That’s Rich Lowry.
In his piece in the National Review titled “The Case for the ‘Torture Memos’,” Lowry tries to argue that the torture memos are something of which our nation can be proud. I am not kidding.
The debate over the just-released Justice Department memorandums on interrogation techniques ended as soon as they were dubbed the “torture memos.” Forevermore, they will be remembered as the legal lowlights of a “dark and painful chapter in our history,” as Pres. Barack Obama put it.
Rightly considered, the memos should be a source of pride. They represent a nation of laws struggling to defend itself against a savage, lawless enemy while adhering to its legal commitments and norms. Most societies throughout human history wouldn’t have bothered [bold added].
With all due respect, Rich, the “while adhering to its legal commitments and norms” part is just plain wrong. The Bush administration was doing the opposite – the administration was trying to create legal language that would allow the administration not to adhere to legal commitments and norms. And this was a pattern. In the name of the war on terror, the administration rejected (even mocked) the Geneva Conventions, pretended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act didn’t exist, violated the fourth amendment, and threw habeas corpus out the window. Adhering to the law is not the same thing as creating language that allows you not to adhere to the law. Its the opposite.
The release of the torture memos is not an occasion to pat ourselves on the back, Rich. Rather, it’s the opposite.