Cursing Dick Cheney - turnabout is fair play?

Dick Cheney was touring scenes of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation with Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and Attorney General Gonzales. According to the AP on Sept. 9, a man whose house was destroyed in Gulfport, Miss. quoted Cheney’s June 2004 remark to Sen. Pat Leahy right back at the Vice President himself, shouting: “Go fuck yourself, Mr. Cheney!”

As a Democrat, I chuckled. As an American, I thought it was disrespectful… but I really couldn’t bring myself to blame the guy. I might’ve said it, too.

As a human being, I cut a good deal of slack to anybody whose house was just destroyed by a terrible natural disaster that devastated a large region. As a (hopefully) civilized human being, though, I can’t condone anybody’s obscenely insulting anybody else like that, especially not in public. It’s rude.

As a citizen, I don’t see the point of yelling insults at Cheney because a hurricane destroyed your house. If you want to engage in rational, meaningful criticism of the Vice-President or his policies, you should write a letter to the editor or post on the Dope or something. If you just want to yell obscenities at the Veep because you hate him, you should do it in the privacy of your bedroom till the rage wears off.

'Course, this poor guy probably doesn’t have the privacy of a bedroom any more, which brings me back where I started.

One difference between the two exchanges-- Cheney didn’t interrupy Lehey while he (Lehey) was being interviewed by a reporter. The guy this time tried to shout down Cheney and block him from speaking.

Otherwise, it’s just par for the course. This happens to politicians all the time. They guy yelling almost always look like an asshole to the majority of people.

Kimstu: Why do you assume this guy had his house destroyed? Was that reported in the news?

Oops, I see that the OP said that the guy’s house was destroyed. Can we have a link?

Nonsense. It was a drive-by cursing.

I don’t see what was disrespectful, he said “Mister”.

I don’t se a debate bcause I don’t know why the guy said that. Maybe Cheney kicked his dog or something. However if you can tell me why you “might’ve said it, too”, then we can debate fair play.

Dr. Ben Marble, in his own words.

What exactly did I say that was nonsense? You don’t think there’s a difference between saying “go fuck yourself” to someone as a parting comment and shouting it over an interview that is being conducted? If you don’t, then I say to you “go …”. Oops, I can only say that in the Pit. :slight_smile:

In that case, I don’t think it was fair play. I think it was just an egregious act that was premeditated to try to embarrass a partisan enemy only because the guy is having a bad day and had an opportunity to take it out on someone else and did.

Cheney, on the other hand, made that remark to someone who publicly criticized his personal connections to a company. Not that I don’t think Cheney’s remark wasn’t egregious. I chuckled when I heard about that too. Not as a Republican, but as an *average Joe.
*Damn, that term will never be used the same again, will it? Go fuck yourself, NBC.

From rjung’s link:


Okay, now we’ve got a debate. Is there any legitimate reason why military police should come looking for a guy who shouted obscenities for a couple of seconds during a press conference and then walked away, without doing or threatening any violent action? And if so, is there any reason to handcuff him while asking him about the incident, if he’s acting cooperatively and nonviolently? Especially if, by the MP’s own statement, he hadn’t broken any laws?

Had he stood there and repeatedly shouted it, I’d certainly agree with you. Had Cheney been giving a speech, I’d agree with you. Had he been doing anything other than spouting platitudes to a reporter, I might agree with you. To me, this is a definite case of “no harm, no foul”.

Are we talking about Cheney or Marble at this point?

I am sure the Secret Service use the word “threatening” in a much more, dare I say, liberal way. You do know that if a cop wants to he can hold you, question you, and handcuff you while being questioned under no rules but his personal discretion.

Military police can do that to civilians? Civilian police can handcuff someone who is not under arrest? Dare I say cite?

Yeah, but military police aren’t the Secret Service, are they? I can see how SS might get a little rough with a guy who was continuing to stand there and hassle the Veep, even if he wasn’t behaving violently. But I really don’t get the point of sending MPs to chase after him when he’s calmly walked away a couple hundred feet down the street.

In fact, the only use of it that I can see is for purposes of intimidation, to get the point across that it’s frowned upon to yell at the VP in public. And I don’t like that notion. If you want to punish the guy for creating a disturbance or being a public nuisance or something legitimate like that, then report him to the cops and let them deal with it, just like anybody else would have to. I don’t fancy the idea of an Imperial Guard with M-16s leaning on hecklers who, by their own admission, haven’t broken any laws.

America has a long and beautiful tradition of disrespecting its elected representatives. I’m glad to see that it’s alive and well. I’d probably feel the same way even if the comments were directed at a politician I didn’t loath on an almost entirely visceral level.

'Course, it’s not exactly easy to find that sort of a politician…

I have no idea about military police, but civilian police can and do place people who are not under arrest in handcuffs. It’s frequently done to protect the officers, the person themselves, or bystanders.

I agree it’s “no harm, no foul”. The OP compared the two incidents, though, and I think the distinction I made is a real one. You called that distinction nonsense. You were wrong.

Military police have the same abilitis as the regular police if they are put into service to enforce law and order wich I assume is the case in Gulfport.

What, never watched COPS? :cool:

/slight hijack

I have some school friends that became police officers. I was offended at such a suggestion myself so I did some research. Apparently your rights to deny the police investigative or custodial actions only begin once you are in front of a judge. You cannot stop a cop from searching your house, vehicle, or person. If you did you would probably get charged with hindering. You can refuse to give your permission but you had better step aside if the officer tells you to. A police officer can handcuff you to protect you or him/herself under his discretion. They can hold you for a “reasonable” amount of time while questioning you. They cannot hold you if you are not being questioned.

Most of this I don’t have cites for but I can look it up if need be. I have asked several law professionals and it all boils down to:

  1. Always be polite to an officer no matter what. If you get heated they most likely will get heated right back and they usually win in those circumstances.
    2.Never waive your rights to an officer even if you are innocent. Assert them at any opportunity given.
  2. Do not answer any questions without a lawyer other than the obligatory (id and such) unless you absolutely are sure it will help you and/or you are not being investigated.
  3. Never try to stop an officer from doing anything unless you or someone else is in imminent danger.

One summer when I worked nights I watched COPS almost every day. And I saw too many a dumbass get roughed up or get carted away just because they thought cooperation would get them leniency. I never want to be in that position so I learn what I can.

Even when that “parting comment” is being said while addressing a member of Congress?