The Increasing Irrelevance of the Constitution

At least, that is what Charles Krauthammer and the torture apologists would have you believe. Now, they are defending the destruction of the evidence of the government's crimes. From Andrew Sullivan:

Charles [Krauthammer] say that the torture of terror suspects in 2002 was justified because the United States was flying blind and had no knowledge of what al Qaeda was planning. He won't say "torture", of course, although the law is clear that it is torture. (He and Fox News keep referring to the notion of "harsh interrogation techniques". I think they realized that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a little too close to the Gestapo's euphemism for comfort.) And he then said that destroying the tapes was justified because you don't want them coming up on YouTube, do you? So there you have it: the government has a right to torture when it feels like it and the right to destroy the evidence because it would incriminate them and hurt the image of the United States. Again, I keep pinching myself that I am actually hearing these things on the television.

But it is more than, of course. As he pointed out in the article, the administration and its defenders are making very large assumptions about the scope of executive power. That they will defend torture as a legitimate means of coercion in interrogations means that the president have come to a very dangerous premise: that in times of war the president can abrogate the legislative powers of Congress and take it for his own.

The Constitution is extremely clear that the laws of warfare are determined by the Congress, not the president. So it's up to the Beltway Boys to defend the suspension of the rule of law and the legalization of torture as executive prerogatives, in violation of the Constitution. Hey: we're at war. The Constitution is now optional.

When will people wake up to these violations of the Constitution?