This past week, former Vice-President Dick Cheney gave an
extensive interview with John Harris, Mike Allen and Jim
Vandhei of
Politico. I'll be quoting
excerpts of the interview, but in general, Cheney warned of future terror attacks because the Obama
administration is departing from many of the Bush Administration policies and is therefore putting the country at risk in the eyes of the former vice-president.
First, it seems very likely, perhaps inevitable that the U.S. is going to receive another serious terrorist attack. As former President Bush stated regularly, "we only have to fail once for the terrorists to succeed." However, it appears (at least to me) that Cheney is simply using political posturing to claim that if there is a terrorist attack in the future, the blame should lie squarely at the feet of Obama because he departed from many of the aggressive/illegal policies of the Bush Administration designed to thwart terrorist threats. Just because an attack did or did not occur during an administration's term doesn't mean it was a direct result of the policy. It
is part of the analysis, but not conclusive in itself.
At the heart of Cheney's argument is the notion and belief that because a terrorist attack did not occur once they implemented their policy, it was their policy that was responsible for preventing attacks. He believes that unilateral war, torture, no due process,
surveillance programs and lack of diplomacy are fundamental to the security of the United States. This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The last major terrorist attack on US soil (committed by an
Islamic fundamentalist) was the first world trade center bombing in 1993. In dealing with this act, President Clinton didn't impose the draconian measures similar to Bush/Cheney to ensure our security. The terrorists themselves were tried in criminal court, convicted and are rotting away in a
domestic U.S. prison. Therefore, using the same logic, we can say that Clinton's approach in dealing with terrorism kept the U.S. safe. However, to stay consistent, I would argue that that logic is also flawed. To poke some more holes in Cheney's assertion - that extra-ordinary measures are needed to prevent terrorism - let's take Spain for example. After the terrorist attacks on Madrid in 2004, Spain convicted the terrorists in criminal court
and decided to withdraw from Iraq. Here is Glenn
Greenwald discussing their reaction to terrorist attacks and their subsequent national security (yes, the last part of his remarks are tongue-in-cheek):
Number of terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals on Spain since March, 2004 --
i.e., the last 5 years: none. Using the prevailing media-logic applied to Bush's counter-terrorism policies such as torture and Guantanamo (i.e., if a country is attacked by Terrorists, its Government then does X, and there are no Terrorist attacks for some period of time thereafter, then that is "proof" that "X stops Terrorism"), I believe these events in Spain constitute proof that the way to stop Terrorism and to keep the citizenry safe is to stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and take accused Terrorists and put them on trial with full due process rights before putting them in cages for life. After all, that's what Spain did, and there's not been another Terrorist attack for five years. Therefore, those policies have kept the Spanish people safe.
Cheney comment:
When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.
Let me
alleviate your worries Mr. Cheney. President Obama, his administration and people like myself aren't concerned with
reading them their rights. I haven't seen anyone suggest we read
Miranda rights to any of the detainees. However, we are concerned with an unchecked executive declaring people "enemy combatants," holding them
indefinitely and not giving them judicial review. Federalist 84 states, "the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most
formidable instruments of tyranny." We simply want a proceeding to make sure we are actually detaining terrorists instead of innocent people. The recent
Boumediene ruling reinforced one of the most basic and fundamental rights of
habeas. We aren't concerned with hurting the feelings of terrorists, we stand for restoring constitutional principles that have their origins in the
13th Century.
Cheney comment:
At least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the
Bush administration — that’s about 11 or 12 percent — have gone back into the
business of being terrorists.
No, you are wrong. Secretary Gates himself has
debunked this figure along with a prominent
study by Stanford School of Law Professor Mark
Denbeaux, where Gates says the rate is closer to 4-5%.
Cheney comment:
The 200 or so inmates still there, he claimed, are “the hard core” whose “recidivism rate would be much higher."
I'm skeptical that Dick Cheney really knows much about the remaining
GTMO detainees. Last week the press reported that the files on the detainees were a) non-
existent or b) missing. If the previous administration didn't even take the time to create files on these detainees, then how can one be sure that they are the hard-core terrorists? Especially when he previously asserted that all detainees were dangerous terrorists; yet hundreds have been released without charge and others have been proven to be innocent. All I ask for is that we simply determine if they should be detained in the first place.
Cheney comment:
If you release the hard-core Al Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks, he said. If you turn ’em loose and they go kill more Americans, who’s responsible for that?
This is a straw-man. No one is advocating that we simply release hardened terrorists. We just ask that we make sure they are terrorists in the first place. If they are terrorists, then we should absolutely imprison/execute them. However, Cheney ignores the fact that the war in Iraq,
Abu Gharib and torture in general has been the #1 recruiting tool for terrorist organizations. There is more Al
Qaeda in Iraq now than before we invaded, Iran has become the regional power and there is the little problem of breaking the law. Gee, who is responsible for
that Mr. Cheney?
Cheney comment:
Is that really a good idea to take hardened Al Qaeda terrorists who’ve already killed
thousands of Americans and put ’em in San Quentin or some other prison facility where they can spread their venom even more widely than it already is?
I can't call it a bad idea because
we have been doing just that for years without any escapes, terrorist attacks on the jails or venom spreading problems. Finally, and I'm not downplaying how dangerous terrorists are, but the terrorists that have already killed thousands of Americans are already dead - they died on 9/11. But yes, I do concede that terrorists are
capable of killing thousands of Americans, yet I don't see why that should prohibit us from placing them in domestic jails. Finally, the primary reason
Gitmo was established wasn't because we were scared of terrorists escaping. It was established because the Bush Administration believed the geographic location of of the prison in Cuba was beyond the reach of U.S. courts. We all know how well that plan worked out.
I still believe that terrorism is one of the most serious threats we face - and will face for some time. However, I strongly disagree with Mr. Cheney on how we should deal with that threat. I do not believe it is worth throwing away our Constitutional principles to try and secure our safety. A police state would guarantee our safety, but at what cost to our
liberty? I'll end with an excerpt from the
Boumediene opinion.
The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.
