that this proved the reasonableness of our actions in incarcerating those Japanese nationals.

We have Constitutional guarantees which are not to be violated for the sake of expediency. Sadly we have seen these guarantees abandoned. What Cheney is doing to defend his position is what has been done by so many for so long: an intentional attempt to "change the subject". The issue is certainly not whether torture "works" but rather its legality! Of course there is also the issue of our "humanity."

In my marriage as well as my corporate life one of the most useful "tools" was the ability to surreptitiously change the subject whenever unwilling to confront the issue directly. This "skill set" is most handy when confronted by your wife or management with proof about your own transgressions, whatever they happen to be. It is as a rule simple, as well as the best course of action, to change the subject by discussing the person making the argument instead of discussing reasons to believe or disbelieve the conclusion. At times it is practical to cite authorities who agree with your position even if you have made them up.

When cornered, it is always appropriate to: Attack the person who is accusing you of a transgression. Never attempt to defend your position. Here is an example. Your wife says; "You never take out the garbage." Your reply is "Darling, would you like to go to Las Vegas next week?" If that does not work accuse her mother of something or other.

In conclusion, is it reasonable to call the former Vice President and President Bush Fascists? They did control a governmental system and they were desirous of having complete power, while suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism. I think so. And, they used the action of "terrorists" as their justification for violating our laws and abrogating our Constitution.

Fascism works on a level in that as a rule the trains run on time.

Good Grief!