Former Vice President Dick Cheney came out this weekend in an interview with ABC’s Jonathan Karl to proclaim “I was a big supporter of waterboarding.” It is an astonishing public admission since waterboarding is not just illegal but a war crime. It is akin to the Vice President saying that he supported bank robbery or murder-for-hire as a public policy.
The ability of Cheney to openly brag about his taste for torture is the direct result of President Barack Obama blocking any investigation or prosecution of war crimes. For political reasons, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have refused to carry out our clear obligations under international law to prosecute for such waterboarding. Indeed, before taking office, various high-ranking officials stated that both Obama and Holder assured them that they would not allow such prosecutions. While they denied it at the time, those accounts are consistent with their actions following inauguration. 
By the way, this is the same man who insisted that acknowledging waterboarding was barred under national security laws — a position accepted by ranking Democrats who were eager to avoid the issue during the Bush Administration.
We have now come to this: a Vice President who feels perfectly comfortable in bragging out his support for a torture program. It is a moment that is more of an indictment of Obama than (the unindicted) Cheney. It is fruit that comes from an Administration that chose politics over principle — even at the cost of precedent forged in the Nuremberg trials and the Geneva Conventions. Cheney’s statement should be a moment of unspeakable national shame.
For the full interview, click here.
George wrote, above:
“The cost of not prosecuting Bush and Cheney? I think we’ve already paid the price with the demise of our Constitution, the subjective application of the rule of law, and the final obliteration of U.S. moral authority.”
Another way to put this is that the United States has become a dictatorship. The President has the power to arrest whomever he wants, imprison him or her for life without a trial, and torture him or her to death. Obama could do any of these things to me for posting this comment. If he doesn’t, it is because he is more benign than some future dictator-presidents may be, but by not prosecuting Bush and Cheney, he will have allowed them have the power that Bush and Cheney seized, with Congress’s acquiescence. (Congress is to blame too, in that it could enact legislation requiring a special prosecutor to prosecute Bush administration war crimes; it doesn’t need Obama’s approval to do so.)
Ronald Reagan would have prosecuted Cheney.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/10/president-reagan-puts-cheney-in-jail.html
anon nurse,
Don’t you think that this is a polarization issue? That has been used as a weapon against Pelosi? I am not claiming that she is too bright but stupid she is not.
Someone needs to look at what’s going on domestically.
Let me be clear. He should be prosecuted, but should not be prosecuted by the US. Where could you find a unbiased jury pool in the US or maybe the world for that matter. Maybe they should make him an ambassador to Switzerland. I am sure he has close ties and would be there if the Swiss decided to make him available for War Crimes Prosecution. Ambassadors have been tried before.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2sh-BeakQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Alan–
I think there is a right decision to be made in regard to prosecuting those who are guilty of war crimes. I’m not talking about prosecuting war criminals for the purpose of serving as a moral example. You do it because it should be done. When you do the right thing for the right reasons, you set a good example.
Here’s another brain twister for the “costs don’t matter crowd”. You are a conquering general. After leading your troops to victory, you have to choices: to feed a civilian population that is in imminent danger of starving to death, or to prosecute the war criminals. You do not have the resources to do both. Which do you choose? Of course, you answered the question already: you would prosecute the war criminals, because that is all that matters. Is that not very similar to the situation we currently face as a country? We can take our resources and apply them to solving problems in our environment, with health care, with energy, with global wars, with poverty and hunger, with lack of education. Or we can prosecute the war criminals, which will have a negative effect on all of the above and might in fact be such a big ordeal that it consumes us and prevents us from accomplishing anything else. Which would you choose? Oh again, your answer is clear, I understand, prosecute the war criminals, because that is all that matters…
Tsutsugamushi wrote: “I am amazed some advocate the non-prosecution of war criminals because ‘the costs outweigh the benefits.’ Does the same apply to slavery, rape, voter fraud, et cetera? Without doubt one can find numerous advantages (cost vs. benefit) in those.”
Hi Tsutsugamushi, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you consider only benefits, and not costs? Or was there some other process that led you to that conclusion, and if so, could you please explain what process you used? What other moral imperatives do you see that must be pursued regardless of cost? The defeat of terrorists? BTW, how much of time and money did you personally spend yesterday to end rape in this world? Did you give it your 100%, doing nothing but work toward the end of rape? Or does your “cost doesn’t matter” attitude only apply when you are spending other people’s time, money and opportunity costs, not your own?
Obama had a chance to prosecute Cheney in the beginning before he himself had committed war crimes. He preferred to strike a conciliatory note with the republicans which in the end availed him nothing.
Elaine M. wrote: “We shouldn’t be weighing costs against benefits.”
She then wrote: “How can our country serve as an example of moral authority in the world if former leaders brag about torturing people?”
Hi Elaine, you cited a potential benefit, to serve as an example of moral authority. But why cite any benefits if we shouldn’t be weighing costs against benefits? Are you suggesting we should look only at benefits, and never consider costs? In your view, when is it appropriate to consider costs, and when is to inappropriate? In answering that question, are you or did you weigh the costs and benefits?
I’m not so sure that Obama is blocking prosecution because of politics. He may be covering his own ass from any future prosecution of his own war crimes. When the Republicans assume control of the Justice Department again, there could be retribution against Obama if he went after Bush/Cheney.
I am amased some advocating the non-prosecution of war criminals a because “the costs outway the benefits.” Does the same apply to slavery, rape, voter fraud, et cetera? Without doubt one can find numerous advantages (cost vs. benfit) in those.
I don’t think there is the political will to prosecute Cheney in this country unfortunately. Maybe another country could prosecute him.
The cost of not prosecuting Bush and Cheney?
I think we’ve already paid the price with the demise of our Constitution, the subjective application of the rule of law, and the final obliteration of U.S. moral authority.
If Cheney is an advocate of water boarding we should try it out on him and his criminal associates, and see just how effective it is.
We could find out just how big a role he played in the cover-ups & criminal activities of the Bush administration.
Maybe we could also find out how three steel buildings can “free fall” completely to the ground in their own footprint.
Even if you believe a jet crash can do it…(which it can’t), it still won’t explain the building #7 demolition.
There is NO WAY building #7 could have “free fell” to the ground like it did from a fire…NONE!
I think war criminals must be prosecuted! We shouldn’t be weighing costs against benefits. How can our country serve as an example of moral authority in the world if former leaders brag about torturing people? We tortured innocent victims as well as those who were guilty of terrorism.
I don’t think the Obama administration will be extraditing Bush and Cheyney anytime soon after blowing up a house and 12 civilians in Afghanistan.
Just saying.
I am unsure if they should be prosecuted by the US. However, its a close call. I think that this is an admission of guilt. Can he claim I was just following orders?
I agree with the decision not to prosecute Bush administration officials because I think the costs outweigh the benefits, but if the evidence warrants it, I think they should be referred to the Hague for potential prosecution.