As I noted in my piece on the two conservatives on Bill Moyers last week, there are principled parties in that group out there. The fact they reference the "smug" nature of the current administration, that the "rule of law deserves better," talk about "a blaze of executive overreaching" (investigation will help "vindicate the Constitution"), oppose the "simply untrue" things they say (suspicious of "the special interest voices that paid by contribution for special 'access' "), and allege deputies like Yoo simply don't understand the nature of attorney-client privilege as applied to the OLC ("for the institution not the person") underlines the fact.
This gives a flavor of the emphatic nature of a recent piece by Douglas Kmiec, "Chair & Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University [a conservative school]. Previously, he was Head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush." The guy's conservative bona fides are being evident, except to the degree he dares to question el jefe. The essay denounces the excess use of executive privilege, while recognizing some special flexibility to the executive given the times.
And, some dispute on the particulars, like the nature of torture. This is fine as far as it goes, if there is some underlining principle, which is woefully absent on any consistent basis among the conservatives actually in power. The new torture czar's inability to admit that waterboarding is torture and the like (thanks again Chuck!) underlines the point.* The latest is his advising that the President and Vice President allege privilege (in tell tale smug form) to block investigation of the Plame outing. You know, the covert agent whose mission was to deal with WMDs. Why do these people hate what we stand for?
A lingering sense the Church ought not be in the business of bloodshed led Innocent [IV] to stipulate that inquisitors should subcontract interrogations to secular authorities and major hemorrhages, amputations, and death were to be avoided -- but the squeamishness would not last. ...Water torture, sleep deprivation, and prolonged isolation were always the most popular methods.
-- The Trial: A History from Socrates to O.J. Simpson by Sadakat Kadri, discussing 13th Century practice
There are ever more books out there underlining the torture and mistreatment (not the same thing, but often equally illegal, in part based on international law) done in our name. Same old, same old. And, like school where you repeated are provided a refresher course on past lessons, it is unclear how much we learnt from the past. Waterboarding, after all, was damned in the past ... including when done against "those people" after the Spanish-American War. Water "torture" was the subject of woodcuts in the Middle Ages too, but that was some time back. Before you know it, especially with the "well, they are gone, so you can trust us" mentality, the turn of the 21st Century will be as dark in the recesses of our memories as well.
And, dwelling on it (you know, a couple years back) is just bad form, and the Blue Dogs don't really like it. So ...
---
* Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) whose support was key in his confirmation. BTW, as to torture and the like, DK suggests any possibly classified information requested from Yoo in his recent testimony to Congress could probably be handled via a secret session.
Cf. some who seem to think a "classified" tag (known to be rather overused) suddenly means the executive has sole authority, including from court review (the fact the "state secrets" doctrine arose from a CYA matter that later perhaps didn't involve classified information at all underlines the problem).