What’s the matter, Cheney? Information as a Weapon

We all know the tales of “the decider” and his apparently magical ability to just “make” decisions that “felt right”. He was a super hero. Nigh on par with the ancient ninjas in his subtlety, he marched to the beat of his own drum.

What’s a little more unfamiliar to most however, is his alter-ego “the Discloser”. The Discloser takes many forms in many cultures, with those in Zoroastrianism calling him “Ahriman”, the destructive spirit, while the Turkish know him as "Kazıklı Bey", which means "Impaler Prince”. In America, he is called by his ancient moniker, “Cheney”, which means “one who is a douche, like, really, REALLY a lot” (you can go look that up later).
Recent events, however, have turned the Dark Prince into a symbol of hope and prosperity for millions of disenfranchised sadists.

Turning to his Machiavellian prayer book, Cheney mentioned that the success of the effort to thwart terrorist attacks was the metric that should be used to decide whether torture was or is acceptable, rather than whether it is allowed by the Geneva Convention, the US Constitution, or supported by the American people.

So, Cheney currently wants the release of the “outcomes” of the “enhanced techniques” used on those apparently unworthy of due process. This seems, if done correctly that is, like it would be a good academic counter to the voices of pragmatism, such as retired generals and expert analysts from the CIA calling the Bush Administration's attempts gain information ineffective; it could also assuage the concerns of those whose consciences contraindicate such treatment, in the light of America’s status as a supposed beacon in the world.

I’ll bet that you can guess what’s coming next.
Congressional figures such as John Boehner (pronounced "Baner") from Ohio decided that releasing documents that went against the “Jack Bauer” theme of imminent threats that justify drastic action was unacceptable. In doing so, they vehemently agreed with Cheney and his arguably cherry-picking attitude.

Case in point: the 2004 IG Report by the CIA inspector general purportedly shows no evidence that “…waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks…” Furthermore, the report alleges that people were tortured even though it was unknown whether they were in a position to know anything (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html).
More detailed information is not known, because Senate Republicans, along with the now powerless Cheney, aren't interested in removing its "classified" distinction. Oops.

Then there’s that little tidbit from Robert Mueller, Director at the FBI, who said in December that there was no evidence of any attacks having been thwarted by the use of such methods. Oops again.

Steven G. Bradbury, former Justice Department deputy assistant attorney general, insists that the techniques were effective, and his 2005 report is one of those that Cheney wants released. Cheney has been outspoken in his support for "enhanced" interrogation techniques.

Fortunately, despite his mastery of political headbutting, we all know that Cheney himself is harmless- wouldn’t hurt a fly, in fact.

But, let’s say for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that Cheney is more like a selective bullfrog, only interested in slurping the juiciest, most damaging, flies, while allowing other, smaller and less interesting, insects to escape.

This would certainly explain why he was willing to allow the much later 2005 report to slip, but not the 2004 IG report, despite the fact that the IG report was cited by Bradbury more than once. In fact, Bradbury admits, in a footnote in the report, that: “According to the IG Report, the CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have information.” Triple oops.

It looks like the status of the former Penguin-in-Chief’s “if it works, then it’s not torture” argument is teetering in a precarious position at the moment, not to mention the obvious moral and legal considerations. It’s really too bad that he doesn’t share more characteristics with any of the animalistic epithets with which I’ve labeled him during the course of this blog post, because I hear that regular old mammals (even colder-blooded ones like Cheney) don’t respond quite so nicely to simulations of drowning.