They figured they could do whatever they wanted

Oh my. DLC Chairman Harold Ford is on MSNBC's Hardball basically condoning the possibility that some people were aware of the Bush Administration's torture policies, arguing that it was acceptable in light of the post-9/11 mentality and the idea that you needed to do everything in your power to prevent another attack on a U.S. city. The topic was the current charge, intended to either implicate the Democrats in the torture regime or to absolve the Republicans because Democratic leadership was supposedly involved, that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on and aware of the torture program.  

Some of our so-called journalists have been quick to take the charge as evidence that Pelosi was complicit in torture.  They do this while, ironically, maintaining the cognitive dissonance that what was done by the Bush Administration was not, in fact, torture, or was in some way justified under the circumstances. Moreover, apparently it is a greater offense to be informed of a brutal crime than to be the one who actually committed the crime. It's the standard Beltway establishment media perspective; it's okay when done by the Republicans, but a sign of evil in a Democrat. 

Others have pointed out the dubious nature of those making the charge; the awkward timing of those briefings; the inability of Ms. Pelosi to take any action even if she had been briefed due to the classified nature of the briefings - disclosure would be illegal; and the fact that former Senator Bob Graham, who was the only other Democrat to have been briefed on detainees during the period that Pelosi was briefed, appears to have not been told about waterboarding or other enhanced interrogation.   

But back to Harold Ford. This guy just hasn't gotten the memo, has he? Or maybe he got the memo from Dick Cheney, who this weekend claimed that the Bush Administration was engaged in an "honorable approach," preventing a "mass casualty attack against the United States." 

Ford's argument is really that those he is defending were cowards who were afraid of another attack occurring and then being charged by Bush, Cheney and crew of having blocked measures to keep America safe. Regardless of the validity of that charge. The only problems are (1) people behaving like that would have been simply, as I said, cowards, (2) the argument would have been flat wrong, and (3) even if it did work - which it didn't - efficacy is no defense to war crimes and a violation of international human rights law. Period. Even if some Democrats were complicit. It just doesn't matter.

Jeez.

On a related topic, I was planning to use an image from the brilliant Star Trek: The Next Generation episode in which Captain Picard is tortured by the Cardassians, and discuss how torture was addressed in that episode, which is eerily prescient of the Bush torture regime. In short, the Cardassians refuse to obey interplanetary treaties on prisoners of war, instead deeming Picard a "terrorist," opening the way to torture him.  But, the torture doesn't "break" Picard in the sense that he reveals any information, but ultimately it almost gets him to say what the Cardassians want to hear (that there are five lights, rather than four). The goal - just like the goal of the Bush/Cheney torture - is not to get information, but to break the tortured person's will, and to get the answer they already want. 

However, in searching for the image, I see that Slate has beaten me to the story.