Cheney Cancels Meeting in Canada With Spectre To Avoid Attempts To Arrest Him

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Elizabeth have canceled speeches in Toronto, Canada out of concern that they would be set upon by people who oppose torture and want Cheney arrested. While Americans appear reconciled with the torture program, citizens in other countries still demand that Bush officials be arrested according to international law.

Last September, Cheney was surrounded in the Vancouver Club and kept there for seven hours before it was deemed safe for him to leave.

The aspect of this story that I love the most is the name of the group that was arranging Cheney’s visit on April 24th: Spectre. Yes, Spectre of Ernst Stavro Blofeld fame. Number 1 in this case was Ryan Ruppert of Spectre Live Corp. who explained that “[a]fter speaking with their security advisers, they changed their mind on coming to the event [and] decided it was better for their personal safety they stay out of Canada.” It is not clear if Blofeld’s cat will make the trip instead.

Cheney could claim a curious victory in frustrating efforts to arrest him. In the words of Blofeld: “Such a pity. All that time and energy wasted, simply to provide you with one mock, heroic moment.” [Look into camera, pet cat, exit stage right]

Source: Washington Post

60 thoughts on “Cheney Cancels Meeting in Canada With Spectre To Avoid Attempts To Arrest Him

  1. So, there is some sanity outside the DC asylum where the psychopaths like Cheney like to congregate. Saudi-Gate ought to be found to violate US law, not just international law, so either Cheney torture goes down or the lights are going down.

    I always wondered why N. Korean officials like to compete with people like Cheney for the coveted most disliked person in the world. It seems to be coveted even more than Olbermann’s Worst Person In The World title.

  2. Doh! I had just bookmarked this for this weekend, but I must confess I wouldn’t have thought to add the flourish of Donald Pleasance as Ernst Stavro Blofeld let alone his cat. Well played.

    Yeah. That whole threat of being mobbed by people who want you on trial for war crimes can really put a crimp a guy’s book tour. I’m so . . . overjoyed. I hope he gets this or a warmer reception (as in actually arrested) everywhere he tries to go for the rest of his traitorous little life.

  3. Catullus,

    If you keep talking that way, somebody is going to tell Dad you gave away all of his beer money, eh?

  4. And this is why I want those bastards to live to ripe old age. They know that they are only safe here in the US and only as long as we pretend they are not war criminals. They should be prepared to flee when justice comes to their door. It should eat at them every day, unloved, unwanted and certainly not respected. (Have you noticed not one GOP candidate has mentioned the name George Bush so far?).

  5. WHO says Americans are reconciled with this?

    I still want them prosecuted, but I doubt that a President that thinks he is entitled to kill American citizens without due process, is going to do anything about it!!

  6. Well, it’s claimed that the US arranged lil ole joseph mengeles escape….

    Dredd…. Woody is a good man….

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the US did the right thing and turned over cheney to the international courts….. I wonder if he’d have as much courage as the butcher of Bagdad…..

  7. “Last September, Cheney was surrounded in the Vancouver Club and kept there for seven hours before it was deemed safe for him to leave.”

    Must of been a run on toilet paper that day.

  8. There is a lawful demand here on this land for the arrest of Bush and Cheney also. CV567 2004 is the case, and and it is concluded with no way out for any of them (the entire cabinet, or what I call, closet). It also includes Barry and his crew.

  9. AY – given that the Obama administration is now complicit in the war crimes it is very doubtful that they will hand Cheney and his crew of miscreant over to actual justice. It will take at least a couple of administration from now – hence my desire for a very long twilight for these murderers & torturers.

  10. Cheney flunked out of Yale twice. In his early 20’s he had 2 DWI’s. During the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments.Cheney reportedly said, “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service.”

    As part of the Administration that sent thousands of young men and women into battle and authorized the torture of an unknown number of human beings, Cheney, ever still the coward, cowers at home fearing for his own safety if he strays outside the USA borders.

    “When a man hangs from a tree it doesn’t spell justice unless he helped write the law that hanged him.” — E. B. White

    May Justice be done.

  11. Obama has been more treacherous in my opinion than bush or cheney at this point. He campaigned to undo the evil he is now signing into law…… Talk about a coward….. All’s he wants is a second term….

  12. Anonymously Yours 1, March 13, 2012 at 10:34 am


    He probably did h lp build infrastructure…… Wmd…. Mic…..some here mostly there…
    Yeah, not too much of a stretch to think that since he brags about torture in public.

  13. Dredd,

    Yeah…. He sounds like he watched too many hitcher episodes or is in awe of John Wayne Gacy or Dahmer…… Creepy for sure….

  14. How did torture become O.K. to people in the US who used to oppose it? A switch keeps flipping for too many Americans. After 2001, torture= good. After revelations concerning what torture really was like, torture =bad. After election of a Democrat, torture = good (or at least not that upsetting) again. This quick changing of thought concerning something as significant as torture points to a population who is being manipulated to accept what we are told. We should stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated and start thinking for ourselves. It really is worth examining how these views can change so rapidly and what this means about our society.

    It’s strange because Brittan is also challenging things we tend not to challenge in the US. Here’s an update from “Reprieve and solicitors Leigh Day & Co have announced that they will be issuing formal legal proceedings this week against the UK Foreign Secretary on behalf of Noor Khan, whose father was killed last year in a drone strike on a Jirga – or council of elders – in North West Pakistan.

    Noor Khan (27), lives in Miranshah, North Waziristan Agency, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. His father, Malik Daud Khan, was a member of the local Jirga, a peaceful council of tribal elders whose functions included the settling of commercial disputes.

    On 17 March 2011, Malik Daud Khan attended and presided over a meeting of the Jirga, held outdoors at Datta Khel, NWA, which had been called to settle such a dispute. During the course of the meeting a missile was fired from an unmanned aircraft or “drone”, which is believed to have been operated by the US Central Intelligence Agency. Malik Daud Khan was one of more than 40 people killed in the strike.

    Several reports have stated that British intelligence agencies have provided information on the whereabouts of alleged ‘militants’ targeted by the CIA.

    In 2010 several media outlets on the basis of a briefing said to emanate from official sources, reported that UK intelligence agency GCHQ, for which the Foreign Secretary is responsible, provides “locational intelligence” to the US authorities for use in drone strikes in Pakistan. The reports appeared to quote an on-the-record GCHQ source as saying that the assistance provided by GCHQ to the US authorities was “in ‘strict accordance’ with the law”.

    However, in the papers to be filed in the High Court this week the lawfulness of such actions will be challenged.

    The legal challenge states that the only persons entitled to immunity from ordinary criminal law in respect of armed attacks are those regarded under international law as “lawful combatants” participating in an “international armed conflict”.

    As CIA and GCHQ employees are civilians and not “combatants” they are not entitled to the benefit of immunity from ordinary criminal law. Even if they were there is also no “international armed conflict” in Pakistan. Indeed, there is no “armed conflict” of any sort.

    GCHQ employees who assist CIA employees to direct armed attacks in Pakistan are in principle liable under domestic criminal law as secondary parties to murder and that any policy which involves passing locational intelligence to the CIA for use in drone strikes in Pakistan is unlawful.

    Evidence suggests that drone strikes in Pakistan are being carried out in violation of international humanitarian law, because the individuals who are being targeted are not directly participating in hostilities and/or because the force used is neither necessary nor proportionate.

    This suggests that there is also a significant risk that GCHQ officers may be guilty of conduct ancillary to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes, both of which are statutory offences under the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

  15. Jill,
    “We should stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated and start thinking for ourselves. It really is worth examining how these views can change so rapidly and what this means about our society.”

    Very good point. Let me say, that how many of us have to think on a daily basis? How many have to re-examine their filters, opinions, assumptions, tactics. social conduct—–much of it untouched for years.

    And then put your point of manipulation on top—-yes, a wondrous question.

  16. (725 ILCS 5/107-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-3)
    Sec. 107-3. Arrest by private person.
    Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed.
    (Source: Laws 1963, p. 2836.)

    That’s the law in Illinois. I suspect it’s fairly the same in most states.

    The site above is a good synopsis of the law’s which members of or current and former government have violated. The Hauge Convention against torture was made U.S. law under Reagan.

    Bush and Cheney has bragged about their knowledge and autherization of acts defined as torture under U.S. and International law. I’ve seen people indicted on far shakier grounds. A legal basis exists for a citizens arrest in the States. The problem, is that Holder/Obama would never indict the bastards, and you’d get shot by the police and secret service attempting it. Hopefully some crazy Cannuck or Spaniard will grab one of these guys someday.

  17. Does Cheney get SS coverage?
    And anyway, if we were a hundred, how many would they dare arrest, indict, try? And if we had ten thousand protesters outside, what would that do?
    They got power, we got numbers.

  18. For the record, while a lot of Americans may fall for the fascist propaganda about “national security” as an excuse for violating every right imaginable, many still don’t. I, for one, have no attachments or fondness based on lines made up by control freaks. Just because that fascist, Cheney, was born in relative proximity to where I was, doesn’t mean I would be any less happy if someone were to inflict a little justice on that psychotic, sadistic, power-happy bastard. So please, even if many of “my fellow countrymen” are brain-dead state-worshipers, don’t lump everyone else here into that same boat. Despite current appearances, when tyranny gets its next major butt-kicking, there’s a good chance it will happen down here, in the United Socialist States of America.

  19. Americans are NOT at rest with this, Cheney, all the Bushes and scores of other people NEED TO BE ARRESTED FOR MULTIPLE CRIMES against America and against the world, and our DOJ ignores ALL OF IT.

    Our government has gone collectively insane, including those responsible for Justice and the rule of law, and there is no one inside or outside to help the public enforce against these crimes.

    If our prosecutors, Congress, Senate, and Dept of Justice won’t do their jobs, and the military does not enforce the Constitution, Bill of Rights and help us to make sure the laws of our land are protected, then the people can’t do anything.

  20. “While Americans appear reconciled with the torture program.” That should read, Washington. Many Americans here would gladly have Cheney arrested along with all those that started the conflicts in the Middle East, but all of us know that those in public office have already set themselves up with laws on the books that keep them from being prosecuted. Even if people here attempted to bring about their arrest, there are so many working for the system that those who protect them will do so even if they know they are guilty. Those people are working for a paycheck. Damn be the rest of the world as long as I get paid handfuls of fiat monies.

  21. rafflaw
    1, March 13, 2012 at 8:12 am
    Come on Dick. The duck hunting grounds of Canada are calling your name…torturer

    can’t find a canadian to hold the duck

  22. Quote Why do American Liberals love the idea of an international court snatching US citizens abroad?

    Right, let’s just send a Predator Drone after Cheney, Obama seems to think that’s the way to deal with “terrorists”.

  23. sheafferhistorian,

    Personally, I love justice. While I’d prefer that treasonous war criminal meet justice in our courts, since our justice system is unwilling to investigate let alone arrest a man who admitted and even bragged about committing war crimes, I’ll take it wherever I can get it. If that takes Cheney and/or Bush or any of their other cohorts being arrested off of American soil and tried before the Hague? So be it.

  24. TalkinDog is back yakin. They ought to put billboards up across the country on major highways of that photo of the Dickster with a caption under it which says: Vote The Republicans Back In!

    By “they” I mean the Democratic Party. Forget television, radio, internet. Billboards with Cheneys puss.

  25. I swear! The rhetoric employed in political discussion now a days makes it virtually impossible too have a civil discussion.

    I see the same tactics being employed in here as i do in some of the right wing blogs. Hardly any concern for contrary opinions!

    Seems to have always been the case since 9/11. It’s so childishly revolting! No room for common ground.

    Do we really deserve what we have been given by the blood of so many? At times, i really wonder?

    Let the blame game continue on…

  26. Tex,
    Are you someone here’s Tex, or your own?
    And after that personal question, here follows an opinion. Good point BTW.

    Were you ever around the cracker barrel before. I mean like good ol’ days,,
    In fact I wasn’t interested other than hearing an address by Adlai Stevenson at age ten. Can you tell us what that golden era had for dates?

    Since the era of anonymous comm, introduced by Kiljoy and practiced thereafter on BB, etc until today, why I do agree that it may have gotten worse in ways—-but the venom seems the same to me.


  27. Blouise,
    Can’t imagine what it’d be like commenting on the same blog. Ussch. Sounds like nasty sex games to me, or some such perversion. Why am I so into those speculations. Guess cause my Kerstin shared only my interest for gardening, although none of my illusions therein.
    All other interests, and I don’t imply sexual one (damn, there I am again) either, were not shared. Oh yes, art. But music, no.



    CIA: We Do Not “Concede or Not Concede” that Waterboarding is Illegal
    Posted by Alex Abdo, National Security Project & Mitra Ebadolahi, National Security Project at 1:45pm

    On Friday, the ACLU appeared before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to argue that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires the CIA to release documents describing its use of waterboarding. The simple question at the heart of the hearing was this: is waterboarding an “intelligence method” that can be protected from disclosure under FOIA? We argued that the answer — of course not — is easy because even the president himself has declared that waterboarding is illegal. Exposing official misconduct to public scrutiny is the chief purpose of FOIA. But it cannot serve that purpose if even officially confirmed illegality is protectable.

    The CIA disagreed and offered a truly astonishing view of what our laws on transparency were meant to protect from the public’s view. Under its theory, the agency may protect just about any type of activity — legal or illegal — as an “intelligence method,” and thus conceal such activities from the public. It does not matter that President Obama has declared waterboarding to be illegal, and it does not matter that the United States has prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime in the past. Even the most egregiously unlawful interrogation techniques could be kept secret as “intelligence methods” of the CIA.

    Was the CIA really making this argument? We would soon find out that even the CIA’s lawyer seemed uncomfortable with the extraordinary breadth of the claim, resorting to smoke and mirrors to distract the court’s focus. Toward the end of the hearing, the three judges and the CIA’s lawyer recessed for a 40-minute classified session to discuss the documents we are seeking. When the public hearing resumed, the CIA’s lawyer made the mystifying claim that the CIA “does not concede or not concede” that waterboarding is illegal.

    We scratched our heads trying to understand what exactly this meant. President Obama declared waterboarding to be illegal shortly after releasing the Bush administration’s torture memos in 2009. And the CIA never once disputed the unlawfulness of waterboarding in its filings in this case. The only possibility was that the government was trying to have it both ways. It wants to win this case without having to argue publicly that illegal conduct can be a protectable “intelligence method.”

    At its core, the CIA’s argument is that the agency should be permitted to decide for itself which information should be released, and which should be suppressed. The agency believes that courts should simply defer to its decisions about secrecy. There is a time and place for that kind of deference, of course, but when it comes to public disclosure of the CIA’s illegal conduct, the CIA’s claim to immunity is fundamentally at odds with our system of checks and balances. Only through public scrutiny of official wrongdoing can the governed hold the government accountable. And only through robust judicial enforcement of our transparency laws will the public have access to the information necessary to do so.

  29. AN
    Guess all are gone, but will again review a question and proposed interpretation which may have impact here.
    But first off, óne can wonder why big O. calls it illegal and does not prosecute via DoJ.

    I tracked down the convention on torture, the wording of the reservations etc, and the memo sent out to CIA and other agencies on this reservations wording and re-used a key passage, saying: “torture only exists when specific intent to cause pain, etc is involved”
    I interpret this to mean that as long as your conscience is clean (and who can prove otherwise) then you go free, no matter how much it violates the convention’s wording on reasonable expectation of imminent death on the part of the torturee.

    Point? By declaring that this (and other?) techniques are for interrogation purposes and not declared otherwise, or defined as to actual effects which woúld qualify prima facie as to being torture, etc.,
    then the CIA can hide behind such a screen. And as noted in AN’s citation , can in principle hide whatever it wishes behind it too.

    Why did they come back from a session with the judge with refusal to deny or not deny—-well the judge said in chambesrs. “I will be forced to rule against you in re your first held position”—–and so they scratched their joint heads for 40 minutes. So they came back with the cited smoke and mirrors.

    And was the reporter/recorder in the chambers to record what transpired? And does the ACLU have access afterwards?

    My questions at this point.
    Am I right about my interpretation,
    2) the importance of the memo as to wize up all as to the “loophole” offered?
    3) if this is the first test, since I presume no one has been tried, since the reservation included a notice that we say it is sufficient with USA laws in this respect and no specific reinforcement or modifications are necessary.

    Of course, to ask why the Senate approves such shit is a useless question.

    Any volunteers.?
    If none, I wiil dunn you on another thread. Bdaman is giving me lessons. And he’s only a descendant of Eliza.

  30. Perhaps Canada needs to take a hint from how the United States deals with terrorists and war criminal who evade arrest and do a drone strike…

  31. What a rotten evil fellow. Let’s handcuff him to his hospital bed this week…or even better..let’s water board the recent heart recipient!!!

  32. […] uncomfortable (at least I hope so) to leave the United States. George W Bush had to cancel a trip, Richard Cheney canceled this trip, because they had heard that they might be arrested in countries that take International law a […]

Comments are closed.