« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Cheney: Even Arguing About Torture is Helping Terrorists
Here's maybe the most radical argument of an extremely radical speech:
And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
In other words, the very act of debating torture, or the process by which we try detainees, is encouraging terrorists to strike. The implication, of course, is that dissent of any kind is dangerous.
That's something that Cheney and other Bushies have suggested before, of course. But rarely do you see it stated so bluntly.
Advertisement
Josh
Zachary
Cheney calls US Soldiers 'sadistic' for carrying out his orders then goes on to defend torture.
What a piece of shit.
Good job catching Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Oh yeah, you failed in that mission Dick.
May 21, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give a shit about what THEY see or what THEY do, Dick. It's what WE do that matters.
May 21, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Do we act from the U.S. Constitution's laws no matter what others think? That's literally what defines our nation.
Cheney is talking about the USAINO: the United States of America in Name Only.
You can't argue with this guy. There is no common ground. He has already clearly and repeatedly claimed that the President and Vice-President answer to no law. No law.
It's up to people who vote and to their elected officials to reject this man's arguments outright or else they too belong, to some degree, to the USAINO.
(for example, the U.S. is not at war, for the U.S. has not cleared the Constitutional threshold. Any notion that there is a new kind of war and that new methods must be used to fight it must pass Constitutional muster. Pass Amendments if you are so certain of your beliefs. Use the system in place; any rejection of it is illegal.)
(The U.S. may still impeach a person after the person leaves office... just sayin'. As much as I have my doubts that this will occur, I want this option very much included in discussion on how to solve a problem like Dick Cheney.)
May 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has Cheney claimed that? I don't recall where/when he did so.
Something written in an OLC memo doesn't constitute a Cheney claim.
May 21, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I can lead you to evidence but I can't make you think...
Here's just a start.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/
Then there's his cockamamie claim that the VP is not subject to laws regulating the executive branch or legislative branch because, get this, it has functions in both branches. To me and probably 80-90% of the reading population (assuming it didn't know the source of the claim), that would imply that the VP is subject to oversight of both branches, but no, Cheney (and those around him whom he has never contradicted in this matter) believes it's neither.
Honestly, what makes you think he doesn't believe that?
May 22, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, I'm going to backtrack ever so slightly from what I said. Cheney hasn't explicitly claimed that he believes the President and Vice-President are subject to absolutely no law.
But I would say that's only because when either decides to break any law, he might and has found justification for it, particularly when it does not threaten what he thinks is the power of the Presidency. If he can think of any national security reason for the law to be broken, for example, no matter how logically flawed and falsely justified, he will use it.
May 22, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your slight backtrack is important to the truth.
Yes, a story can be written disparaging Bush&Co. No, that story is only a caricature not the truth generally.
As a point of legal fact, sometimes it is "okay" to break the law, and the law in some cases makes this explicit (proportionate self-defense, for example). This common notion should be considered for whether and when it might apply at all levels, including the White House.
The thing about exceptions to the law is that they should be tried in a court of law, or at least be investigated by honest competent prosecutors. The court of public opinion is hardly a quiet pond for Lady Justice. It is bombarbed by spin from many sides ranging from half-truths to outright lies. It's a kind of participatory theatre, and the objectives of that theatre conflict with justice and law in almost every way.
May 22, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The thing about exceptions to the law is that they should be tried in a court of law, or at least be investigated by honest competent prosecutors. The court of public opinion is hardly a quiet pond for Lady Justice."
Yes! Among my major problems with Cheney is that he often feels the executive branch doesn't need to go the route that is clearly laid out: prosecute via the judicial branch, promote legislation (see his beliefs regarding AUMF), and/or agitate to amend the Constitution, etc. What is he afraid of, unless he really has no evidence to justify his actions?
I have argued something along these lines once... let's see if I can wield my Internet search powers... Ah, yes, this story concerned Chuck Schumer (D-NY):
I was replying, not to the story directly, but to a comment that ralphbon made that quoted Schumer trying to use the "24" line of defense of torture:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004622.php
[quoted with my later amendment included as if it were in the original]
"...I don't see any reason why any form of torture that we haven't already banned can't be banned now, and rely on our jury system and sentencing system laws to determine whether such a hypothetical use of torture would actually convict the torturer.
This hypothetical torturer would have the further protection of Presidential pardon. I don't understand why everyone's so concerned about whether such a torturer, who could be demonstrated to have saved millions of lives through torture, would be sentenced."
May 22, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Among my major problems with Cheney is that he often feels the executive branch doesn't need to go the route ..."
I still think you're reading stuff into his behavior which probably doesn't fit. But that could be my obsessive interest in giving the benefit of the doubt... I'm not at all sure that he's "afraid of" anything relevant here.
May 22, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should read "particularly when it does threaten...".
May 22, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone remind me exactly why is it hyperbolic to call this man a (proto?) fascist.
May 21, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not hyperbole -- if anything, it's understatement.
May 21, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the last few months, Dick Cheney has been doing as much as he possibly can to get the press and our government "caught up" in arguments about how the law relates to our terrorism policy.
So is it possible to assume that Cheney's actual intentions are to signal weakness to our "enemies" by distracting our leaders and shaking our resolve?
He is pretty much indicting himself as a traitor, or at the very least someone trying to make an attack more likely, with this stupid argument.
May 21, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also sure he knows that there is at least one domestic terrorist which discussion would cause harm and it concerns him greatly.
May 21, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The man's a sociopath
May 21, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney's done far more to weaken America than any terrorist, much less any journalist or politician arguing about interrogation. The respect this man gets from the establishment is disgusting. He should be a universal pariah.
May 21, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Cheney forgets that he's now one of the dissenters, not one of the leaders. He's a private citizen, nothing more. He doesn't realize that he's explicitly telling himself to shut the f*** up.
May 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point, but internal consistency has not been the Republican Party's strong suit for the past 30 years or so.
May 21, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Our unity gone"....huh? He must be speaking about some other country, as President Obama has pretty solid approval ratings here in the USA and around the world. I am guessing that Cheney will disregard that information in much the same way he didn't believe anyone when they told him that there was NO connection between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
"Our resolve shaken"? Nope! President Obama is working with congress (instead of scaring them to death about the financial collapse of the country, or lying about "WMD" to go to war with Iraq)...maybe he is referring to them coming out from under the desks where they have been hiding after all the tactics he used during his VP tenure. He fails to recognize that "his world view" is no longer viable and that has HIM worried.
"Our leaders distracted" - no, actually, we are finding that President Obama is quite capable of multi-tasking...although he is not taking the quantity of vacations as his predecessor!
It seems that Mr. Cheney is trying to remain relevant and make others kowtow to his mantra, but the diminished GOP is the only group that even marginally cares about his opinions. Please don't let the door hit you in the rear as you exit the stage door and go back to your high security cave.
May 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink