HE’S B-A-A-A-A-CK

Near the end of almost every horror movie, there’s a moment when the good people have finally triumphed over the monster who (or which) has been tormenting them for the past hour and a half or so. General jubilation, uplifting music, and wait for the credit roll. But wait!

The monster’s not completely dead! Rising from its presumed final resting place, the monster goes one more round with the good folk before finally, permanently succumbing.

This tired dramatic cliché came to mind with the recent appearance of Dick Cheney’s first interview since he slithered out of office. Not content to let as much as a month go by before rising from his figurative crypt – no doubt in some undisclosed location – to defend himself and attack anyone so foolish as to disagree with him, the previously aptly named ‘Vice” hoisted his broadsword and heaved once again into battle with his enemies.

Which includes pretty much everyone, but most especially those now occupying the positions of power Cheney & Co. so recently vacated. One suspects that with their inevitable repetition, his efforts at self-justification will become simply tedious. For just now, however, their outlandish audacity can amaze.

For example, “If you release the hard-core Al-Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks. If you turn ’em loose and they go kill more Americans, who’s responsible for that?”

Who indeed? Isn’t it at least a reasonable possibility that what might drive a released Guantanamo resident to mayhem is the experience of having been bundled off to the place, held for years with no recourse to anything even vaguely resembling due process. “Well, you see how it is, Omar. Some tribal leader picked you up, sold you to the CIA for a bounty, which we paid figuring that anyone carrying a pen knife in the hills of Whatchamacallitstan is clearly up to no good and in all likelihood at least middle-level Al-Qaeda. So you were shuffled down some malign underground railroad and ended up a guest of the U.S. Government in Cuba for the past six years. No trial, no contact with your family, no hope the nightmare would end. But hey! No hard feelings, huh?”

Or, following Cheney’s pretzel logic, are we prepared to hold these individuals indefinitely? A more effective jihadi recruitment tool does not readily come to mind.

There’s more. “Those policies we put in place (terrorist surveillance, “enhanced” interrogation, the Patriot Act), in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.” Surely this deserves a gold medal for specious reasoning, served up with a healthy side order of “We know what’s best.” Can it be seriously argued at this late date that the actions of Team Cheney over the past eight years were the best way of achieving our security? And at what cost? This year marks the semiquincentennial anniversary of a germane observation by one Benjamin Franklin: “They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

As for Cheney, roll credits. The show’s over.