Then, two documents changed everything:

1 - The Inspector General’s Report on CIA Interrogations:  The report is quite clear…our interrogators used means of torture FAR outside even the egregious amount supported by the DOJ memos.  They threatened to kill detainees, and put guns and even a power drill to detainees’ heads…this is illegal.  They threatened to bring in detainees’ wives and children, and to rape them or kill them in front of the detainees’ eyes…also illegal.  They kept them in filthy diapers for extended periods…induced hypothermia…induced blackouts by cutting off blood flow to the prisoners’ brains…struck them with knees and rifle butts…deprived them of sleep for days…oh, AND they waterboarded them, some of them repeatedly.  AG Holder finally had no choice, and appointed a Special Prosecutor.

2 - Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge’s Book:  Once a symbol for the domestic front of the Bush “War On Terror,” Tom Ridge’s book, “The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege,” clearly paints a picture of the manipulation of terror alerts for political purposes.  He was the Secretary of Homeland Security…but wasn’t even invited to National Security Council Meetings.  He was deliberately kept uninformed by the FBI.  Essentially…he was told by Bush’s cabinet what they wanted him to say, what to do, and what not to do.  He writes of one particular “last straw:”  Attorney General Ashcroft asks Ridge to raise the Terror Alert Level and to release an tape of Bin Laden criticizing Bush.  Ridge knew that there had been more than 20 tapes since 9/11…and none of them contained any threats worth releasing.  Ridge also knew, that every time he raised the Alert Level, Bush received a boost in the polls…and that the political timing for a boost was very evident in this case.  Ridge and his department denied the request, only to be pressured further by Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

So, the conversation begins anew, and with fresh, damning information…here’s how it’s going so far (there are some real surprises):

• Tom Ridge…seems to be having second thoughts.  Having recovered fully from his momentary lapse of honesty, Ridge now tells USA Today that he was in no way squeezed to raise the Alert Level, nor is he critical of the previous administration’s decision to keep him in the dark:  “I was never pressured…I’m not second-guessing my colleagues…“  You know, it’s bad enough if you say one thing on Monday and the opposite on Tuesday…but you’ll probably only get in trouble if somebody pulls up the video clips of both speeches.  In this case…you wrote it in your BOOK, Ridge…which is it:  is the book a lie, or what you are telling us now?
• But Ridge isn’t the only Republican to accuse the Bush White House of releasing information for political purposes:  former Representative Rick Renzi’s attorneys have filed a motion, calling for the government to show why it should not be held in contempt for releasing details of a grand jury investigation into Renzi, in an attempt to save his struggling re-election campaign.  Up until then, it had always been the DOJ’s policy not to comment on ongoing investigations…until Harriet Myers and Karl Rove approached them and told them to “throw cold water” on reports that Renzi was under investigation…  which they did.  So, by our tally…that’s hiring and firing federal attorneys using a partisan “litmus test“…releasing the identity of an undercover CIA agent…and illegally releasing grand jury details for political purposes.  And the hits just keep on coming...
• Former VP Dick Cheney, now preparing for the upcoming promotion of his new book in earnest, responded as all would expect.  He called enhanced interrogation “absolutely essential,”  called the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate our use of torture an “outrageous political act,” and said that on a personal level it “offends the hell out of me (Cheney).”  Then, Cheney…appears to contradict himself.  First he says: “We had a president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn’t be an investigation.  Now, they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party and they are reversing course on that.“  Of course, even casual observers realize that the investigation has more to do with the release of the Inspector General’s report than it does “pressure from Democrats,” but it is what Cheney said next that seems more worthy of our attention: “The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the administration.  He is now saying, well, this isn’t anything he’s got to do with.“  Mr. Cheney…if you agree that the President is the “chief law enforcement officer” of the nation…and he is presented with clear, documented proof that acts were committed in violation with the Constitution and the laws of the land…then doesn’t HE HAVE to investigate it?  Otherwise…what kind of “law enforcement officer” would he be?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzH2yvrvNW0

• Like Daddy, Like Daughter: Of course, we’ve also come to expect that Liz Cheney will defend any and all of her father’s actions.  Unfortunately for Liz, she decided to do so on a panel that included Sam Donaldson, who was quick to point out that her logic is both flawed and self-serving:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fldR5NdSG9U

• Cheney Denial Trifecta: Cheney’s other daughter, Mary, is unlikely to comment on the subject of enhanced interrogation…but appears to share her father’s penchant for denial.  I used to feel just terrible for Mary:  during the presidential campaigns, Dick Cheney was often asked about his positions towards gay rights, given that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian.  I always thought it shameful that he chose not to defend his own daughter’s rights and equality.  But now we find out…that despite being a lesbian, in a lesbian partnership, and with adopted children…Mary Cheney donated to former Representative Rob Portman (R-OH), a GOP Senate hopeful.  Portman…is anti-gay marriage, and anti-gay adoption.  Maybe Dick just figured there was no need to defend his daughter…if she won’t even defend herself…or maybe, it’s just another Cheney example of partisanship coming before what’s right.
• In responding to Cheney’s positions…Senator John McCain (R-AZ) swung for the fences.  He said, “I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan.  I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq… I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other members.“  Of course, then he qualified his remarks by adding, “I believe the president [Obama] was right when he said we ought to go forward and not back.“  I’ve said this before:  To admit that laws/treaties were broken, but then say there is no need pursue the legal investigation/trial process, violates not only our country’s laws, but also our values.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD1x_aafc7Y

• Summary (my paraphrasing, not actual quotes) of CIA claims that McCain knew all about the torture they were about to commit: CIA: “We told McCain and the others the six interrogation methods were were going to use.”  McCain spokesperson: “Nuh uh!  McCain repeatedly questioned what you were going to do and never gave his approval.”  CIA: “Well…we weren’t really there for the legislators ‘approval’…just their feedback.  Some liked it…some didn’t.  We were cool with that.”  Why is this conversation so important? Because Steven G. Bradbury, a deputy assistant attorney general, wrote his memo justifying torture, using the rationale that the methods were acceptable and legal because the ideas didn’t seem to “shock the conscience” of the legislators, and that is a legal standard related to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which covers Due Process.  Perhaps the problem is that we need more legislators who have actual “consciences” to “shock.”
• Unlikely Advocate: Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading conservative activist…thinks the investigations into torture ARE A GOOD IDEA.  Of course his reasons are a bit suspect…he wants to be able to have the Obama administration investigated down the road: “Holder is making a decision that one administration should go back and second-guess another administration. Yes, it’s political but he is also opening the door to what will happen after Holder and Obama’s legacy here.  I think that someday when we have a different Justice Department, people need to go back and look at how all of this money in the stimulus package was paid. And who it went to. What about all of those secret meetings that were never transparent about who was going to get what?…The Bush administration started their administration foolishly, not seriously looking into the cash for pardons challenge that the Clinton administration had.  They were wrong to decide not to do that and I think that the next Republican administration will follow Holder’s path rather than the Bush path of the past.“  While his reasoning is certainly overtly political and almost sickeningly vindictive…he may be right on one level.  If ANY administration acts outside the law…shouldn’t the next administration investigate it, or should they just continue this tradition of a “courteous disregard for previous illegal activity?“  If an administration didn’t break any laws…what would they have to fear from an investigation?
• Andrew Sullivan addresses part of the reason why what should be an exceedingly clear issue (torture is both wrong and illegal, and we used torture), has instead been allowed to become very muddied waters.  The MEDIA.  Sullivan takes Chris Wallace to task for completely “softballing” his interview with Dick Cheney in his column, hilariously titled: “Chris Wallace, A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers.“  Sullivan lists all of the weak questions asked by Wallace, and then shares his two favorite exchanges:”My two favorite moments:
  

  CHENEY: I am going to — if I address that, I will address it in my book, Chris.

  WALLACE: It is going to be a hell of a book.

  CHENEY: It is going to be a great book.

  And then the apology for asking the questions Cheney wanted asked:

  WALLACE: Well, we want to thank you for talking with us and including in your private life putting up with an interview from the likes of me.

  CHENEY: It’s all right. I enjoy your show, Chris.

  WALLACE: Thank you very much, and all the best sir.“

• Check This Out:  Dan Froomkin does a fairly thorough look at the litany of public deceptions utilized by Dick Cheney over the years.  He includes a fascinating quote from Obsidian Wings blogger publius: “If you’ve noticed, Cheney tends to pop up in the aftermath of damning evidence. We just (re)learned, for instance, that our CIA agents murdered detainees, choked them, and threatened to rape their wives. Normally, you would think these revelations would give pause to even the most ardent Cheney supporters. But then Cheney comes along, and tries to reframe the whole story. His intended audience isn’t the nation as a whole, but conservatives. He wants to make sure that they view these stories through partisan-tinted lenses.“

I will relay more news on this subject, and the subsequent denials from the Cheney clan, as they are available.

But…upon what information are these claims based?  What has changed so PROFOUNDLY as to make these people feel that “their America” is slipping away from them?  Truthfully…is Obama really even THAT liberal?

Some points for your consideration:

-  Obama kept Gates as Defense Secretary and Petraeus as commander of U.S. Central Command…it was said that this was to preserve some sort of “continuity,” but the truth is, with our military so politicized under Bush, and our efforts in Iraq so badly planned and managed, is there really ANY justification for the holdovers?

-  Obama kept Geithner (elevating him to Treasury Secretary) and kept Bernanke as head of the Fed…and recently re-upped Bernanke for a second term.  Again, while many may credit Geithner/Bernanke with helping to “avert an economic collapse“…don’t we at least have to blame them a little for, well, WHAT LED US TO THE COLLAPSE?

-  Obama has stopped our torture programs.  And recently, he put a very special man in charge of making sure our interrogators don’t torture:  John Brennan, the same man who, under Bush, helped DEVELOP the torture program.

- Obama, while closing Gitmo…has kept the military commission available for use.

- The Obama Administration backed the Bush policy that Bagram detainees in Afghanistan…have no constitutional rights.

-  The Obama Administration opted NOT to release the photos of the mistreatment of detainees, despite their claim that such items CLEARLY fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

-  Obama has asserted the same, controversial “state secrets” policy employed by Bush to protect the government against multiple lawsuits…no matter how well-founded the charges.

-  Obama continued the Bush policy of refusing to release the White House visitors list.

-  Obama has repeatedly resisted calls to investigate torture committed by U.S. personnel…despite mounting evidence.  When forced to initiate investigations…he has called for inquiries to go no higher than the interrogators themselves (that is, ignoring the individuals who ORDERED the torture)…and only those interrogators who exceeded the fundamentally flawed DOJ memos which gave only the semblance of legality, not actual legality, to the interrogators’ actions.

-  Obama has continued the use of Bush’s infamous, and unconstitutional, “signing statements.”

-  The White House is required to save all emails…millions from the Bush years are missing.  The lawsuit from two advocacy groups calling for those emails to be recovered?  The Obama White House opposed it and took steps to kill it.

-  The Obama Health Care Plan?  Not even half as “nationalized” or “socialized” as the Clintons’.  It still allows for a system dominated by private insurance, even IF the public option is included.

-  A challenge against the anti-gay marriage “Defense of Marriage Act?“  The Obama White House asked the court to dismiss it.

-  A case that would have put the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy in front of the Supreme Court…the administration let the deadline to file a Supreme Court appeal pass quietly.

-  The rendition/kidnapping program…kept alive.

-”Targeted killings” (we call them assassinations) in Pakistan and Afghanistan…expanded.

-  In fact, almost all but two of the eleven key components of Bush’s anti-terror tools have been kept (torture, and “black sites” are gone), some of them have even been expanded.

-  Warrantless Wiretapping…the Obama Administration actually fought to keep it in place.

-  Here’s another look…and another…and another…

In fact, it looks like the people who most bought the “campaign rhetoric” of “CHANGE“…were Republicans.  Because despite the fact that Obama has led as nothing, if not as a centrist…who has to date NOT called for drastic nationalization of the banks or the health care industry…who has NOT drawn a firm line in the sand towards defending civil liberties and equality…and who has NOT reversed more than a handful of the Bush administration’s most odious and unconstitutional policies…the Republicans are still seeing Obama as some sort of “lefty crusader.” New flash guys…you should be thanking your lucky stars:  the majority of Americans DID want real change, are ready for “lefty policies,” and are ready to see a return to the Constitution and the Rule of Law…we are the ones who should be most disappointed and scared thus far, not you.

It’s a painful revelation, if one is encountering it for the first time.  It means, for example, that if the United States tortured detainees…that we are responsible for it.  That is why it is so very difficult for some to even admit that waterboarding IS, in fact, TORTURE.  Because if it is…then WE tortured people.  While it is should be obvious to even the most simple-minded of our citizenry that certain actions we engaged in were torture, were in violation of more than one international treaty, were in violation of the articles of war, and were in violation of our own federal statutes…some people simply cannot bring themselves to admit it. It is simply too embarrassing…too painful…that a nation once so noble, could have sunk so low.  Even today, as I watched Fox News during lunch (not my channel choice, but c’est la vie), I watched as a guest expert on their “news” program stated plainly that the actions detailed in the recently released Inspector General’s findings were CLEARLY torture…only to have the host of the show quickly assert that “many people” would not call the actions in the report “torture.”  Perhaps…but those “many people” would be mistaken, and in the depths of profound self-deception.  In fact, despite the fact that the Inspector General’s report describes in detail thoroughly disgusting practices, that may well have exceeded even the level of interrogation that was authorized…and even though the report noticeably does not show that torture was necessary to produce results…Fox News’ website already claims that the report may serve as proof of the torture’s efficacy:  “Two new documents released by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques appear to declare a success efforts to gain intelligence on potential terror attacks, leading opponents of an investigation into CIA interrogators wondering about the Obama administration’s motives.“

So, let’s perform a quick examination of recent events, so that we can judge for ourselves:

• The heavily-redacted Inspector General’s report (may be found here), seems to make clear the following:  1- The measures were approved at a HIGH level  2- They threatened to execute detainees, held mock executions  3- They threatened to kill detainees’ families, rape their mothers, their wives, and their children in front of them 4- They applied pressure to detainees’ carotid arteries, restricting bloodflow to the brain, causing unconsciousness  5- Detainees were struck in the torso with rifle butts and knees  6- Detainees were waterboarded in the style of Japanese prisoner torture 7- Detainees were suspended by their arms to simulate shoulder dislocation  8- Detainees were kept in soiled diapers for extended periods  9- Detainees were stripped naked and doused with water on a bare floor to induce hypothermia  10- Detainees died as the result of their treatment  11- The interrogators received only two weeks training in how to perform interrogations, based on flawed/exaggerated study data produced by the CIA  12- Detainees were tortured despite the absence of any information indicating that they were guilty of anything, or even that they knew anything  13- Detainees were tortured who were likely to have provided information, perhaps even more reliable information without torture. Salon has a good write-up of the report, for those who do not wish to read (or who cannot stomach) the actual report.
• Quick FYI: It is worth mentioning, related to the list of activities and revelations above, that both the torture measures AND the death threats…are violations of anti-torture laws.
• Faced with the Inspector General’s findings that the treatment of detainees was, at times, “unauthorized, improvised, inhumane“…Attorney General Holder was left with little choice but to appoint John Durham as a Special Investigator to look into the matter.  While Obama and Holder have both expressed that the wish for Durham to focus only on the interrogators, and only those that exceeded the Department of Justice authorization memos…it is worth mentioning that Durham will have the authority to pursue ANY relevant information WHEREVER it may lead.  The Wall Street Journal did an interesting short piece on Durham here.  A registered Republican…interesting choice.
• Mr. Pot…Meet Mr. Kettle: It is to be expected that the appointment of a Special Investigator would prompt statements from Republican leaders, accusing the administration of somehow “making America less safe.”  What was more than a little unexpected (and deliciously ironic) was former Vice President Cheney’s accusation that the move was a sign of the administration attempting to “politicize” the Justice Department.  Yes…this, coming from the man who most hold ultimately responsible for the politically motivated hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys…especially those thought to be “lefties,” or “lesbians,” or simply not in favor of pursuing unfounded, politically motivated investigations.  This claim is also interesting…coming from a man who many expect was the “administration source” of orders to use torture against detainees.
• Plus…Cheney is simply dead wrong.  Obama and the administration have somewhat disappointingly sided with NOT investigating the torture that occurred during the Bush years…it was exclusively Attorney General Holder’s call to appoint an Investigator.
• Cheney…was not finished.  He also has stated that these interrogators…”deserve our gratitude” and do not deserve “to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions.“  Humor me, by following the logic:  if interrogators broke the laws (even if ordered to do so…as being ordered to do so is NOT a legal defense), and committed despicable acts of torture and coercion against American prisoners, sometimes even resulting in the prisoners’ deaths…then according to Cheney, they deserve our “gratitude.”  Is this how Americans are usually expected to treat members of our society that break the laws…even those committing murder?
• Ari Fleischer, press secretary under Bush, said, “I think the decision is disgusting.  It’s amazing to me that the people who kept us safe may now become the people our government prosecutes. There are plenty of real criminals out there -- it would be nice if the Justice Department went after them.“  First of all, Mr. Fleischer…there is little proof these people “kept us safe,” and there is, indeed, an argument to be made that their actions made both us and our soldiers LESS safe and resulted in the swelling of ranks within terrorist organizations.  Secondly, if they broke the law…then they ARE “real criminals,” as you say…that’s the definition of “criminal” we use here in the United States.
• Meanwhile, some people…think the administration and the Justice Department have not gone far enough.  Representative Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has pointed out the simple truth:  the President and other government officials have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution and laws of this country.  By willingly ignoring the growing mountain of evidence that serious crimes were committed…they are in violation of that oath.  What is more, since under the anti-torture act of 1996, the United States government is obligated to investigate accusations of torture…they are not only violating their oaths, but they are also violating the law which REQUIRES an investigation.  Until they do so…they are, in effect, criminals themselves.
• It had long been speculated that the Bush Administration had “manipulated” terror alerts to their political advantage, following a simple formula:  when something occurs that either hurts Republicans or helps Democrats…quickly distract the public with a new terrifying, unsubstantiated threat warning.  Now, Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security…has verified that he was asked to change the alert level for political reasons: “Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was ‘blindsided’ by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.“  Congratulations to Keith Olbermann, who first succinctly reported on this pattern way back in 2006 in a segment titled the “Nexus of Politics and Terror.“  Here’s the clip:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_M2E-IQNkg

I’ve said this before: it is worth the shame, to get to the truth and to reconcile with what WE CLAIM are our ideals.  If laws were broken, and there is certainly enough evidence to indicate that they were, then there MUST be an investigation.  If such an investigation reveals individuals who broke the law, along with any individuals who ordered them to break the law…those people should face judgment in a court of law.  Those who claim to value our Constitution have no choice but to call for this…or to reveal themselves to be liars who care little for the Constitution and for Due Process.  In the Nuremberg trials following World War II…we clearly said it is NOT a justification to perform crimes for the sake of one’s country…we clearly said it is NOT a justification to commit crimes simply because you were ordered to do so…we prosecuted the torturers, the people who watched them torture and did nothing, the people who ordered them to torture, and the judges who said it was legal for them to torture.  If we now shirk our responsibilities under the law, and because this is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,“ then we are ALL hypocrites, we are ALL criminals, and we are ALL torturers.