Cheney's dishonor

Over the last couple of days there has been a lot of indignant commentary like this:

The former vice president, the man who imported torture into the American constitutional system, failed to capture bin Laden, invaded a country under false pretenses, allowed the Afghanistan campaign to disintegrate, and added $5 trillion to the next generation's debt burden, is attacking a sitting president on a day he announces a critical military strategy in front of his troops.

It is, again, a breathtaking piece of dishonor from this bitter, angry man.

What's puzzling about it is that I don't quite understand why the mere act of "attacking a sitting president" should be considered so dishonorable. People seem to think there's some unwritten rule that says that former Presidents and Vice Presidents shouldn't weigh in on partisan political issues, but even if this is an unwritten rule, I fail to see what the benefit of it is, or why it's such a bad thing to break it. Certainly I wouldn't have had any problems if Bill Clinton decided to go into attack-dog mode on George W. Bush when he was president--in fact, I probably would have welcomed it.

Just to be clear, Cheney really is a dishonorable man. But this is the case not because he chooses to criticize the President contra some nicety of beltway decorum, but because he has done and believes in morally reprehensible things.

"We're history's actors..."

Some nifty writing from Ezra Klein on Cheney's new role as right-wing gadfly:

Dick Cheney, rather, acts by acting. That is, in a way, his legacy. The simple insight that power need not be popular.... That you don't need to be transparent or well-liked or broadly trusted. What you need is a hand on the levers of power. Let others argue. You can act.

The problem, however, is that if you act alone, your impact is not durable. It can be undone. Cheney didn't build -- didn't even seem interested in building -- consensus around his vision. He forged on even as the public turned angrily against him. In the short-term, that allowed him to avoid significant compromise with the trends in public opinion. In the long-run, it rendered his achievements fragile once they lost their protector.

And so now Cheney is in an unexpected position. He is without agencies to direct or armies to control. But he cannot bear to see his policies unwound. The consummate inside player is forced into an outside game. But there is no outside game. Barack Obama controls the levers of power. And no one knows better than Cheney what that means. It means that Obama can act. All Cheney can do is argue.

He's on the outside now, looking in.

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?

“the most cruel and foul injustice”

That's how Dick Cheney described the indictment of his chief-of-staff Scooter Libby back in 2007.

I think my eye just twitched a little.

Harper's

On the flight to LA I switched things up a bit and picked up a copy of Harper's instead of the Economist (my usual airplane fare). It was okay: a little more literary than the sort of thing I'm used to reading. The increased creative freedom of the writers turned out to be a double-edged sword, because sometimes you'd come across a truly memorable "gag" (as Bertie would call it)--for example, noting that a gambler's eyes had the "watchful opacity" of a security camera--but other times I felt it was just providing rope for the author to hang himself with, as with the not-so-impressive "everybody making out like a bandit with his own designer neckerchief pulled over his nose". That sounds like what I imagine Adbusters is full of.

In any case, there was an interesting article by one Scott Horton that outlines the political dilemmas entailed by prosecuting Bush et al with warcrimes, and how such a process might be designed. Ultimately he recommends a "two-part solution", where an investigative commission is formed in such a way that it enjoys broad public support--and has robust fact-finding powers such as top-level security clearance and supoena power--but that does not have the power to prosecute. Instead, at the end of the investigation it would make a recommendation for a formal prosecution if the facts supported it. From there the government would be in a position to decide if it should appoint a special prosecutor to make a case in the federal courts.

Cowardice at the New York Times

The New York Times editorializes that "top officials" in the Bush administration should be investigated for their role in implementing a torture program, with the possibility of bringing charges--however, it somehow stops short of saying that Cheney and Bush should be held accountable as well:

Now, a bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.

It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America’s standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War.

It's all quite baffling. Why shouldn't Cheney and Bush be investigated along with Rumsfeld and other "top officials"? If the torture programs was somehow carried out without the knowledge or approval of the elected officials in charge, then an investigation should bear that out. And if the elected officials did approve the programs, then they should be held at least as accountable as their underlings, if not more so. It simply does not make sense to believe that we should consider bringing charges against officials as high ranking as the Secretary of Defense, and yet at the same time also believe that the President that Secretary served under should get a free pass.

Of course, the editorial doesn't explicitly state that Cheney and Bush should be exempt--but the omission is glaring. I imagine that there was quite a heated discussion amongst the editorial board about how high to set the target--whether it would be "top officials", or Rumsfeld, or all the way up to Bush. I imagine that they believed, in the end, that calling for the investigation of Bush and his possible arrest for war crimes would be going too far, banishing the paper to the "angry left" and polarizing a debate that can only succeeed if it remains unpolarized. Maybe they're right.

However, at the end of the day, the press isn't doing its job if it refuses to take risks in speaking truth to power when the stakes are highest. I understand that a newspaper can only be persuasive to a large number of people if it remains, by and large, comfortably within the mainstream. But what is the point of saving up all that "persuasion capital" if you don't spend it on something as important as holding an American president responsible for war crimes? Maybe Barack Obama cannot let himself be perceived as trying to take down the soon-to-be ex-President, but there is no reason why the New York Times should have any reticence.

By refusing to "go there", the NYT reinforces the conventional wisdom that to hold President Bush himself accountable for war crimes is outside the mainstream and not a view that Serious People hold. But this conventional wisdom will have to be overturned if America is to even begin to rectify the abuses that have been going on since September 11.

The importance of "intellectual vigor"

As you might have already seen, Colin Powell has given an as eloquent an endorsement of Obama as ever you'll find:



One thing I find very interesting is Powell's emphasis on Obama's intellect: his "intellectual curiosity", his "intellectual vigor". Powell cites these things as key because he knows, more than most, that a President that lacks these qualities is one who can be easily manipulated by a small cadre of advisers with sufficient presidential access. This is, in fact, precisely what occurred in the Bush White House during his tenure as Secretary of State.

Let me relate to you an excerpt from the (excellent) book I'm reading, Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, and you'll have an idea of what I mean:

Afghanistan, like the United States, had signed the Geneva Conventions, but the President's lawyers argued that this was of no conern because the country was now a "failed state".

...

At the State Department, Powell and his legal adviser, William Howard Taft IV [!], fought a rear-guard action against Bush's lawyers and lost. This fierce fight took place almost entirely outside the public's view. In a confidential forty-page memo to [Office of Legal Council lawyer] John Yoo dated January 11, 2002, Taft argued that Yoo's analysis was "seriously flawed." Taft told Yoo that his contention that the President could disregard the Geneva Conventions was "untenable", "incorrect", and "confused." Taft disputed Yoo's argument that Afghanistan, as a "failed state", was not covered by the Conventions. "The official United States position before, during, and after the emergence of the Taliban was that Afghanistan constituted a state," he wrote. Taft also warned Yoo that if the United States took the war on terror outside the Geneva Conventions, not only could U.S. soldiers be denied the protections of the Conventions--and therefore be prosecuted for crimes, including murder--but President Bush could be accused of a "grave breach" by other countries, which would mean he could be prosecuted for war crimes.

...

Taft sent a copy of his memo to [Alberto] Gonzales, hoping that his dissent would reach the President. Within days, Yoo sent Taft a lengthy rebuttal.

...

But Taft's access to the President was no match for that of Cheney, who, as an administration source put it, "always got both the first and last bite of the apple." It remains unclear, in fact, whether anyone ever fully explained the countervailing arguments to President Bush before he signed off on the plan. According to top State Department officials, Bush decided to nullify the Geneva Conventions on January 8, 2002. This was three days before Taft sent his memo to Yoo. Evidently, the State Department was too far out the loop to catch up. [Emphasis mine.]

...

After losing the battle to uphold the Geneva Conventions, Powell concluded that Bush was not stupid but was easily manipulated. A confidant said that Powell thought it was easy to play on Bush's wish to be seen as doing the tough thing and making the "hard" choice. "He has these cowboy characteristics, and when you know where to rub him, you can really get him to do some dumb things. You have to play on those swaggering bits of his self-image. Cheney knew exactly how to push all his buttons," Powell confided to a friend.

Colonel Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, was more scathing. "You can slip a lot of crap over on someone who doesn't read a lot or pay attention to the details if you have no scruples," he said.

[Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side, pp. 122-125.]

So what happened is George W. Bush was given some very radical and unsound advice from a select group of advisers--Dick Cheney, John Yoo, and a few others--and acted on this advice before even seriously entertaining any dissenting arguments. Had Bush taken an interest in the Geneva Conventions or read about them, or had he been pro-active about making sure he has heard all sides of the debate on the issue before issuing a decision, it may well be that the United States never would have abandoned the Conventions.

Undoubtedly, Colin Powell sees Barack Obama's deliberative way of coming to decisions and now-legendary insistence on hearing all sides of an argument as insurance that a President Obama's powers will never be hijacked by a radical faction within his administration. And, just as certainly, he must see John McCain's volatile temperment and impulsive decision-making as antithetical to a properly-functioning Presidency.

PS: Extra props to Powell for going out of his way to reiterate that, not only is Barack Obama not a Muslim, but it is wrong--and un-American--to think that there would be anything wrong with him if he were a Muslim. Also, his story about the Muslim mother weeping at the grave was very powerful, and one I hadn't heard before.

"History will not judge this kindly"

The internets are a-buzz over a big report from ABC News that reveals that people at the highest levels of the Bush administration gave detailed instructions to the CIA as to which methods of torture could be used against detainees:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News....

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding....

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

What's more, even after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke and the Justice Department withdrew what had been the legal sanction for the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e., torture), Rice went ahead and approved the techniques anyway for a suspect being held in Asia:

A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo -- the Golden Shield -- that authorized the program.

But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."

There is absolutely nothing in the ideology or history of American conservatism or the Republican Party that condones the unilateral use of torture by the executive branch of the government. Republicans and Democrats should therefore feel free to unite in their condemnation of the Bush administration's excesses in a way that transcends the partisan squabbles of the moment and re-asserts the American people's basic sense of decency and humanity.