Cheney on Geneva

Did Dick Cheney really say this?

As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for. Capture one of these killers, and he'll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away.

This, of course, is exactly the sort of thing one would point to as an example of the moral superiority enjoyed by a liberal democracy when fighting a group of murderous fanatics -- we treat people in accordance with domestic and international law in a manner consistent with the basic principles of human rights and human dignity; they do not. But in Dick Cheney's America our delicate sensibilities fall away too.

Comments

Whatever happened to abiding by Conventions to help give the other side incentives to surrender? No one would want to surrender to end up water-boarded, coercively interrogated, and detained for years in Cuba - better to strap on the bombs and go out with a bang. Chaney has lost his marbles.

Posted by cfw | May 27, 2007 5:04 PM

As Army officers on duty in the war on terror, you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for.

Did he go on to say "They're called Democrats"?

'Cause you know that's what he's thinking.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 27, 2007 5:10 PM

You know, this is really a case where some of our hyperbolic rhetoric comes back to bite us us in the ass. Because when confronted with Cheney, when we call him what he is, which is a souless satanic monster, we are a little bit like the boy who cried wolf. Ah, who am I kidding? We could be models of civility and still most people, the press, of course, in particular, would be unwilling to call this animal for what it is.

We can only hope that our next president has the courage to try Cheney for both war crimes and treason. (If his recent efforts to try to start a war by convincing Israel to bomb Iran aren't treason, then nothing is.) Are they still capital crimes, by the way? I would give two years of my life to see Cheney hanging by the neck until dead (after a trial, of course).

Posted by LarryM | May 27, 2007 5:27 PM

Though I must say that I want the trial to be a fair one, and a civilian one. As delicious of an irony as it would be to have him declared an enemy combatant and tried with secret "evidence" and hearsay before a military tribunal, that would set a very bad precedent.

Posted by LarryM | May 27, 2007 5:34 PM

Well, OF COURSE Cheney said that -- he's made it clear from the very start that he thinks George Washington was a fool, and that the correct governmental philosophy (at least in our Modern Age) is the one recommended by Hobbes, Bismarck and Pinochet. The biggest irony is that this really WILL be necessary if -- and only if -- nuclear terrorism becomes a major threat; and his determination to get our troops engangled in Iraq has been a major step in increasing the likelihood of precisely that happening.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | May 27, 2007 5:51 PM

These guys all seem to feel the need to sound like a combination of Knute Rockne, Geo Patten, and Skelator when talking foreign policy. If I were someone who knew alot about this subject, that would piss me off.
And OT, am I the only one who thought that John Boehner was drunk when he made his little speech?

Posted by mrstrailerco | May 27, 2007 6:02 PM

Maybe some good young progressives will attend the USMA. They would know torture is immoral and ineffective. How many ROTC grads are coming out of Harvard this spring?

Posted by trusty | May 27, 2007 6:28 PM

You all realize Dick Cheney is a heartbeat, or a ill lodged pretzel, away from being the President of the United Sates? It's one of those things I just try not to dwell on. Much like the fact of who is currently in that office.

Posted by AJ | May 27, 2007 7:54 PM

'souless satanic monster' seems a bit harsh. In George Washington's Revolutionary War orders to treat British prisoners humanely, he deemed anyone who violted them to be base and infamous. So, let's keep this dignified and call Cheney base and infamous.

Posted by anon | May 27, 2007 8:36 PM

I don't think that Matthew is nearly aggressive enough in relation to Dick Cheney's U. S. Military Academy speech.

The most important thing that should be said is that it was improper to invite Dick Cheney to speak at West Point at all. Cheney does not adhere to the values of honesty, courage, and integrity honored by the Armed Forces. He was a shameless draft dodger during the Vietnam War and told whopping lie after enormous whopping lie to promote and defend the Iraq invasion. At the same time, Dick Cheney swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when he took office, but has shown a complete lack of integrity by doing everything in his power to undermine both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. Dick Cheney is the last person who should be invited to speak at a gathering of those who believe that honesty, courage, and integrity are paramount values.

It should be clear that Cheney does not agree with "basic values of human rights and dignity," the system of checks and balances in the Constitution, and the rule of law. For Cheney, all of these things are for "delicate sensibilities" which means that he sees them all as effeminate impediments to action. Instead, Cheney should be seen as someone who would be more comfortable in a military dictatorship or some other kind of authoritarian regime but had the misfortune of living in the United States at a time when democratic values were being solidified and extended. I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney wasn't sympathetic with Harvey Mansfield's call for "one-man rule" or Newt Gingrich's advocacy of military tribunals.

Posted by Ric Caric | May 27, 2007 8:50 PM

When I interned for a Democratic congressman not too long ago, we used to get calls complaining that the insurgents didn't give our troops the benefit of the GC, so why should we? They kinda ignored the whole thing about 1) proof of guilt and 2) insurgents weren't exactly the people in Abu Ghraib, but instead poor farmers who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2007 11:27 AM

Thanks, Ric C. My first thought on reading his remarks was to wonder whether this 'invitation' was really that, or if the suggestion had been made to the West Point brass that an invitation should be offered.

Posted by Nell | May 28, 2007 2:35 PM

It is becoming manifest yet so incompressible. Bush, Cheney, the neocons, Rudy McRomeny, their propagandists at the Corner, Weekly Standard, the neocon editorial crowd at WaPo.

Their continued demagoguery and blatant lies to distract from their responsibility for the continued needless deaths and maiming of American troops, and to justify their horrific decisions. (Fight them there not here, continue the war or betray the troops, support Guantonomo and destruction of the Constitution)

They have positioned themselves squarely against the democratic process (lie to the public and use fear, not to mention use the Justice process to maintain a one party state). They are positioning the Constitution as their enemy.

They subscribe to an anti-democratic, authoritarian, fear mongering ideology that is looking more and more like the popular authoritarian fascist views of the 30s.

Posted by erict | May 28, 2007 8:26 PM

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 1:40 PM

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 1:41 PM

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 1:41 PM