The Constitution and Mrs. Palin - Part 1

On the Role of Vice President

On one hand we have Mrs. Palin mocking President Obama, saying (VIDEO), "we need a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor..." But when energizing Teaparty crowds she points to the Constitution as the yellow brick road to perfect freedom and prosperity: "...that the Constitution provides the path to a more perfect union — it’s the Constitution."

The pols that Mrs. Palin endorses often refer to the Constitution in their cry for smaller government. From Rand Paul's site we read, "The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights." The Teaparty platform recently adopted by Maine's GOP repeatedly mentions the Constitution. Hypocritically, the document demands that "legislation must adhere to the restrictions ... in the Constititution to protect the individual from intrusive government," while at the same time insisting on anti-choice and anti-gay marriage "family values."

Mrs. Palin and her supporters talk a lot about the Constitution, but has Mrs. Palin ever really read it, studied it, understood it? Back before she was chosen as John McCain's running mate she was quizzed about being a potential VP pick.

She continued, "I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Here is a 44-year-old Governor of one of our 50 states, who seems clueless about the executive branch of the Federal government and wants someone else to look it up for her! She clearly sounds concerned that the role may not be important enough, anyway. Well, Mrs. Palin, according to the Constitution, the Vice President is a backup in the event the President is removed, dies, resigns, or is unable to discharge the duties of the office. The Vice President also has an honorary role as President of the Senate, and is allowed a vote only in the case of a tie. That's pretty much it.

After accepting McCain's invitation to join him on the 2008 campaign trail, Mrs. Palin began to imagine the role of Vice President as something larger and more grand than what the Constitution calls for. In an interview with KUSA, a Denver NBC affiliate, she told a youthful caller that, "A vice president … also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job."

During the single 2008 Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden, Mrs. Palin continued her quest to expand the role for which she was campaigning. In response to a question from Gwen Ifill about knowing what a VP does every day, Mrs. Palin responded, "Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." It boggles the mind, truly it does.

After the debate, Carl Cameron of Fox News questioned Mrs. Palin on her comments regarding what the Vice President does, to which she responded, "The vice president, of course, is not a member, or a part of the legislative branch, except to oversee the Senate. That alone provides a tremendous amount of flexibility and authority if that vice president so chose to use it."

There is no tremendous flexibility and authority given to the Vice President by the Constitution. Was Mrs. Palin channeling former VP Dick Cheney who clearly broke the mold of Vice Presidents throughout history? I can only assume that Mrs. Palin envisioned herself as an inside agitator, proddin' them Senators to vote for rill Amerikuns and expandin' drillin' and preventin' women from choosin', also, too. But did she get her interpretation from the Constitution? I think not.

Abuses Excuses I'm Not Buying

Nearly every day another aspect of the Bush-era torture policy is uncovered and published and discussed. Those who would excuse what we did keep coming up with new twisted arguments intended to justify the unjustifiable. This post outlines some of those arguments and counters them. 

We Don't Torture (Therefore What We Did Wasn't Really Torture)

As Chris Matthews repeats frequently, any time you deprive someone of oxygen, it's torture. I'd go further. Anytime you do what we did in sum—with all the "enhanced" techniques—that is torture.  I believe that anyone who takes the time to read the detainees' personal accounts in the ICRC report (PDF), anyone with the ability to put themselves in their position, anyone with an ounce of empathy, would have to admit that we tortured them.  We caused severe pain and suffering on purpose.  We treated them cruelly and inhumanely.  We committed outrages upon their personal dignity by degrading and humiliating them. 

Besides, These Terrorists Are the Worst of the Worst

Torturing anyone (you can't create a special category of 'combatant' to get around this) is illegal according to the United States Constitution.  Torturing anyone is also immoral and unethical not to mention anti-Christian; it debases the torturers and elevates the tortured.  Out of the 770 people detained at Guantanamo, more than 500 have been released without charge.  Of the approximately 245 detainees remaining, after all this time, only 18 have been charged with anything.  Even if every detainee were guilty of something awful, that fact would not justify torturing anyone.

Lawyers Wrote Opinions Saying These Techniques Were Legal

A lawyer's opinion is just that: an untested and unsupported opinion. Such opinions can not change what the law is until and unless the opinion is written into law and upheld in the courts. Besides, torture began before any legal excuses were created.

The lawyers who wrote the now-infamous memos, most notably John Yoo and Jay Bybee, held some extremely unorthodox viewpoints.  Yoo was of the opinion that it would be perfectly legal if the President of the United States ordered crushing the testicles of a detainee's child in front of the detainee to get him to talk.  Bybee suggested that extreme sleep deprivation was fine because after it was over, you couldn't tell it had happened. 

We Did What We Did to Keep America Safe -- See, We Haven't Been Attacked Since 9/11

This correlation is false on at least two counts.  First, we were "attacked" after 9/11 by whoever mailed the anthrax letters.  Second, where is the evidence that Bush's torture policy prevented an attack of any kind? This reminds of me the joke:

A man is sitting on a park bench, making the STRANGEST noises.
'Are you all right?' asks a concerned stranger.
The man nods and keeps making the noises.
The stranger then asked, 'Then why are you screaming like that?'
The man replies 'It keeps the elephants away.'
The stranger mentioned that there weren't any elephants for miles.
The man smiled 'See, it works!'

There are serious questions about who was actually responsible for 9/11.  Some possible answers to those questions provide other reasons for why we haven't been "attacked again."  We have not satisfactorily investigated either 9/11 or Amerithrax.  I'll let it go at that.

Additionally, we know for a fact that Bush's torture policy was a boon to those who were recruiting zealots to take anti-American actions.  This has had a negative and deadly impact on our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, so it is quite false to say we are more safe as a result.

We Got Valuable Information Using These Methods

Interrogators and intelligence professionals agree that valuable information is not obtained by torturing people. Contrary to what GW Bush and Dick Cheney have claimed, there is no evidence that any information obtained by torture led to thwarting imminent terrorist attempts.  A White House fact sheet from the Bush archives justifying the use of abusive interrogation methods says,

In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.

Yet KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the guy we waterboarded over 180 times in a month, the guy whose picture was used to create the graphic in this post) was not picked up and arrested until March 2003.  Therefore, torturing him had nothing whatsoever to do with preventing that attempt.  In fact, we are not even sure that plot was real at this point. 

Not only is there no evidence that we've gotten good information—there is evidence to the contrary.  According to testimony at a recent congressional hearing, FBI agent Ali Soufan claimed the flow of actionable information was interrupted when CIA contractors took over the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and began using "enhanced techniques."  There is even evidence that detainees gave false information to their interrogators to stop the torture.

The Democrats Knew About It and They Didn't Raise a Stink Then

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently been under fire for daring to say that the CIA was less than truthful during their mandatory Intelligence Committee briefings on "enhanced interrogation techniques."  Let's not forget that nothing anyone said or did in opposition to the GW Bush machine was given credence or air time during the first 6 years of the last administration—unless it was called un-American, traitorous, troop-hating garbage.

Regardless, there's still no proof that Democrats in Congress were fully briefed about the torture program.  And even if there were, that's hardly an excuse for going forward with the "torture program" in the first place.

What's Past Is Past, Let's Look Forward

Has Dick Cheney or Rudy Giuliani forgotten 9/11 yet?  Or think about this: if someone dear to you had been kidnapped and tortured, and you could pretty well figure out who was responsible, would you be comfortable saying, "Let the past be the past," and decline to go after the perpetrators and demand they be prosecuted?

What does it say to the rest of the world, never mind the citizens of the US, to sweep these abhorrent events under a rug labeled, "the past?"

Can we, as a nation, redeem ourselves and begin to restore our standing in the world if we fail to hold accountable the architects of our torture policy?  I'm looking at GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Yoo, Bybee and Gonzales along with everyone else who helped formulate and facilitate those who carried out the program of abuses.  It will be a pathetic miscarriage of justice to have prosecuted and jailed Lyndie England and Charles Graner while letting the authors of the torture policy avoid paying for their much greater crime.

Year End CleanUp

There's pardons in the wings.  Who shall get the wings of release?

There's a baby supposed to be born, the one that would make it 'impossible' for the much-rumored mother of Trig Palin to actually be his mother.

There's the findings of the State Legislative body that Sarah Palin broke Alaska's ethics laws.  But what will come of that?

Then we recently learned that Dick Cheney knew and gave approval for torture.  And he also knew and was in part responsible for revealing Valerie Plame as a covert agent.  Will anything come of that?

Even though this year ends on a faintly hopeful note, given the results of the November election, there are quite a few lies to punish and liars to catch.  I wonder how many of these will be brought to justice in the year ahead.

Meantime, a most happy holiday to all.  Let us be grateful that we have electricity, food, shelter, and warmth over the cold days of winter.