Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and Dick Cheney

Dan Riehl kindly took the time to exchange a few emails with me on the resurfaced issue of the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques and the Bush Administration’s authorization of those techniques. I think visitors will find the back and forth, especially Dan’s adeptness at presenting an alternate perspective than that generally found on this site, makes for pretty interesting reading.

In the discussion I moderated between yourself and Conor Friedersdorf, you made it pretty clear that you viewed the Iraq War as one of necessity and not choice. Given that view, what is your reaction to the increasing evidence that the Bush Administration, specifically Vice President Dick Cheney, authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in what the Administration termed the War Against Terror?

Fortunately, this doesn’t pose a problem for me. Though I do have only one good cordless, I do have an extra electric drill, or two. So, if the CIA ever runs short, at least they know where to come. Oh, and a Milwaukee Sawz All that really torques – but I’d be hard pressed to part with it, even for such a good cause.

The more serious answer is, I have utmost faith in former VP Cheney to understand and act upon what is the best interests of our country. And that by and large applies to our intelligence community, too. So, I am without concern in this regard, excepting that Obama either can’t control AG Holder, or he is simply looking for a political card to play for some reason. I believe he should be held accountable in either case and tossed out of office in 2012, if not before. But I would certainly not advocate torture, even if I do see him as something of a danger to America.

While you’re not alone in it, that confidence is something many Americans are having a tough time finding given the perceived moral fuzziness around the Administration’s reasoning for going to war and using said tactics. What forms that confidence for you?

I’m not clear upon what it is you base your question. “Many Americans”? How many? What is it that tells you this is a significant concern for “many Americans”? I understand some question it, including those aligned with Obama. But even he said it was time to move forward sometime back and that seemed to be a popular decision for “many Americans”.

I’ve observed Dick Cheney for over two decades. And I also think more has been made of some alleged war on terror tactics by the opposition purely for political purposes. Isn’t that like creating a straw man then using it to launch an attack?

I’ve never known Cheney to do anything to harm this country in those decades, why should I expect that of him now for no reason? He seems to be a loyal, patriotic law abiding American to me. Always has. So, given no evidence to the contrary, the onus should be upoin his critics to tell me why I should mistrust him somehow. And not the reverse.

Well, to haggle a bit, according to this fairly recent Gallup poll, only 37% of Americans have a favorable view of former Vice President Cheney, which is a seven point improvement from March. So it seem fair to conclude that, in fact, a sizable majority of Americans, 63%, have a negative view of former Vice President Cheney.

But to the meat of your response, is it then your contention that if someone is patriotic that they are thereby incapable of doing something wrong or morally unacceptable, even, perhaps, in the name of said patriotism?

One’s popularity doesn’t necessarily equate to distrust. So, while understanding your point, it actually does nothing to suggest anything as to how many Americans might mistrust him in this sense, let alone have deep concerns over any of his actions. Several times Hillary Clinton had rather negative popularity ratings among the people. Are you saying she may have also been torturing people other than her husband in the WH basement because of her poling?

As to the moral question, certainly one can not argue that patriotism is some guard against what some might characterize as immoral behavior. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. Dresden was firebombed by the allies in WW II. Sherman burned his way across Georgia in the Civil War, a war waged by Abraham Lincoln despite the deaths of 600,000 to 700,000 Americans. Were these men immoral? And if not, than why not and why would anything Cheney allegedly deemed appropriate, torture or not, be so, given that no one suggests he ever did anything to kill so many men, women and children as all of the others above?

At most, as I understand it, anything Cheney allegedly endorsed discomforted some likely terrorists and I’ll even grant for purposes of discussion some few may have died. Truman murdered approximately a quarter million mostly innocent civilians in two days with two bombs. Exactly what principle of moral certainty is it that would permit “many Americans” to judge Truman, Sherman or Lincoln American heroes, while also alleging that Cheney is an unprincipled, evil man perhaps potentially guilty of war crimes?

The only answer I can come up with is a sort of moral equivalence, or lack of same, mostly driven by one’s particular political ideology. That’s hardly an American standard of justice. If anything, it’s in fact un-American to do that. So, you’ll have to give me some clear, firm moral standard I can apply to all of the above including Cheney and get your proposed answer. Because I can’t do it based upon anything that might be termed objectivity, fairness, justice or even a simple truth.

Was and is Truman seen as “just” or “moral” simply because he was popular in America at the time and remains so even now? I doubt a quarter million Japanese would agree were they alive to express an opinion. So we’re back to the question of whether or not one’s popularity has anything to do with one’s morality, or being above or under suspicion for something. By that standard, Paris Hilton would be the most moral, trustworthy American living at times over the last decade. So, is that your argument? Or am I missing something here? And, if so, what is it?

Well, each of the decisions you mention were certainly morally controversial, both for their time and, at least in some circles, today. I suppose that one might offer that morally controversial decisions of the past do not absolve morally controversial decisions of the present from scrutiny and that any such decision needs to be considered on its own merits.

In terms of applying a moral argument, one might be inclined to say, and, indeed, some opponents to enhanced interrogation techniques have suggested, that one’s government ought not to make decisions that cause people overt harm if it can reasonably be avoided. If we take that as our applied argument, would you be inclined to think that the techniques authorized by Cheney were, indeed, unavoidable given the surrounding circumstances?

Given that neither you, nor I were aware of all the specific intelligence available that drove the decision to invoke whatever tactics were allegedly employed, what is it you are asking me to judge? On the one hand, you admit to morality being relative, on the other, you want to stake out a position for the sake of debate that wants any relativism removed from the thinking behind a judgement of some kind on Cheney.

Also, your argument for purposes of debate seems to suggest that perhaps neither Lincoln, nor Truman, nor Sherman were genuinely moral men. Do you believe that and is that the basis of your argument that Cheney might have adopted allegedly immoral tactics against terrorists?

I could be wrong, but it seems your position is trapped here to where it has to admit this is all just a matter of opinion. Some might believe that whatever tactics were employed were, in relative terms, fine. Others may find them not so. And there seems to be no axis for the decision making process other than perhaps political alignment, or popularity.

Debating opinions rarely gets anywhere if not done based on pertinent, mutually acknowledged facts. So, again, I’m suggesting that if we could view Truman, Sherman and Lincoln as having engaged in acceptable, even if tremendously harmful, behavior because, relative to the realities, it was the right thing to do, what is different as regards Cheney’s alleged actions?

Given the scale of the actions of the other three men I named, I’m hard pressed to understand why we are even debating Cheney, given that for all we know, the particular sect of terrorists involved here was and is at least interested in securing nuclear weapons and detonating same, say in New York City if they could. Given that potential reality, is anything the CIA is alleged to have done inappropriate, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fine under Truman? See my point?

Other than perhaps some folks not liking Cheney, or finding some tactics he allegedly endorsed somehow unpleasant, I can’t see where you have put forth any solid argument that says Truman was fine, but Cheney went over the top – in either real, or relative terms.

Lastly, doesn’t he almost have to be guilty for the debate to even take place as you’re defining it? I suggest, as per our system of justice, it’s the opposite that should be assumed. So, can you prove Cheney guilty of something given that we weren’t there, don’t know all the facts and realities and never really will? I don’t believe any court ever will, just as they’d never convict a Lincoln or a Truman of anything. In all three cases, we were at war. It seems to me the Left, not meaning you, somehow wants to usurp executive authority here in a manner in which it has never been done in the past, even in the face of the far more deadly and destructive behavior of Lincoln and Truman.

If one is guilty of any crime, than I’d suggest so must be all three if any objective standard of judgment to be employed. And if we can’t do that, then all that we’re left with is an opinion on which well meaning people might disagree.

That’s a fair point about our respective awareness of the specific intelligence available at the time.

As a final question, I wonder, then, given that the average American isn’t likely to ever have access to that type of information due to its sensitivity, does that place citizens in the awkward position of never really knowing whether the actions taken by their government representatives are potentially morally objectionable until much later down the road, at which time rectifying and/or ameliorating those decisions that are deemed morally objectionable becomes much more difficult and if so, is that state of affairs acceptable?

As a follow on, does such a state of affairs, if the description seems accurate, not seem to invite potential abuses regardless of the ideological or party affiliations of the representative/administration in question?

Fair points, Scott. I’d like to add a couple of points.

We are talking about situations of war here, which are, constitutionally, the province of the executive branch and also the province of such things as covert intelligence, covert ops, etc. So, yes, the danger you mention exists. But we have representative government, after all. We elect leaders and bestow certain powers upon them. I’m not sure second guessing them, particularly when said questions appear to come only along partisan political lines, is productive. They represent us, like it or not – and under incredible pressures we don’t know or understand in certain instances.

I don’t want to read NY Times exposes on our intelligence gathering under Obama any more than I liked them under Bush.

But that does not mean I am against as much sunshine as possible when it comes to governance in general – and across party lines. So, why I think it is fair to question elected leaders regularly, in certain areas, I’m afraid a certain amount of trust is the best thing we have.

There will always be some risk, I believe we have the best system, which doesn’t mean it is perfect. But I no more want to go back and impeach Truman for what he did, than I do Cheney or Bush. Now, when some things come out – as was the case with a movie suggesting Clinton dropped the ball on terrorism during his years – okay, we can argue and debate that – just as it is fair to argue and debate Bush and Cheney now. Where I draw the line is the kind of Special Prosecutor crap Holder and Obama seem to be embracing now.

Such actions are more likely to weaken our national defense than they ever will strengthen it. I doubt very much if Obama is going to want prosecutors running around behind his war decisions whenever he is finally tossed out of office as the incompetent he seems to be. If you think I feel good about trusting him on National Security just now, frankly I don’t. But he’s entitled to that trust based upon an open election. So I wouldn’t support any witch hunt of an investigation there either, not now, nor when he leaves office.

Tagged as: CIA, Dan Riehl, dick cheney, enhanced interrogation techniques, Harry Truman