No, not nothing: Cheney, Addington, and let’s face it, George W. Bush, wanted to demonstrate their manliness by demonstrating literally that they could get away with all of this, both legally (check) and politically (check). Under this analysis, the more outrageous and unjustified the conduct, the better: this was all a demonstration project as to just how far the limits of executive power could be abused before someone pushed back. Answer: pretty damned far. That actual human beings were involved, most completely innocent of anything remotely connected to terrorism and often, as in the case of the Bosnians, picked up thousands of miles from “the war”.

The American military probably would have revolted at some point (at least we sincerely hope so) if they were asked to run all-out death camps as opposed to just torture camps where some people died occasionally (at Guantanamo, only 4 so far, that’s not even 1 a year)…
the thing is, it’s understood that in wars, people can be killed. The novelty here was to try to shake up and redefine some of the most agreed-upon tenets of civilization– that torture is never EVER justified, period, no exceptions.

Unfortunately, I fear my college classmate Barack Obama’s “pragmatism” (regardless of whether he will “close Guantanamo…” for which he seems to have now given himself up to two years more) will dictate that he not pursue accountability for those responsible (up to and including his predecessor), thereby allowing this unlawful, unConstitutional, and uncivilized precedent to stand. Here’s hoping I’m wrong about that.