Oh, so he was 23 on 9/11, not 16. So much for my effort to figure out a way to say something nice or at least empathetic. I guess now I just think it's indescribably lame and also without plausible excuse.

And thanks for yet another outstanding post.

Glenn has another post up and it's another important piece, I wouldn't want to mar it with an early reference to a movie bit. This thread, on the other hand, has run more than a few courses so what the heck.

People have been wondering how somebody could be talking about torture as if is was sorta kinda maybe OK given the immensity of 9/11... Some have suggested the world view of the timeframe facilitated moral laxity when confronted with pure evil, yada yada yada. The "24" analysis.

But watching Cheney's interview, with his calm, even demeanor while admitting to and taking credit for ordering waterboarding, it did strike me just exactly where we were all softened up to accept such a bold admission of unconscionable criminality with nary a blink: it was Arnold Schwarzenegger, as master spy in True Lies in 1994.

Captured by the terrorist evil-doers, our hero is turned over to the terrorist torture-master, who injects him with truth serum while selecting sinister-looking dental implements for certain and imminent sinister use. Being unable to tell a lie, when his co-captured wife (it's a long story) asks him "have you ever killed anybody?" Ahnold gives the deadpan reply: "Yes, but they were all bad". That's "baaad", in Ahnoldese. And everybody in America loved that line.

"Mr. Vice President, are you saying you authorized the torture of suspected terrorists?"

"Yes, but they were all baaad."

So, like, it's OK, right? We can’t just lay this off on Jack Bauer, he was just next in line.

Oh, and just want to thank Ondelette for posting, above, Article 2 of The Convention Against Torture, section 2 of which provides:

"2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

I know, that doesn’t actually say that destruction of the World Trade Center is also included in circumstances that don’t justify torture. Maybe we could imply that from the “no exceptional circumstances whatsoever” language, maybe? Though, of course, it isn’t torture if Bush says it isn’t torture, right?

No, I don’t accept the premise that we in America get to engage in the fatuous presumption that ours is the first society to face bad guys of such magnitude that civilization’s advances toward the universal rejection of torture just don’t apply to us.

Glenn is today emphasizing the significance of having laws in order to deter misconduct, in the context of enforcing them rather than engaging in the Monty Python-esque exercise of "let's not bicker and argue over who killed who" so evident in the Beltway apologias these days. Excellent point, of course. And in the comments, it is being noted how Bush and Cheney's blatant and defiant lawlessness needs to be met.

But did Cheney just go on TV and admit that he authorized "torture", as many (even Senator Leahy) say? Actually, no -- what Cheney admitted was that he authorized waterboarding. "Waterboarding is torture", you say? Well, Cheney will disagree and say that he had a legal opinion telling him it wasn't torture to waterboard in the circumstances. You bet your ass that's the only reason Cheney said he OK'd waterboarding on TV. And the Attorney General of the United States, Herr Mukasey, has already testified before Congress that he refuses to investigate, charge or prosecute any person who may claim reliance upon a "legal opinion" validating acts universally considered torture. So there.

This evil conspiracy of the Bush Administration orchestrating a criminal and fraudulent "write around" of existing laws, complete with the collusion of the nation's chief law enforcement officer in order to supplant the nation's existing laws with the unctuous, self-serving, result-oriented and, for god's sake, wholly secret "legal interpretations" of the Executive Branch, may ultimately prove to be perhaps the single most heinous affront of the Bush Administation to the rule of law.

It's kind of disappointing to see that aspect of what has gone down here be almost lost in the "debate" over torture and accountability. But if we're going to have to suffer through the type of excuses which Glenn skewers here today, it would be nice if some of these people also gave some thought to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing for the President to tell his lawyers to write something up negating criminal statutes as applied to the Executive Branch, do it in secret, and then proceed to act as if there were no laws at all.