So Michael Hayden, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has decided to take a reading on his moral compass as he speculates about the choices that could be made in the event that there is a President Trump. In a recent news interview, he spoke of the lack of legal cover in the statement "I was just following orders." All actors up and down the chain of command must distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders and bear individual legal responsibility for any and all actions. In the event, that a President Trump governs like he campaigns, Mr. Hayden spoke with certainty that staff of any of a number of federal agencies will be faced with the necessity of choosing to follow lawful orders and refusing to follow unlawful orders.

My question is: Where was Mr. Hayden and his voice to this sentiment during the past 15 years when there was a discussion of and a use of extraordinary renditions, enhanced interrogation techniques, and unlawful/enemy/unlawful enemy combatants? There were multiple claims of presidential findings and Department of Justice opinions in support of actions taken. In retrospect much of that support was indicative of 1984 newspeak, or should I say politic-speak or moralistic doublespeak. Possibly, it is only in retrospect that folks like Mr. Hayden have come to their senses. I certainly hope there are more than just Mr. Hayden. Maybe it is recent news accounts of the extradition of South American military officers who are now being held accountable for actions taken 40 years ago or the trials of concentration camp staff some 70 years after the fact. There is a substantial body of law where there is no statute of limitations.

No one has the luxury of determining the rectitude of an action the "morning after." That determination must be made going in, up front, or in the heat of the moment. There may be extenuating circumstances, but an exculpatory claim can not be legitimately made in any event.

This past week I have found it necessary to keep the dictionary close at hand. Rather than occupying its regular position on the book shelf, it has taken up residence on my desk. In the past, Michael Perry's weekly column in the Wisconsin State Journal frequently contained a vocabulary gem which required a dictionary aside as I read his column. One of his more recent gems--zerk--I was able to handle without recourse to the dictionary. That is just as well since zerk is not in my Webster's New World Dictionary (the third college edition).

Such was not the case with three other unfamiliar terms I encountered this week. These include: treacly, galluses, and skrill. The latter two result in a spell check alert; that is indicative of something. The first two are in my dictionary; the third is not. An on-line dictionary of American slang came to my rescue. I suspect that I will not make use of any of these three words within the foreseeable future or any time between today and my dying day. I am quite certain that I will not encounter any of them in spoken or written communication during much this same time period. I have access to handy alternatives--saccharine, suspenders or braces, and frog-skins--which won't send my fellow readers and conversationalists in search of the closest dictionary. Having access to that on-line dictionary of slang may continue to be helpful.

I will probably not have a use for zerk either, since the bearings in the mechanical devices I encounter these days are sealed and permanently lubricated. But. I would recognize one, if I saw one. And. I don't own a grease gun (neither the real kind, nor the slang kind), so I couldn't do anything about a zerk, if I saw one.