Wrangling the Angler: Part Two

Today: Part two of my thoughts regarding the legacy of Vice Presidential power and Dick Cheney, focusing on the VP’s efforts to expand Presidential authority in dealing with “enemy combatants”:

1. Regarding John C. Yoo’s assertion that the “CIA guys” were going to have real difficulties getting “actionable intelligence” from detainees: Welcome to war, Mr. Yoo. I’m sure if you took a poll of every military leader who has commanded troops during war, they would probably tell you that “actionable intelligence” is always difficult to come by, especially through direct questioning of POWs. It’s a wonder America ever won a war prior to contemplating Yoo’s (and Cheney’s) “robust” solution to the “intelligence problem”. The reality is that torturing a German colonel during WWII probably yielded more “actionable intelligence” than torturing some suspected terrorist plucked from some foreign city or mosque (pick a city! we’ve done it all over the world!), as such men followed a chain of command and thus followed something that resembled a paper trail. Is Yoo (or Cheney) aware that certain members of the September 11^th terrorist troupe had no idea the plan was to fly the planes into the building? No, because clearly they haven’t read the 9/11 Commission Report. If they had, and were truly interested in preventing future terrorist acts, they might have learned that, unless you were willing to sequester and detain people who hadn’t even committed a crime yet, that “robust” methods could have hardly prevented such an act. The fact that America held to the Geneva Convention while battling the biggest bad of them all (Hitler), should be a lesson in and of itself.
2. Regarding The Post’s assertion that “the VP’s office played a central role in shattering the limits on coercion of prisoners in US custody”: Cheney talks a lot about removing obstacles to the presidents power, but it is becoming abundantly clear that the only person in the executive office who seeks to actually wield those powers (much like the clumsy young King Arthur in the classic Disney epic The Sword and the Stone) is the VP himself, as many of Cheney’s “initiatives” seem to be implemented in “closed door” sessions. Closed door apparently meaning: lock the door to the Oval Office and say, ‘regardless of what he says don’t let Him out until we’re done here. If he gives you crap, give him this O’Douls.
3. Regarding the assertion that Cheney has managed his office through “thoroughgoing secrecy, persistence of focus, tactical flexibility in service of fixed aims and close knowledge of the power map of government”: All aspects we hope a VP learns during their tenure as VP, which, in theory, would ideally, make him a better candidate for the presidency in the next election (ah… idealism). The fact that, from day one, Cheney has demonstrated such skills says more about what he wanted to do once in the White House to advance his own interests, as opposed to those of President Bush. Whether Bush had any ideas of his own about what he wanted to do as President, we may never know.
4. Regarding James A. Baker III’s assessment that Cheney has been “pretty damn good at accumulating power, extraordinarily effective and adept at exercising power”: If by “effective” he means the implementation of policies detrimental to the international reputation of the United Stated…then, yes. Very effective. If he means “effective” as in advancing the ideals of America as (hopefully) a responsible super-power wary of bullying and hesitant to throw its weight around regarding issues that keep decent people up at night…then, no. It’s one thing to covet money in America, which is, after all, the American dream. It is another thing to covet power. History has never been kind to power mongers.
5. Regarding Cheney’s claim last fall that we “don’t torture” and the opinion of Assistant Attorney General, Jay S. Bybee, that the definition of torture means “…suffering equivalent in intensity to the pain of organ failure…or even death”: Let’s look at that again. According to Cheney and his (few) allies in the Justice Department, torture is not torture unless it involves “organ failure” or “even death”. Generally, the consensus of your average upstanding citizen is that at that point (again, “organ failure…or even death”), it is, quite simply, murder. So, let me get this straight: It’s not “technically” torture unless we murder them? Got it.
6. Regarding the VP’s lawyers claim that “the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line into torture” and that “laws forbidding any person to commit torture do not apply to the commander in chief”, because Congress “may no more regulate the President’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield”: Who are we talking about here? Ulysses S. Grant? Eisenhower? We’re talking about (traditionally) Ivy League educated children of privilege who’ve run hard and fast from armed combat their entire lives. Bush senior was the last president who was actually in combat, and that was more than a generation ago. The chances that a future president might actually command men into battle, riding horseback while saber waving across a battle field, are about as likely as Haley’s Comet actually hitting earth its next go round—it could happen, but nobody seriously thinks it will happen during their lifetime. But this language is pretty specific. Torture is still a crime, and those in the armed services who would implement it run the risk of facing criminal prosecution (see: Abu Ghraib), however the President retains the right to use torture as a “intelligence gathering tool”. So, legally, we’re at the point that the President himself has the right to, personally, waterboard detainees, something phrat-boy Bush no doubt found…awesome. Okay, that was catty. Bush, to our knowledge, has yet to be seen in Eastern Europe or Guantanamo with a steel pail full of cold water. The President should be grateful Cheney took the lead regarding this executive privilege, a power Cheney apparently wields in service of a branch in which he claims he is not a member. Somewhere, a monkey jumps up and down on a musical box while clapping a tiny pair of cymbals.
7. Regarding John C. Yoo’s, on Aug. 1 2002, signing off on a secret opinion approving waterboarding, a form of near drowning that the U.S. government has prosecuted as a war crime since at least 1901 as “lawful”, as well as a long list of approved interrogation techniques that, thankfully, drew the line at burying a prisoner alive: John C. Yoo… is a douche bag.
8. Regarding John C. Yoo’s feelings that “only the CIA should do this” but that people at the White House and DOD (Rumsfield’s former right hand man) “felt differently”: John C. Yoo... is a huge douche bag.
9. Regarding the fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice learned of the torture memo for the first time on June 8, 2004 by reading about it in The Washington Post, two years after its creation: History records Colin Powell’s previous response to news that detainees would be denied legal counsel as, “What the hell just happened?” There is no record of Powell’s exact words upon hearing about the two-year old torture memo, but one can hypothesize, so allow me to completely fabricate, “Fuck. Me. Thosemotherfuckers…” How should we regard the integrity of Bush staff members who were in powerful positions but clearly were unaware of events being played off-stage under their noses, ala Powell and Rice? Perhaps we should let history decide, and, in several years, ask ourselves this question: who stayed?
10. Regarding the fact that, according to Powell, Rice vociferously admonished Alberto Gonzales (one of the architects) regarding the secret torture memo, insisting that there would be no other secret memos or she would be forced to take the matter “directly to the president”: Decrying that you intend to take executive matters concerning executive rights and powers directly to the executive himself if certain people don’t “straighten up”, is just… bizarre. Somewhere, a monkey, exhausted from banging his tiny cymbals, is fed a fresh banana and sucks spring water from a baby bottle.
11. Regarding the fact that former deputy White House counsel, Timothy Flannigan, claimed that Cheney’s general counsel, David S. Addington, beat back proposals to allow detainees counsel because “that was the position of his client, the vice president”: The fact that Cheney would use his personal counsel, or that his lawyer would engage in lawyer speak while discussing issues outside of the courtroom, in essence, closed door debates with the Justice Department, illustrates disturbingly pathological behavior, as if the alleged suspects involvement with suspected terrorism were somehow a personal and legal affront against the VP, and that disagreements over the treatment of combatants should resemble the judge’s chamber of a civil suit. Only in this courtroom there is no judge to play arbitrator.
12. Regarding Rumsfeld’s “emphatic” order to senior subordinates that “the VP had the lead on this issue” of interrogations: Really? I have my constitution right here and I’m pretty sure that the president should be the “lead” on these things, followed by the Secretary of Defense? Hmm, doesn’t say much about the VP… I guess it’s just another example of thinking along the lines of what you can get away with rather than where you’ll draw the line (see yesterday’s post) Besides, where is the precedent on the VP taking the “lead” on an issue as central to national security as the treatment of terrorists? Is this an example of the President being out to lunch and unable to handle such decision, thus making Cheney, the senior executive member the link to the President, the person reluctantly responsible for making these decisions? But, wait… According to Cheney, he’s not part of the executive branch! Are we in the midst of a historical revolution? Has the executive branch, like say, Verizon, begun to outsource executive powers to people willing to do the job for less money? Somewhere, a monkey poops into a green canvas bag and resumes banging his tiny cymbals.
13. Regarding the numerous Supreme Court rulings against the President’s ability to detain detainees without counsel as well as attempts to extend presidential power, and Flannigan’s claim that “ironically” Cheney’s “crowd pushing the envelop on presidential power have resulted in the president having less powers than he would have had they made less extravagant, monarchial claims”: That loud cracking sound you hear is the sound of at least a dozen Justice Department lawyers and officials (including John Ashcroft), slamming their heads against solid oak. Ironically, a department fully prepared to take on terrorists in the courtroom finds themselves, as well as the executive, more restrained than ever. I hear the ACLU is planning a parade.
14. Regarding a former White House ally who claims that nobody cares less about their image than Dick Cheney: While holding public office, care of one’s image is not a sign of weakness, but instead, a trait of humanity, in essence, a worry for ones soul. Martin Luther King Jr. (by way of St. Augustine) claimed that a “just law” elevated mankind and that an “unjust law” degraded and humiliated mankind. Thus mankind’s view of laws that would be enacted by politicians should always be considered. How the public views your job performance should absolutely be considered (maybe not the deciding factor, but an interest should be shown). We should applaud elected leaders who work against a slim majority view that is detrimental to our moral fabric (segregation), but fear those who would work against humanity by not considering them at all. If someone doesn’t care what people think about them, then they don’t care about people in general.
15. Regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling rejecting the claim of “implicit legislative consent” that Bush was using to justify electronic surveillance without a warrant: The legislative being Congress, “implicit consent” sounding a lot like something you would hear bandied about during a rape trial. This not hyperbole. This is truth. The definitive example during the Bush administration of “checks and balances”, and the judicial branch stepping in a restraining an executive branch who would seek to bypass the legislate in establishing laws and at the same time put itself above and beyond the courts. Thank you, founding fathers!
16. Regarding the confession of Australian citizen David Hicks (the second detainee brought to Guantanamo), who confessed to providing “material support” to terrorists after six years in jail without representation, and who, while in prison, was beaten regularly and sodomized by captors, in addition to experiencing sensory deprivation and forcibly fed disorientating drugs, and the governments reduction of its initial sentence of 20 years in prison (including time served) to 9 months, conditional only if Hicks agreed to affirm, on a legal document, that he had “never been illegally treated”: Hey, who hasn’t confessed to providing “material support” while being sodomized?
17. Regarding Bush’s statement that he would like to “close Guantanamo”: If by “close” Bush meant “keep open until the very last days of my presidency” (i.e., when a new administration will have to deal with the fallout of denied trials and released detainees, both in political and in terrorist circles), the President is right on schedule.
18. Regarding the Post’s claim that, more than a year after the McCain sponsored law placing restrictions on the questioning of terrorists, two officials cite the VP as deadlocking the debate regarding how far CIA interrogators can go during an interrogation: How does the President allow the VP to deadlock a debate that has made it way through Congress and the Supreme Court? Who, exactly, is in charge? Somewhere, a monkey puts down his tiny cymbals, reaches back into his green canvas bag for a handful of poop, and flings it at a young boy dressed in a sailor suit eating chocolate ice-cream on a waffle cone.
19. Regarding former favorite Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson’s, assertion that Cheney views waterbording as a “no-brainer” and that the VP feels very strongly about these things, and it’s his great virtue and his weakness”: It’s such a relief that Cheney “feels strongly” about such things, especially considering how strongly Lenin felt about peasants.