Respect for the Rule of Law

David Waldman points out what's really significant about Alberto Gonzale's response to Dan Abrams' question about the release of the torture memos. Here's what Gonzales said:

They may be necessary in the future. And by disclosing it, means you take them off the table and they can never be used again.

Here's some excerpts from what Waldman wrote with an assist from Andrew Sullivan in selecting some of them.

They may be necessary in the future.

Let's unpack that. Republicans are unapologetic about the use of torture. We knew that. Republicans think it might be necessary again in the future. We probably knew that, too. But it's the implications of that statement I think Congress and Democrats in particular are unprepared for.

First, it is a reminder of the fact that while the U.S. is supposedly not currently engaged in such practices, they've been suspended under executive order. It is, in short, a reminder that the United States only honors its legal and constitutional prohibitions against torture when the chief executive wills it to be so. And politically, that appears to mean we only honor those obligations when Democrats are elected to the White House.

As tiresome as it can sometimes be to see people frame matters so that it all comes down to one issue and one issue only, I find myself returning to this one again and again. Whether or not torture is your issue. Or wiretapping. Or indefinite detention. Or signing statements. Or anything, really -- environment, global warming, abortion, health care, taxes, terrorism, the war. No matter what your issue is, at heart, you're dependent on a continuing and consistent respect for the law. Because without it, none of your work on politics and policy is worth anything the moment the White House falls to someone who's not you.

You can pass all the environmental laws you like, but if it's accepted as a legitimate tenet of Republican governing philosophy that all of those laws can be safely ignored or otherwise set aside, you'll have gained nothing from your work with a friendly Congress and administration.

And if you can set aside all statutory and constitutional law on something like torture, I'm unsure what barriers you think remain in the way of doing the same on any other issue...

They are telling you they will torture again in the future. They have already told you that it is their belief -- their interpretation of the four corners of the Constitution -- that they have the right to order it if they can win just one national election (versus Democrats' constant scrambling to win 300+ localized contests).

There is nothing "backward looking" about giving serious consideration to a live threat that has just been renewed.

David's post was cross-posted at Daily Kos.