Hitchens comes through, as only he can.
I confess, however, that I still wonder why Hitchens doesn't consider that Bush-Cheney torture and abusive detention were part of a retributive mindset.
Despite their (all too vocal?) protestations that all that was done was about "intelligence gathering", can we yet rule out that the torture room, for them, was not their own way of serving up to "these people", including some non high-value detainees, what they thought they deserved?
I confess, however, that I still wonder why Hitchens doesn't consider that Bush-Cheney torture and abusive detention were part of a retributive mindset.
While seeking criminal prosecutions, AS writes, "My own sense, from a few off-the-record conversations as well, is that president Bush simply said: do what you have to do, but make sure it's legal. Cheney ran with that. Bush meant it as cover."There is enough subsequent evidence to worry they may have indulged themselves, armed with "new authorities". We know from Suskind's reporting, for instance, that Bush was in touch with CIA operatives, not a little, but a LOT. He was a participant, not a distracted bureaucrat...
We can hazard from the inclusion of 'retroactive immunity' in the Congressional bills, that they had no confidence in their own "legal analysis".
The CIA destroyed the taped evidence. They extended techniques beyond the Administration's own guidance, almost demonstrably.
There is ample collateral evidence that there were ideological forces at work in the men behind the execution of the Executive orders. Look for it. It's nearly ubiquitous. General Miller. CIA's Goss (terrible case of it). Hayden, even. Probably Mukasey. Cheney. Even the timing of the decisions suggests that an ideological framework was in place, one that was likely criminal.
