The New York Times recently published an editorial titled "In the Spirit of Openness.
" It begins, "When he was vice president, Dick Cheney never acknowledged the public's right to know anything.
Now, suddenly, he has the full disclosure bug.
" How did Cheney catch this "full disclosure bug"? Could it in fact be an allergic reaction to some recent event or another-I don't know, say, the Obama administration's censorious partial disclosure of the enhanced interrogation memos with all of the spoilers blacked out? The Times mocks Cheney's statement that the decision to release the memos "inspired" him to ask the CIA to release full transcripts of the interrogations.
Might "inspired" be a euphemism for "forced"? The Times continues: "Mr.
Cheney was not being entirely honest...
and his logic is confounding.
If releasing the memos leaves this country open to a devastating terrorist attack...
imagine the potential harm from revealing all of the secrets gleaned from the three most 'high value' terrorists captured since Sept.
11, 2001.
" Let's examine Cheney's supposed breakdown in logic.
Releasing the memos, which detail the nature and limits of the U.
S.
's enhanced interrogation techniques, inarguably makes our country more vulnerable to attack, because it increases terrorists' understanding of our methods and what is needed to resist them.
In contrast, Cheney's suggestion of releasing the interrogation transcripts to show that these techniques worked reaffirms our commitment to using them, no matter what naysayers like Obama claim.
Releasing the transcripts blunts critics' self-destructive accusation that these techniques are too harsh to be used by our military, and must be exposed as scandalous; releasing the transcripts reveals a boob like Obama to be irrelevant.
It is the equivalent of saying, "Don't listen to that strange guy babbling in the corner-that's just our crazy uncle talking to himself again.
" The Times insists that releasing the interrogation transcripts will disclose information about intercepted terrorist plots.
So? Didn't the terrorist networks planning these attacks already know about them, by definition? Hasn't the Bush administration expounded in great detail on numerous foiled terrorist schemes, including novel methods terrorists have attempted, such as shoe bombing and assembling liquid explosives in-flight? The terrorists are the ones who will be the least surprised by the transcripts.
The people who will be most surprised are Americans who have been lulled into accepting the left's diatribe about the techniques being "inexcusable," "contrary to our values," "against the American way of life," etc.
These voters are bound to change their minds once they learn precisely how successful those techniques have been at keeping them safe for the past seven-and-a-half years-which is why the Obama administration is keen on their not receiving this information.
What is especially galling is that Obama is the one feigning full disclosure, by releasing the interrogation memos, but having the Justice Department black out sections that show how the interrogation techniques worked.
This would be like a newspaper's editor-in-chief (1) preparing a company memo chronicling how a senior journalist violated newsroom standards by quoting an anonymous source, (2) blacking out the part of the report showing that the journalist corroborated the source's information with other named, credible sources, and (3) claiming the journalist did not engage in "full disclosure.
" To the Obama administration, "full disclosure" apparently means "showing the parts that could be embarrassing for Bush and Cheney, and blotting out the rest with a Sharpie.
" Cheney originally preferred, justifiably, not to declassify the memos.
He knew that doing so would reveal important information about our intelligence-gathering techniques, which the enemy could then better resist by understanding the limits and precautions incorporated in those techniques-e.
g.
, "throwing" a detainee up against a "wall" made of rubber so as not to cause internal injuries, using a collar while doing so to prevent a detainee's neck from being broken, employing a simulation of drowning that can be performed many times over a short period with no permanent harm.
Once the Obama administration blew the lid off these memos, Cheney realized the only way to defend these techniques was to reveal how successful they had been in gathering intelligence.
The Times piece smarmily concludes, "We can't imagine how such an investigation [of the interrogations] can move ahead without Mr.
Cheney's testimony.
But given the former vice president's new devotion to full disclosure, we're sure he'll be happy to comply.
" A thought experiment: Suppose the techniques had not been effective, or that their effectiveness had been debatable.
Would Cheney now be chomping at the bit to have the interrogation transcripts released? Suppose that the techniques had been effective.
Would the Times still object to Bush and Cheney being able to use these transcripts to defend their actions, if releasing this evidence were the only way they could acquit themselves of spurious charges of violating the law?  (Of course The Times would, but bear with me.
)  Given Cheney's push for full disclosure of the transcripts, one can only assume the evidence will back him up, and that those who call his bluff will look like fools.
Openness for openness' sake, no matter what the consequences for intelligence gathering and Americans' safety, is suicidal.
Openness for the sake of rebuilding the perception of our military as strong and unyielding, and disproving scurrilous accusations by ignorant politicians who fail to practice openness themselves, is eminently sensible.
There is confounding logic being thrown around here, but not by former Vice President Cheney.