I was reading the Washington Post today and came across the article “The Old Faithful of Nonsense” by Eugene Robinson. In the article, Robinson goes off on the former Vice President on his new life as a television personality and comments Cheney has made regarding CIA interrogation practices. While the article flows well with a mix of imagery about Wyoming and jabs at the Bush Administration, the article does have some context issues that needs to be pointed out.
In the middle of the article, Robinson writes the following:
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.
It is fair to question the legality of some of the interrogation techniques used by the CIA when questioning a few of the terrorists during the war. The Bush Administration sought legal advice on the practices; advice that has recently become the center of debate both in Congress and in Spain. However, the “arbitrary and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects” is a pointless argument.
As in all wars, such as WWII for example, you do not know when the war will end. The detaining power can work with a neutral power to house detainees, but they can also hold the prisoners until the end of hostilities. Since the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are still in progress, the US has the right to detain these terrorists. Efforts have been made to send the captured to their home nations once they are deemed to no longer be a threat. Some have been retained since their home nations do not want the terrorists, or in some cases, we won’t release the detainees since their home nation will torture and/or kill them.
With regards to “secret prisons” and the practice of rendition, this is not new to the United States (or other nations). President Reagan authorized the use of rendition for Fawaz Younis, a Lebanese hijacker associated with the TWA Flight 847 hijacking in 1985. Younis was captured by FBI agents in Cyprus and detained before being flown to the US. Rendition continued to be used in increased manner over the next two decades, with more than 70 reported cases prior to September 11th – much of which occurred under President Clinton. The increased use of rendition by Clinton as a way to combat the growing terrorist threat lead to the creation of the secret prison policy by the CIA, according to former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit Michael Schuler, who served under Clinton from 1996 to 1999.
Continuing with the article, Robinson wrote:
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.
This is a weak argument by Robinson. Cheney could easily counter with “it is impossible for Robinson to prove that anti-terrorism methods within the bounds of U.S. law and tradition would have prevented new attacks,” especially since the 9/11 attacks occurred under existing laws. Additionally, the point that Cheney cannot demonstrate that torture was effective ignores the point that he is trying to make during his numerous television appearances (the ones that Robinson pokes fun at throughout the article). Cheney wants President Obama to release the CIA memos that shows how the interrogation techniques were effective.
Continuing, Robinson says, “Other high-ranking officials from the previous administration, including George W. Bush himself, have had the manners and good sense to follow long-established custom and refrain from attacking the new president and his policies.” Mr. Robinson seems to overlook the criticism President Carter has made during President Bush’s second term. In October 2006, for example, Carter stated, “[The Bush] administration and particularly the vice president and the secretary of defense have, I think, quite often deliberately misled the American people about the danger in Iraq to begin with, the causes for going to war in Iraq, and they have also misled the American people about what is happening in Iraq since we invaded.” If that isn’t an attack on a sitting President and his policy, I don’t know what is.
The last part of the article that I would like to highlight would be the distortion of Cheney’s comment regarding Colin Powell. Robinson wrote, “Schieffer asked him about Rush Limbaugh’s assertion that the Republican Party would be better off if Colin Powell left and became a Democrat. One would think that Cheney would have at least a measure of respect for a longtime colleague with whom he had served in two administrations. But one would be wrong.” He continued, “Given a choice between a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state who has given to his nation a lifetime of exemplary public service or an entertainer who brags about how much money he makes from bombast and bluster, Cheney would go with the gasbag. This is advice that’s supposed to help the Republican Party?” Before I continue, here is the transcript of the exchange:
SCHIEFFER: Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh said the other day that the party would probably be better off if Colin Powell left and just became a Democrat. Colin Powell said Republicans would be better off if they didn’t have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them. Where do you come down?
CHENEY: Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.
SCHIEFFER: So you think that he’s not a Republican?
CHENEY: I just noted he endorsed the Democratic candidate for president this time, Barack Obama. I assumed that that is some indication of his loyalty and his interest.
The conclusion Robinson made misses the point that Cheney was trying to express. Rush Limbaugh has been a vocal advocate for Republicans for decades. Even though he at time took issue with President Bush and John McCain, he continued to push the Republican message to millions around the nation. On the other hand, Colin Powell left the Bush Administration over disagreements on policies and then announced his support for President Obama prior to the 2008 election. So if Cheney had to choose one of the two people who would better benefit the Republican Party, the obvious choice would be the individual that has remained with the party and advocates for the party. To make an issue of this means the person missed the point being expressed by the former Vice President.
Hopefully this offers some clear context for the article if you decide to read it.
Related articles:
CQ Politics – “CQ Transcript: Former Vice President Cheney on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’”
The Washington Post – “5 Myths About Rendition (and That New Movie)”
Newsmax – “Ex-CIA Big: Bill Clinton Authorized Extralegal Interrogations”
ABC News – “Jimmy Carter Criticizes Bush Administration”
Loading ...
Recent Comments