Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Cheney Family Torture Excuses: No Ends, No Justifications

 

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Chad Rubel

The woman who stole the bread to feed her family: This is the classic justification for committing an illegal act, after all, there was a greater good. Rosa Parks refusing to move from the front of the bus: another classic justification for committing an illegal act.

Then we have Dick Cheney saying, essentially, we committed torture and it was okay because it worked.

Uh, we have a problem.

Liz Cheney defended her father almost as well as he defended himself this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe (see video above). But it does become troubling for a defense when few without the last name of Cheney can try and justify these practices. And Liz Cheney's defense is as flimsy if not more so than her father's. She even used the waterboard training on our own troops to justify the United States' waterboarding.

Eugene Robinson was on the program as well, though the MSNBC folks let her completely dominate the conversation. But Robinson was able to freely weigh in on this issue in today's column.

This is the crux of Cheney's "argument," and I put the word in quotation marks because it isn't really a valid argument at all. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration approved programs and methods that previously would have been considered illegal or unacceptable: arbitrary and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, waterboarding and other abusive interrogation methods, secret CIA prisons, unprecedented electronic surveillance. Since 2001, there have been no new attacks on what the Bush administration creepily called the "homeland." Therefore, everything that was done in the name of preventing new attacks was justified.

The fallacy lies in the fact that it is impossible for Cheney to prove that anti-terrorism methods within the bounds of U.S. law and tradition would have failed to prevent new attacks. Nor, for that matter, can Cheney demonstrate that torture and other abuses were particularly effective.

To stretch the opening analogy, we can't prove there was a family for the intended loaf of bread. It's one thing to say "the ends justify the means," but without ends, means are left hanging in the breeze.

Wanda Sykes made a relevant observation during her routine at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner Saturday night.

Dick Cheney is trying to defend torture, trying to defend torture. They should release the memos that show all that good information we got from our practices. You can't defend torture. That's like me robbing a bank and then going in front of the judge and saying, "Yes, your honor, I robbed the bank, but look at all these bills I paid."

Sykes is not an expert, but like so many comedians of the day, she points out the kernel of truth that you can justify just about anything, valid or not.

There is this sinking feeling among a certain percentage of the population, some of whom watch "24," that torture was justified because it "worked." We know rationally that, as a defense, torturing because it worked is still wrong, deeply wrong. But sadly, we are in the midst of the court of public opinion.

This particular audience would appreciate the fact that torture had a negative impact, potential or otherwise, on our fighting soldiers. Increasing potential harm to our brave fighting men and women is something that will upset those who seem to think torture ultimately was good.

But in the jingoistic element, the story is simple -- we are at war, they have the information, waterboard, waterboard, waterboard, haven't been attacked since. The truth is much more complex, extremely disturbing, and way more accurate.

The flip side of why torture doesn't work is false information. Even those who don't believe in paranoia or conspiracies have to wonder about the timing of the apparent suicide this week of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi in a Libyan jail cell. According to Senate investigators, al-Libi was the unnamed source behind Bush Administration claims of Iraq providing chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qaeda.

In February 2004, al-Libi recanted his story. When you read the description of what they did to "get the information" from him, you might be willing to say almost anything, even that Hannah Montana's songs are pretty good.

And if you have to wonder how much damage was caused by torture, the false information led to an unjustified war with over 4,000 U.S. casualties and more than a million Iraqi civilian deaths.

When you uncover the truth, all the truth, even all the memos Dick Cheney wants revealed, the ends aren't going to justify the means. The means are going to be much worse than we thought and the ends just aren't there, justified or not.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS




Oh, how I would love to see

That miserable bastard pissing his pants when a sentence of life without parole is handed down at his trial!

It's all so very simple: No

It's all so very simple:

No WMD in Iraq + No connection between 9/11 and Iraq = torture someone until they tell us what we need to hear in order to wage the war we want.

2 + 2 does indeed equal four.

Since we're a nation of laws, we won't simply waterboard Cheney until he admits this. It wouldn't be admissible in court!

But by his own reasoning, especially since what he did was profoundly treasonous and resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths, we should.

It's Hard to Have a Crazy Daddy!

I feel compassion for Liz Cheney because she feels compelled to defend her crazy dad! (It is hard to have a mentally ill parent.) And, let there be no doubt, this man is a full-blown delusional paranoid. I have thought so for years, but after reading about his fear of being (or having been) poisoned after 9/11, I am convinced. All of those disappearances into "undisclosed locations" turn out to be attempts to escape further poisoning! I wish the MSM would address Cheney's paranoia and his "fear of fear," instead of treating his outbursts as sane policy utterances! They aren't!! He is not the first mentally ill person to hold high office. But he certainly is the most irksome!!!!

That's fine, keep fanning the controversy . . .

Ironically, Cheney's insistence on his innocence keeps the torture debate on the forefront and adds to the demands of the program being more thoroughly examined. I hope cojones win out over appeasement, but I'm rather cynical in my hoping.

I have a different 'irony'---

---and that irony is that the "classic" scenario, as you may recall, requires a number of things: 1. a ticking timebomb 2. hidden in a major city 3. about to go off 4. a luckey catch of a person involved who knows all of the above 5. a luckey thing to have an intellegence system able to locate and identify #4 soon enough 6. luckey to have the time to find out the enfo needed, and the time needed to "torture it out" And most important of all 7. time to relay the info to Superman so he can streak to the site at the speed of a bullet (or faster) so he can grab the item and streak to the upper sky and send it into space. The irony is that this whole tangle can be ripped from the comic books of the 1940's, resold to the gullible population as feasible, and have it replayed over and over as logical sense. I read the comics of the 40's and it was jerkey enough then to laugh at and here we are in the 2000's swolling it whole. The ironey is that this population is bonkers and we "torture" to prove it.