Having His Say
Dick Cheney is speaking out against the Obama administration's approach to the War on Terror. In general, I prefer previous administrations to refrain from criticism of present administrations--they had their chance. It's my memory that Reagan and the Bushes didn't say too much after they left office, Bill Clinton occasionally opened his mouth, and Jimmy Carter wouldn't shut up. Veeps are slightly different, since they might run for office again, but most of them in recent times kept quiet until Gore.
There is a possible exception to this rule, I guess, and that's when the present administration keeps blaming the former administration for today's problems. In a courtroom, subjects that are otherwise off-limits can be brought up when the other side opens the door. (And on a playground, you can always invoke the "you started it" rule.) Perhaps Cheney is speaking out because of this, but from his energy and vehemence, one gets the feeling he'd be doing it no matter what--that he believes the Bush administration built a successful system for dealing with terror which the Obama administration is dismantling.
This is certainly a debate we should be having (whether or not Cheney should be leading it). Alas, most of the accusations flying back and forth are closer to name-calling. Cheney supporters will even question the motives of the Obama people (do they think Obama wants to help terrorists?) while Cheney himself gets treated like Thersites, attacked for everything but his actual argument.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:22 AM
6 Comments:
Obama wants to try terrorists in court. You might say he believes that isn't helping them or that he doesn't want to hurt America, but his definition is so far off kilter that the point is irrelevant. Sincerity isn't a virtue or excuse.
So, yes, absolutely, he wants to help terrorists. I mean, somewhere there's a resident of a western culture smirking at a burka. What could be more important than that?
Obama wants to refrain from acting like the Taliban with meaningless kangaroo courts. Cheney believes that acting more like the terrorists will help us defeat them
There's something sick with the left if they equate military tribunals, which are a part of our system, with kangaroo courts.
The point is these aren't just criminals, these are prisoners of war who have valuable information.
The only kangaroo court is trying KSM while having the White House announce he'll get the death penalty and knowing he won't be let go if he's found not guilty.
Indeed, this is precisely what is happening - turning the federal judiciary into kangaroo courts. What a disaster for America that is.
When wingnuts say Obama wants to help terrorists, they are just ending the conversation. The guy just caught the #2 Man in Afghanistan. He has increased the effort against those who attacked us (and who were largely given a pass before this -- the Tora Bora Pass, if you will).
This question of creating a new court system to try a new category of people is mostly manufactured hoopla. (Don't pretend it's not new -- the Bush Administration took years to try to figure out what to do with them and still left it with a big question mark.)
It is distressing to think people with so little faith in our system claim to be the real Americans. Issues of a powerful government sticking people in prison on some "security" pretext without proper hearings were a motivating factor in the creation of our country.
Of course if people know we have "terrorists" in jail -- there is no problem with letting them rot in prison -- the problem is trusting the government to be right every time -- the same government you seem to think can't do anything else right. That's why procedures are needed.
Of course, with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, no one is arguing that they won't give him a fair trial -- they are merely stating that the evidence against him is so overwhelming that they see no likelihood the prosecutors won't prevail. That's different from a kangaroo court.
Why are you so afraid of the very systems that made America great. Grow some.
"Of course if people know we have "terrorists" in jail -- there is no problem with letting them rot in prison -- the problem is trusting the government to be right every time -- the same government you seem to think can't do anything else right. That's why procedures are needed."
Yes, procedures are needed, just not the due process available to criminal defendants. The Constitution recognizes a separate track for military issues, and this is worse--foreign nationials waging war against the U.S. The due process they get with tribunals is far more than is historically normal for POWs.
The reason it took Bush years to set up the system is not just its novelty, but objections, lawsuits and court rulings. It was finally finished by the end of his term and Obama comes in an trashes it. This is ridiculous. You need to hold POWs and extract information from them. They are not regular criminals.
"Of course, with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, no one is arguing that they won't give him a fair trial -- they are merely stating that the evidence against him is so overwhelming that they see no likelihood the prosecutors won't prevail. That's different from a kangaroo court."
If you believe he'll be let go if he's acquitted, you're more naive than I thought. (And letting him go would probably lead to Obama's impeachment.)
And the truth is, since he wasn't Mirandized (as he shouldn't have been) and because information was gotten from him under duress, using normal "due process" it's easy to imagine most evidence against him will be supressed.
Before the Obama administration gave him this gift, this wonderful forum to speak to the world for months at a time, he was ready to admit his guilt and take his punishment. This has literally given him new life.
Post a Comment
<< Home