I came across an article with a disturbing title,“Cheney: Execute Terrorists If Cuba Prison Must Close”, published by the conservative-leaning online publication Newsmax.
In the article, the former Vice President is quoted as saying that, since we are engaged in a world conflict (i.e., the global war against terrorism), if Guantanamo must be closed, we have no choice but to execute the people being held there. Seriously, does the former Vice President really have such a distrust of and scorn for our justice system, which requires that those being held in prison must be actually charged with a crime, and that there be a proper trial to prove guilt? It seems quite apparent that this is the case. It has already been obvious that Cheney has no scruples about torture, but now it is apparent he doesn’t even have a problem with executing (i.e., killing) someone being held on mere suspicion of terrorism without any specific charges.
My own Christian beliefs lead me to the view that state-sanctioned killing (including capital punishment and the waging of non-defensive, unprovoked war) is morally wrong. Even were I to morally justify capital punishment, I could not in good conscience condone the thought of executing a suspected criminal who hasn’t been tried under a system of justice in a court of law. If we were to that, what would it say about us to those looking in from the outside? What basis could we ever have for criticizing an oppressive government elsewhere that treats its citizens without any sort of justice or dignity?
Part of the whole problem with the global “war on terror” has been the approach taken in not treating acts of terrorism as acts of crime, but treating them as acts of war. But how can war be waged on a loose network of criminals who are not bound to any country or any government? How can war be waged on a tactic? It seems that the more the problem is approached as it has been (waging war on a tactic instead of seeking justice for criminal acts under a system of law), the worse the problem becomes as the perpetrators of such violent acts have an increasing pretext to radicalize and recruit more and more people to their cause. It also seems clear to me that we can never come anywhere close to solving these problems until we understand what it is that motivates those who would threaten acts of violence against us.
The kind of rhetoric we’ve been hearing lately from the former Vice President is the very sort of thing that does more to recruit violent terrorists than just about anything else. I would like to think that members of the Republican party who wish to see their party become more politically viable in the future would ask the former Vice President to stop talking, as such talk will only run the party further in the ground (of course, opponents of the Republican party may well hope he keeps on talking). In any case, it is critical, for our the sake of our constitutionally-protected liberties and for the sake of our safety and well-being, that we get back to following the rule of law, and that we hold accountable those who would carelessly set aside the rule of law in the name of waging some sort of undefined, unwinnable war against a tactic. Mr. Cheney’s comments must not be allowed to go answered. Above all, this is not a question of politics, of conservative vs. liberal, or Republican vs. Democrat. It’s a moral question. And finally, I would surmise we need to consider the virtues of a peaceful, non-interventionist foreign policy, where we do not try to dictate to those in foreign lands how they must conduct their affairs, but where we, instead, set a good example here at home in the conduct of our own affairs.
