Human Rights First Human Rights First

Cheney Defends the Indefensible in New Book

8-30-2011

By Adam Jacobson
Program Assistant, Law & Security

Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s memoir “In My Time” was released today (just a week from the tenth anniversary of 9/11), and he’s been out promoting it, on Dateline last night and The Today Show this morning. As you might expect, Cheney is doing his best to justify the terrible, and sometimes illegal things the Bush administration did in the name of fighting terrorism. But the facts just don’t add up.

Cheney vociferously defends the use of “harsh” or “enhanced” interrogation, saying on The Today Show, “I was a big advocate of pursuing controversial policies in order to keep the country safe.” Substitute the phrase “illegal, ineffective and un-American” for “controversial” and you get a little closer to the truth.

To be clear, the interrogation techniques Cheney is defending include forms of torture outlawed under both U.S. and international law.

Not only are they illegal, but the techniques (including waterboarding) Cheney advocates are ineffective according to professional interrogators, including those whose work led to Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

General David Petraeus opposes torture, saying over and over that we need to live our values as Americans, and noting that the evidence of these abuses are “nonbiodegradable” in their negative effect on our war effort and in their ability to inspire our enemy.

Retired General Charles Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, opposes torture too:

Cheney claims that terrorist detainees don’t deserve to have the protections that the Geneva Conventions extend to them. But the Supreme Court disagreed in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and the Geneva Conventions require humane treatment and fair trials for all detainees, whether they are entitled to Prisoners of War status or not.

Cheney also clings to the talking point that those who remained in Guantanamo after the Bush administration were “the worst of the worst.” He made the same claim years before in 2005. But between 2005 and the end of the Bush administration, over 200 more detainees were released. Maybe he should throw another “worst” in there for effect. If these men are so dangerous, let’s put them on trial and bring them to justice.

Speaking of which, our U.S. federal court system also gets the Cheney revision treatment, being deemed “not suited for the trial of enemy combatants,” when compared to the military commissions at Guantanamo. According to Cheney, federal courts “couldn’t provide the safeguards in terms of security or protection of classified information that a military commission could.”

In fact, federal courts have convicted over 400 people in terrorism-related cases since 9/11 (compared to six in military commissions), and none of those federal courts have faced any retaliatory attack. And the “protection of classified information” in military commissions that Cheney lauds is actually based on the robust set of rules in federal courts.

Cheney is wrong a lot in “In My Time.” He is wrong when he says that American values were not sacrificed in the war on terror. Under Cheney’s watch, we have tortured detainees, we have imprisoned thousands without due process, we have forced some prisoners through a system of military trials that mocks justice. He is also wrong when he claims that these policies made us safer. From inspiring violence to delaying interrogations to tarnishing America’s image as a beacon of human rights, the fact is that the policies Cheney defends in “In My Time” are indefensible.


  • Beth

    Cheney is a lying murderer. He is a frightened old man who is trying his best to lie and rewrite history. He is as evil as Hussein and Hitler. History will remember his vile acts which he committed to enrich himself. I wish Obama had the guts to prosecute this evil criminal.

  • Ted Robertson

    Pig-headed self-righteousness (hope I spelled that right)seems to be what most current commentaries are built on and with such the art of sober discussion has been lost in our public discourse and that loss, perpetuated by the writers herein and other commentaries on yhis matter and so many others is seeping away the very foundation of this democratic republic.

    The fact a group of laws and people decries certain acts of torture as being politically incorrect or against our moral standards does not mean that their position is appropriate or correct.

    Ask yourself how much pity you are willing to squander or bestow on someone who has hung all his/her pretense of humanity in some mental closet as he/she sets out to kill other humans? Now put the name of your most loved person as the one of those ‘other humans.’ As a rabid dog serves no purpose neither does one who has committed themselves to the slaughter of other human beings for the joy of the slaughter.

    Frankly, I wish I lived in a world where water boarding or soldiers were not needed but that is not the world I live in and maybe I really don’t care if somebody gets ‘aggressively questioned’ to procure any information, without consideration of quantity, that helps to stop further slaughter of others. The torture discussed here was for the hopeful extraction of information NOT the humiliation of those on which it was employed.

    The people who were slaughtered on 9/11 as they went about their business of being whomever they were should be our focus and not the care and feeding of those who perpetrated the act of terror.

    I am sorry for being so long but my last ‘comments’ on this subject would be that I do not believe that forms of torture do not produce usable information (personal experience tells me differently) and I did not vote for George W. or Dick Cheney and would not vote for them today.

  • http://theczech.wordpress.com Havlová

    If we can’t model human rights at home, we have no business stomping around the world preaching human rights and democracy to others.

    Nice rebuttal Adam! Cheney never was much of a fact man.