I have almost nothing to add on the incredible, horrifying portrait of Dick Cheney in the Washington Post. I mean, this is a guy who believes that nearly drowning prisoners and possibly even "threatening to bury a prisoner alive" is ok. More broadly, Cheney believes that:
...the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line of torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
Now, let's hear from George Washington on the question of torturing Hessian soldiers who had committed atrocities against American soldiers:
"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren." David Hackett Fischer, author of Washington?s Crossing, writes that George Washington "often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies."
What would George Washington think of Dick Cheney? Something tells me it wouldn't be pleasant.
In reality, it vests in the House and Senate the authority to "declare war," to "make rules concerning captures on land and water," to "provide for the common defense," to "raise and support Armies," and to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces."
War is a shared responsibility with Congress. The records of the 1787 convention at which the Constitution was drafted unquestionably demonstrate that. An early version of Article I, for example, gave Congress the power to "make war."
The delegates changed the wording to "declare war," not to remove Congress from the process but to leave the commander in chief the "power to repel sudden attacks," as James Madison put it. "The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war," agreed Roger Sherman. In the eyes of some delegates, this limited authority was safe in the hands of a president because "no executive would ever make war but when the nation will support it," said delegate Pierce Butler.
Even Scalia agrees. He has said: "Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it."
"This entire military venture has been foolhardy and of ill design," said Washington, dressed in his customary breeches and frilly cravat. "The manifold mistakes committed by this president in Iraq carry grave consequences, and he who holds the position of commander in chief has the responsibility to right those wrongs."
Washington noted that while Saddam Hussein was an indefensible tyrant, that alone did not justify a "conflict that seems without design or end."
"The Iraqi people did suffer greatly under unjust rule," Washington said. "But in truth, it is the duty of any people that wishes to be free to fight for its own independence. Had France meddled in our revolution beyond the guidance and material assistance they provided, I should think similar unrest would have darkened our nation's earliest hours."
Remember that Bob Woodward supposedly had the inside story on the Bush administration and the war two or three books ago. Where were the hard questions? Where was this crucial information? Why did it take so long to get the truth?
The Post has inexplicably acted as cheerleader for many Bush atrocities over the last six years. Is the Post just jumping on the bandwagon now that it is clear that the pendulum has swung?
In answer to the question "Where has the WaPo been for the past 6 years?" I'd ask the question "how come all of the sudden there's all this inside information coming out of the Administration about Cheney's dirty little games now? The fact that so many sources have come forward to contribute facts to a story that is clearly painting Cheney in a bad light seems to me to say something about the mood towards his office within Bush's administration. Even Karl Rove was quoted in today's piece!