More than 20 years ago, for an undergraduate journalism course, I read a book called Fatal Vision, a "true-crime novel" by author Joe McGinniss. The book tells the story of a grisly triple-homicide that took place in the early morning hours of February 17, 1970, on the U.S. Army base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The pregnant wife and two small daughters of Captain Jeffrey R. MacDonald, a Green Beret doctor, were savagely murdered in their home; MacDonald himself suffered mostly superficial injuries but was treated for a collapsed lung, multiple stab wounds, and head contusions. He claimed that he and his family had been attacked by a group of Manson-like "drug-crazed hippies," that they had stabbed and beaten him unconscious, that when he came to he found his wife Colette and daughters Kimberley and Kristen slaughtered in their bedrooms, and tried to revive them before calling the military police.
The Army didn't believe his story; they thought, among other things, that the house appeared too neat in the aftermath to have been the scene of a violent struggle resulting in three gruesome deaths. Although a military investigation resulted in the charges being dropped, the case was eventually re-opened by the Justice Department and MacDonald was indicted in 1975, tried in 1979, and convicted of the murders of Colette, Kimberley and Kristen. He was briefly released on direct appeal, as the Fourth Circuit overturned his conviction on speedy-trial grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, sending him back to prison where he remains to this day, steadfastly maintaining his innocence. All of his subsequent appeals have failed.
If it seems like I've glossed over a lot, it's because I have. The details of the MacDonald murder case are voluminous and endlessly fascinating, but as you'll see shortly I'm really not here to talk about that case. And I really, really don't want to get into a debate over whether MacDonald is guilty or innocent. I spent years studying and debating this case, back when there were still "newsgroups" instead of blogs and social media, and such debates can get just as hot and contentious as political arguments. People who have opinions about Jeffrey MacDonald have very strong opinions about Jeffrey MacDonald, and those opinions are just as susceptible, if not more so, to confirmation bias (and venomous accusations thereof). This, I think, is mainly due to the length and complexity of the case, the ambiguity of the forensic evidence, the nature of the crime itself and whatever emotional biases people have about the murders, about crime and punishment generally, about the criminal justice system generally, about authors and journalists generally, and so forth.
The point I want to make is this: I've always believed, right from the beginning, that if Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty he has done a very thorough job of convincing himself that he's innocent. Even if he is guilty he believes, absolutely sincerely and wholeheartedly and without a shred of doubt, that he is innocent and that his account of the murders is true. He is not lying when he professes his innocence -- whether he is in fact innocent or not.
What's fascinating about the MacDonald case is that Jeffrey is either one of the most persecuted, victimized men in American legal history, or one of the most frightening, horrible psychopaths of all time -- there's no in-between. The ambiguity of the objective facts only deepens the mystery. MacDonald may very well have been wrongfully convicted. But he also may very well be the true psychopath that Joe McGinniss, his late wife's family, and millions of readers, TV viewers and true-crime enthusiasts believe him to be and have made him out to be.
Dick Cheney is the same sort of psychopath.
We've all seen, heard, and/or read about his performance on Meet the Press yesterday. And we've all had strong opinions about Mr. Cheney for well over a decade now. Nothing he said on MTP should have been the least bit surprising to anyone on either side who has any idea who, and what, Dick Cheney is.
Just as a guilty Jeffrey MacDonald (if he is guilty) is incapable of believing, let alone accepting or admitting, that he murdered his family in 1970, Dick Cheney is incapable of believing that he or anyone under his direction did anything wrong or illegal after 9/11, least of all with regard to the treatment of detainees that was the subject of the recent Senate report. I don't think anyone expects Cheney or anyone else to come out and admit to violating international law by committing, ordering or enabling grotesque, sadistic, immoral acts. Cheney actually believes that he did no such things.
This is about more than just a subjective understanding of what constitutes torture and whether or not it is justifiable (viz., We are the Good People, They are the Bad People, so it is not torture if the Good People do it to the Bad People, because They deserve it, and because They did bad things to Us, but it is torture and it is wrong if anyone does it to the Good People, because We don't deserve it and We never did anything bad to Them to justify the bad things They did to Us). This is much deeper and more disturbing.
No one expects Jeffrey MacDonald to ever admit to having killed Colette, Kimberley and Kristen. No one expects Dick Cheney to ever admit to having had detainees tortured, or that torturing detainees was in any way wrong.
For Cheney, as with MacDonald, the alternative is unthinkable. MacDonald literally cannot believe that he slaughtered his family for no reason at all. A man cannot believe himself to be a monster. Jeffrey MacDonald can't believe that, and Dick Cheney can't believe that. Jeffrey MacDonald may not actually be a monster. Dick Cheney almost certainly is.