Glenn Greenwald interviews Scott Horton:

GG: Let me interrupt you there, because, one of the arguments that you make, that I want to ask you about in just a second, is that although there are numerous potential prosecutions that could be justifiable — the Bush administration obviously broke surveillance laws, there are obstruction of justice issues, they politicize prosecutions — you probably have written more about that than any other person in the country, and yet you say that the crime that’s the most deserving as well as the most susceptible to prosecution is torture. And I want to ask you just in a moment, about why you think that is.

But first, I want to ask about the more general point that you make: that although it’s the case that in the past that presidents have broken specific laws, what has happened under the Bush administration is different in kind, not just degree, because what they’ve really done is assaulted the law itself. That’s the argument that you’ve made. What did you mean by that?

SH: When we look at all these things in tandem, we see that there’s a collective attitude that applies across the board, which is, they don’t care about criminal law limitations on the power of the president. They believe the president has the right to ride roughshod over them. And in fact, just as a good example: if you look at Barton Gellman’s book the Angler [Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency] — excellent book — he talks about the formation of the terrorist surveillance policy and its implementation. And he had David Addington, with the authority of Vice President Cheney, telling individuals who are putting in their proposals, to make their proposals completely disregarding the law, including the criminal law restrictions. And indeed, they specifically solicited proposals disregarding the law, and they implemented them disregarding the law — knowing that they didn’t have legitimate legal arguments to avoid the restriction, that they could just do it by force and dint of power and authority.

And they could only do that by getting high-level policy makers and people down the line to accept their position of being above the law. So they did that. They were basically governing via being at war with the law, and that’s something that has not happened before. The closest case we had previously was the Nixon administration, but what I think what happened there is bland compared to what happened under George W. Bush.

As we like to say, go read the whole thing.