« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
How Cheney Turned A Right-Wing Meme Mainstream
It looks like we've figured out what Dick Cheney meant when he said President Obama has "reserved unto himself" the right to order enhanced interrogation techniques.
In February the Wall Street Journal reported (sub. req.) :
CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his first meeting with reporters, said the agency will continue to carry out drone attacks on militants in Pakistan. He also said that while CIA interrogations will have new limits, President Barack Obama can still use his wartime powers to authorize harsher techniques if necessary....
On interrogations, Mr. Panetta said he believes the CIA can be effective if it limits itself to the 19 techniques the military is allowed to use. He said the administration is evaluating the effectiveness of so-called enhanced interrogation tactics such as waterboarding and will make recommendations to the president on what techniques should be allowed. In the interim, only the 19 techniques will be used.
During his confirmation hearing, Panetta said something similar under questioning from Sen. Kit Bond:
SEN. BOND: All right. The recent executive order ensuring lawful interrogations currently allows no flexibility for interrogating terrorists using techniques outside the Army Field Manual. Have you been briefed by General Hayden on his view that interrogation techniques listed in the Army Field Manual or in other media are not and will not be effective in obtaining critical information from well-informed, hardened and bright HVTs who have access to a description of these techniques?MR. PANETTA: I have not. Again, there is a review process that's built into that executive order that I am going to be a part of that will look at those kinds of enhanced techniques to determine how effective they were or weren't and whether any appropriate revisions need to be made as a result of that.
SEN. BOND: I would hope you would.
Conservatives have been jumping up and down ever since Panetta made that statement, arguing that it proves there's no distinction between the Bush and Obama administrations on torture. Sen. Lindsey Graham asked former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan about a similar comment Panetta made in which he said that in a ticking time-bomb scenario, it would be OK to do everything possible within the law to prevent an attack. (In response, Soufan noted the "within the law" caveat.)
And now it looks like, by slipping it into his high-profile speech, Cheney has taken that right-wing meme and tried to turn it mainstream.
Of course, reviewing whether such it might be appropriate to allow such techniques is not quite the same as Obama "reserv[ing] unto himself" the right to use them. But like we said, Cheney's never been big on nuance.
Josh
Zachary
Wait a minute... You believe that Cheney saying something makes it mainstream???? Now, THAT's a scary proposition.
May 21, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Power of Nightmares
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ
May 22, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sad..... but this is about the only thing I have EVER agreed with Cheney about.
ALL presidents, including Obama are now getting a green light to slide down that slippery slope of torture, illegal wars, discarding the constitution, etc..
The very act of NOT prosecuting, NOT punishing, NOT passing new laws regulating and prohibiting the president from committing such acts leaves open ALL future and presidents the ability to act just like this last administration!!!
Perhaps Obama... or the next president may not decied to duplicate these acts, but neither are they being prohibited from doing so if they change their minds...
And the rationale?
the precedent is being set right now for this occurring down the line... whenever our leaders so desire... IMHO
May 21, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALL presidents, including Obama are now getting a green light to slide down that slippery slope of torture, illegal wars, discarding the constitution, etc..
This is not a new behavior on the part of the U.S. government. It's been going on for the last 100 years. The only difference is that information is much more widely disseminated now. But just because people are aware of our government's many crimes against humanity does not mean anything will change anytime soon.
To mash-up Pete Townsend and David Byrne:
Meet the new boss/same as the old boss
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
May 21, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
100 years? Hell, try 200 years!
(sorry about repeat below)
May 21, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The very act of NOT prosecuting, NOT punishing, NOT passing new laws regulating and prohibiting the president from committing such acts leaves open ALL future and presidents the ability to act just like this last administration!!!"
That's why we have impeachment.
May 21, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be very clear on what Cheney actually called for today. He said that the US should not only keep Gitmo open but that we should make Torture a American Accepted Policy that should continue to be used as a matter of SOP. After a hour of channel flipping I have yet to see a single person in the Media come close to mentioning this.
May 21, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
100 years? Hell, try 200 years!
May 21, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey if nobody prosecutes the Bush administration for breaking the law, lying about it and then when caught boasting about breaking the law in the first place... well then if the President (or anyone who works for him) does it, it's effectively not illegal.
Cheney's lying though his teeth about Obama reserving the right to torture, but he's essentially correct.
May 21, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugly and dark... this is why we must not 'move forward/forget about it' and we must hold everyone involved accountable.
The protection of law is ours to lose if we don't fight for it.
May 21, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can dance and parse, jump and set off firecrackers; but in the end to not prosecute these criminals is to validate their behavior.
May 21, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's think rationally about this. You have Darth Cheney himself and all his coterie bleating about how torture works. That leaves a blank check for any future president that wants to reverse Obama's Executive Order saying it was only political considerations that caused Obama to stop the abominable practices.
All the experts are saying this doesn't work, so lets come out with an official report, nail the coffin shut, stake it through the heart, pour holy water on it, and bury it 15 feet underground. This will also allow us to formally shut up Wu, Cheney, Gonzalez, and any other freak who gets his jollies torturing people.
May 21, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What concerns me is that as reported in the WSJ, the Obama WH did NOT repudiate completely the option to torture, and that he has continued to pursue Bush-era policies in Afghanistan and Iraq!!
May 22, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, did you not read the speech he gave yesterday? It shouldn't be that hard to find as it got at least some coverage in one or two obscure corners of the online and traditional media.
And whatever you might feel about Iraq and Afghanistan, saying he's "continuing the Bush policies" is simply not true.
May 22, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's backed off from the withdrawal timetable for Iraq, and escalated bombing in Afghanistan. How is that *not* continuation of Bush's "war" policies?
May 23, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key issue is recognizing torture actions are illegal. There may be some situations where you deem torture necessary, but you are willing to face the consequences. I am sure this is what Obama means. Does Cheney? It would be useful for more nuance from reporters.
May 22, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The key issue is recognizing torture actions are illegal."
Yes, and if you never prosecute anyone for them, the laws on the books outlawing torture have no meaning.
The September 2006 revision of the Army Field Manual allows torture in Appendix M. The idea articulated by Panetta that the CIA could go beyond that simply with presidential authorization is just another reflection of the failure of anyone in the Obama administration to acknowledge that torture is already ILLEGAL; it's not a policy choice.
Obama saying that we're not going to do this anymore makes it sound as if it's his choice, not the law.
When laws are broken this massively and there are no prosecutions*, then how is the message supposed to get across to Americans that it is illegal?
*Other than for the scapegoat grunts at the bottom.
Until these officials are prosecuted, torture will remain functionally a policy choice rather than a crime:
Dick Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Jim Haynes, Geoffrey Miller, George Tenet, John Rizzo, David Bybee, Steven Bradbury.
May 22, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh's preparatory piece in anticipation of Cheney's mouthing off yesterday was the only thing that placated me psychologically last night to a sufficient extent that I merely walked around my apartment shouting "STFU", etc., at the TV repeatedly rather than throwing my shoe at it. Why is this asshole still being handed a mike? Put him in jail already.
May 22, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason Axelrod didn't specifically rebut Cheney's allegations, IMO, is probably because the administration hopes to avoid giving fuel to the real Republican strategy right now, which is this: Preempt any possible investigation or prosecution of Cheney for his role in the Bush administration's torture policies by casting Cheney in the role of political irritant to the Obama administration.
The press is eating it up right now, and even TPM to some extent has been, but every story about Obama and Cheney "trading bards" or their "dueling speeches" helps to establish the narrative that Cheney is politically inconveniencing President Obama or that Cheney is still a credible political actor.
Obviously, if Cheney can successfully cast himself as a legitimate political adversary of the Obama administration, any investigation into Cheney's role in authorizing the use of torture to elicit false confessions and other unreliable information to further specific policy aims, would more easily be delegitimized as mere partisan politics.
So far, with the help of anyone who takes Cheney seriously in anyway on torture, the strategy may be working.
May 22, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops. "trading bards" --> "trading barbs"
(although the first is more poetic.)
May 22, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that Lee Oswald really was in the lunch room drinking a soft drink when JFK was murdered?
Could it be that Fed. agents directed the '93 TC bombing?
Could it be that there really were inside explosions in the OKC Federal Building?
Could it be that there were no hijackers on any of the planes(as the absence of any of their names on any flight manifests indicates)?
Could it be that this entire questioning process of terrorists is just an experiment to be used against U.S. Citizens at some future fascist time, and is really just a ruse?
Just asking.
May 24, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're trying to imply that my suggestion that a career politician might be jockeying for the most advantageous political position = conspiracy theorizing, the self-evident stupidity of the conclusion seriously undermines the thrust of your argument (and it also doesn't help your case much that you don't actually offer a counter-argument).
May 26, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink