Constitutional Cherry Picking

TW: Given the shrill calls in D.C. from protesters over the weekend to "respect the constitution" it is relevant to recall an issue where our constitution has been stretched beyond the breaking point. There is no doubt at this point many Americans are comfortable with American torture. Our former VPOTUS clearly supports doing "whatever it takes" in the name of American security regardless of any constitutional or legal impediments (and regardless of its actual efficacy). Either we act differently or we acknowledge our morals have been overtaken by fear.

We are meant to have elections to adjudicate these fundamental disputes.

The Economist from a couple of weeks ago on Cheney's interview with the Fox Nationalist Jingoistic American Channel:
"...there was one moment in the interview that was uniquely clarifying. It came when Mr Cheney defended the CIA interrogators who are accused of going beyond the tactics authorised by the Justice Department. First he claimed they had acted legally, then he claimed it didn't matter.

'Wallace: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorisation, you're OK with it?

Cheney: I am.'

Of course he is. In many ways these interrogators are Mr Cheney writ small. They are the child to Mr Cheney's dad in those old anti-drug commercials—"I learned it by watching you!" (Except Mr Cheney is a proud papa.) Like the former vice-president before them, they treated the law as a vague, non-binding inconvenience.

Mr Cheney will argue that the previous administration's actions were legal, but one senses he hates having to make this argument. For him, his assertion that the interrogation programme "saved thousands of lives" is the end of the debate. His own indifference in this case to his administration's dubious legal memoranda shows the true value he placed on those documents. As Andrew Sullivan points out, Mr Cheney is "basically saying that the law had no salience or relevance in his program of torturing prisoners." First the law was made to conform to the administration's policies, then, when even the new law became too burdensome, it was considered irrelevant. It's an odd way to run a democracy based on the rule of law."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/little_cheneys.cfm