We’re interested but it’s on a bell curve.
So starting wars of aggression and ordering torture merely reflects “obsessive-compulsive hatred” of their perpetrator, does it? We hanged people for much less than that, not too long ago, of course they weren’t *our *people.
There isn’t much left to say about morality after that. It’s only whatever your partisan supporters will excuse you for - and there isn’t anything that they won’t, apparently.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
So starting wars of aggression and ordering torture merely reflects “obsessive-compulsive hatred” of their perpetrator, does it? We hanged people for much less than that, not too long ago, of course they weren’t our people.
[/QUOTE]
Starting the ‘wars of aggression’ weren’t ‘illegal’ though, assuming you are talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. The torture MIGHT have been illegal (almost certainly was in fact), but pinning that on Cheney would be difficult. I don’t know all the legal ins and outs, not being a lawyer, so maybe one of the legal types could go through that aspect.
If you are talking about the Nazi’s we hanged after WWII, we hanged them mostly for war crimes involving the deliberate murder of literally millions of civilian men, women and children, not for torture or starting ‘wars of aggression’. So, kind of apples to oranges comparison between what Bush and Cheney did verse what Hitler and Himmler did. If you are talking about hanging Saddam and the various Iraqis captured, again, they weren’t hanged for invading Kuwait or torturing their own people but for war crimes involving mass murder (and, afaik WE didn’t hang them, the Iraqis did).
There isn’t much to say when you don’t want to discuss or debate any of this, but instead just rant, true enough.
He ordered techniques that were cleared for use at the time they were used.
If you want to go down that road you can charge every president whoever dropped a bomb in an undeclared war and that would be just about all of them in the last 100 years.
But what charges would be brought specifically against Cheney as an individual? Or would he just be tried as a symbol for the Bush administration or the United States government?
Cheney was the Vice President. It’s pretty much a powerless office. Granted, Cheney had a lot more influence than most Vice Presidents but influence only means he was making suggestions to people. Other people were issuing the orders.
Can someone provide a non-snarky answer to this question: the Vice President, under the Constitution and our laws, basically has no power. To the extent that he thinks something ought to be done, he really has to convince someone to take his advice: the President, a cabinet secretary, someone. Biden doesn’t get to wake up in the morning and decide which ISIL targets to bomb, for example.
And yet, in a lot of these discussions, Cheney is the first one who is proposed to be prosecuted. Why does his name get mentioned first so often? Shouldn’t the ones who have the authority to order things, and did, be the first to face a judge, if it were to come to that? The dude in the article went so far as to say that Bush was, in essence, a minor role in the torture issue. Uh, what? He’s the fruggin’ president! The source of ALL executive power per Art I, sec 1!
So why is Cheney supposed to be the first one prosecuted? Is it because he’s a total dick, regardless of what actions or authority he took or had? Sure seems like it. But it doesn’t say much for justice when the policy is, let’s go after assholes first, and then maybe later we’ll get around to those who broke the law.
It’s not just that people don’t like Cheney. It’s that he’s been outspoken in favor of torture, and has been caught in lies while trying to justify it. There’s no doubt he knew what his administration was doing, and that he would do it again. People harbor doubts about Bush’s mens rea.
ETA: And in answer to the OP, I think most of the relevant statutes of limitation have run, which is obviously not the only practical obstacle to prosecution. I think many administration officials should at least have been investigation by a special prosecutor. It wasn’t done for political reasons. Whether that was the right utilitarian decision or not, it is a shame. Based on what is publicly known, some Bush Administration officials unlawfully ordered the torture of detainees (and sought to cover it up).
Lest we forget the charmer had “other priorities” other than to serve in Vietnam. Of course he wasn’t alone but he had a way with words from early on.
What does this mean?
eta: Oh okay, I think you mean the CIA doctors list of acceptable techniques.
You know, I think you’re on to something here. We must send a message to the world and get Cheney prosecuted. And I think you’re just the man to lead the charge. Please do report back from time to time to share how it’s going.
So it isn’t Cheney’s actions, but his opinions and justifications, that are the basis of the prosecution? So if General Tommy Franks had said more things in the press about Abu Ghraib, would he be more likely to be prosecuted, regardless of what acts he did or didn’t do?
Or, let’s take another example. Kofi Annan said in carefully chosen words that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Should the ICC wish (and have the authority) to prosecute the crime of aggression, there are many members of Congress who voted for the war. Let’s just say that the ICC wishes to prosecute legislators who did so, for the purposes of this question. Would John McCain be prosecuted, and Hillary Clinton not, on the basis that McCain was outspoken in favor of the invasion, and has continually tried to justify it? Both of them voted the same way, which is presumably the basis of the crime.
I don’t understand what you mean.
Irrespective of how you feel about Dick Cheney the odds of him being tried in a real court for war crimes are preposterously tiny. If anyone wants to place a bet on it I’ll give you 100-to-1 odds.
Who do you see suggesting that it will ever actually happen?
Because Bush delegated pretty much all of his presidential authority to Cheney, whether directly or by dereliction. Others acted under Cheney’s direction.
That’s been the weird thing to see here - the allegation that we think these things are evil just because we hate Cheney, not that we hate Cheney because he did these evil things. People saying that have to deny that there is such a thing as morality or even law to make that charge.
But Bush is still responsible, I would say.
And can you provide a concrete example of Cheney giving an order? I know it is common sense that Cheney played a very large role in formulating policy - no dispute there. But I simply cannot think of any time where it became clear to me that Cheney was literally telling someone to do something while Bush was off watching football and choking on pretzels. So how do you come to the conclusion that Cheney, and not Bush, ordered torture, and you’re sure enough of that to argue that Cheney should be prosecuted before Bush?
And aren’t you following the same principle that allowed a few enlisted soldiers and a lieutenant colonel to be charged with crimes at Abu Ghraib? “Let’s not hold to account the person who was supposed to be in charge but didn’t know what was going on… let’s go after his subordinates!” I think that is usually called scapegoating.
Sure. But omission still makes you less culpable than commission, fairly or not.
The evidence, including testimony from those involved, has to come from a prosecution, unfortunately - chicken/egg. Certainly Alberto Gonzales would be involved with that, whether as a witness or a target.
No question there was scapegoating there. But in fact the fun ‘n’ games at Abu Ghraib were done according to the direction of the civilian command back in Washington, which is how you get back to Cheney. Gen. Karpinski was one of the scapegoats too, btw - she certainly did know what was happening under her command, since she had been directed to see that it was done.
So we don’t seem to have any evidence that Cheney was the one who ordered anything, but he ought to be the first one prosecuted because he has been so vocal about how good torture was for the United States.
What am I missing here?
That a prosecution starts well before the filing of charges, with the formal investigation and subpoenas and depositions and production of documents, all enforceable by criminal law.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
What am I missing here?
[/QUOTE]
That the perception is that Cheney was in charge so therefore he should be the one to get the axe.
I’m no lawyer, so a lot of this stuff goes right over my head, especially since it’s not even something I’m interested enough to try and dig into and try and understand. To me this is the same exact argument we had about how the US invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) were ‘illegal’. Ok. What does that actually mean though? I mean, if something is ‘illegal’ but not enforced, what does ‘illegal’ even mean in that context? Same here. I’ve seen threads where the arguments were laid out that under international law the torture that the US did in places like AG were ‘illegal’. The war itself is supposedly ‘illegal’. But since none of that will ever be enforced, what difference does it make?
Domestically, I don’t know if what Bush (or Cheney or the other leadership) did was or wasn’t illegal by our own laws. I assume they were and I’ve seen people lay out the arguments that they were but I’m not a lawyer and following the often convoluted discussions and back and forth I generally just give up when my eyes glaze over. But if, because of political expediency, we don’t actually do anything about it, it seems to me that ‘illegal’ even in that more stringent context of US law which DOES presumably mean something to Americans doesn’t mean much in this context.
No, of course not. His words help show the requisite knowledge and intent for some of the crimes, and also play a role in how to exercise prosecutorial discretion. You prefer to go after the murderer who brags about his crimes over the one who believed he committed a mercy killing.
Cheney has basically said he was aware of all the techniques used, including those recently revealed. It’s pretty safe to assume Bush knew too, but I think the public evidence of that is less clear.
A prosecution starts before there is evidence of probable cause that an individual broke the law? I’m asking, basically, what is the evidence that shows that it is more likely than not that Cheney took actions for which he is criminally culpable for the torture of many people. The only things I can gather from this debate are that Cheney made a lot of public statements defending torture, and then this idea that the prosecution has to start before we know of he did anything illegal.
Is this the best that people can do to explain why Cheney is the one who really deserves prosecution?
Perception is pretty weak sauce for putting someone on trial. Even someone like Cheney, for whom I have less than no regard.