Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Shifting rationales

One of the surest signs of deception is a shifting rationale. Sullivan spots such a shift in Cheney's defense of torture:

One statistic has finally broken through the Orwellianisms, like the Abu Ghraib photographs tore off the lid of the Cheney mode of war. Hence the shift in the argument. We don't torture. We don't torture. We don't torture. Let's move on. Look: it worked.

Indeed, Cheney is now advocating that the US declassify the results from torture, so that he can start openly making the case for torture on the merits. Which is pretty cynical, actually, since he and others were opposed to Obama releasing the OLC torture memos on national security grounds. Wouldn't it also be compromising national security to release this information, as well? And if it wouldn't compromise national security to release this information, why wasn't it released a long time ago? How is it that something can be legitimately classified for national security purposes if you can go ahead and declassify it at your convenience, when doing so benefits you politically?

No comments: