Because up is down, black is white…and Dick Cheney is a true believer in his self-manufactured crusade to remake the government in his own twisted, sneering image.

Cheney’s Face the Nation interview sums up his disrespect for the rule of law while purporting to champion defense of the constitution better than I ever could.

That Cheney misunderstands the meaning of "constitution" in the oath of office is obvious: you swear to uphold and protect the rule of law and the ideals upon which this nation was founded, not the physical nation itself. Not that national security and defense aren’t important, but the highest duty is living up to the promise of "a more perfect union."

That means upholding the rule of law, respecting separation of powers and the intent of the framers of the constitution. Especially when that is most difficult during a time of emergency or war.

The Founders forsaw this danger, as James Madison laid out clearly in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Epic fail, Dick.

Want to know what the president can do and how you know it’s legal? Cheney mentions Lincoln’s suspense of habeas and that his action:

"…well, it certainly was [legal] in the sense that he wasn’t impeached…um…and it was a wartime measure that he took that I think today history says that, yeah, that was probably a good thing to do."

So unless someone puts a stop to the President’s actions, whatever extreme, illegal action he takes is a-okay in Dick-land. Regarding internment camps for the Japanese during WWII?

"Most people now look back on that and say that was wrong." (emphasis mine)

No hint on whether Dick is part of "most people." And no follow-up to ask. No mention of Korematsu or the Youngstown case either, natch. But the most galling attempt as ass-covery through obfuscation?

CHENEY: …What we did, for example, was modest by those comparisons. I would also emphasize that what we did, we did with the support and involvement, for example, of the Justice department. Every single time the president reauthorized the terrorist surveillance program, which he did every 30 or 45 days, it was only after the…

SHEIFFER: But is it not true that the courts and some others have said that some of those orders that the Justice Department was putting out proved to be…

CHENEY: That was…that was…those were…

SHEIFFER: …not correct.

CHENEY: …the rules we had to operate by, and the Attorney General of the United States signed off on every single one of those exceptions. The president would not extend the program without the Attorney General’s…uh…authorization and approval on there. In terms of all of our actions, we worked to stay close to the Office of Legal Counsel. We followed the guidance we got, which is what you are supposed to do and where you are supposed to do it. There have subsequently been some controversies, that the Supreme Court’s made some decisions that didn’t agree with what we did at the time. But what we did was authorized by the legal authorities that were to be the source of that kind of advice.

Never mind that those legal cover orders were issued at Cheney’s request and under the supervision — and sometimes drafted by — his chief legal minion, David Addington. Or that these folks at the OLC and elsewhere chiefly responsible for writing this supporting legal documentation were hand-picked for those positions by Cheney precisely because their views mirrored his on the unilateral executive.

As Jane Mayer laid out back in 2006:

By emphasizing interrogation over due process, the government intended to preëmpt future attacks before they materialized. In November, 2001, Cheney said of the military commissions, “We think it guarantees that we’ll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve.”…Many constitutional experts, however, question [Addington's] interpretation of the [constitution], especially his views on Presidential power. Scott Horton…said that Addington and a small group of Administration lawyers who share his views had attempted to “overturn two centuries of jurisprudence defining the limits of the executive branch. They’ve made war a matter of dictatorial power.” The historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., [said regarding] the Administration’s legal defense of torture, which Addington played a central role in formulating…“No position taken has done more damage to the American reputation in the world—ever.”

It’s as though Cheney is attempting a clumsy combination of a Mahktar stealth haze (YouTube) and a fumbling Jedi mind trick (YouTube) — trying to mask his role in all of this. When in reality, he’s been like those Escher drawing hands, bringing themselves into being exactly as they wanted in every detail.

The one piece of good news in the entire interview? Cheney petulantly gripes that Obama hasn’t asked his counsel on keeping Gitmo open indefinitely. Well, that’s a relief…

PS: Dawn Johnson at OLC? Oh frabtacular day. Excellent.


Related posts:

  1. Laura Ingraham on “This Week”: Dick Cheney “Cuts Through” on Afghanistan Because “His Numbers Are Going Up”
  2. Why is Obama Debating Cheney About the Rule of Law?
  3. Early Morning Swim: Dick Cheney’s Mouth was Moving on Fox
  4. On the Rule of Law and Crimes of Torture
  5. Dick Cheney: I’m Proud I Tortured to Protect Our Country But Not Our Allies