If the FBI showed up tomorrow at Dick Cheney’s ranch and put him in handcuffs, I get the feeling that David Ignatius would complain that the Obama administration was being ‘gratuitously disrespectful and partisan’. But there are only two legitimate questions about Dick Cheney. First, are we going to let him get away with war crimes and second, if not, is it possible to prosecute a former vice-president for taking actions related to our national security or are there insuperable obstacles to making a successful case? Obviously, Cheney will be able to hide behind classified evidence, executive privilege, and dozens of other legal tricks to keep justice at bay.
We might decide that we cannot be assured of gaining the evidence we need to win a prosecution or that the odds of that are too low to justify the disruption, division, and mixed precedent that pressing charges would bring. But, even if we ultimately decide to let Cheney off the hook for being a war criminal, that in no way means that we would have been disrespectful and partisan to hold him accountable. We don’t owe our public servants respect unless they have earned it, but we always owe our Constitution and national reputation respect. Letting Cheney walk shows disrespect to human rights, the rule of law, our Constitution, and to concern for the good opinion of the world.
Sometimes I like to imagine George Washington lecturing Dick Cheney. What would he say? I think we know what he would say:
From George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796
Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
Maybe David Ignatius should be less concerned about showing Dick Cheney respect and more concerned about vindicating Washington’s faith in our virtue. We can’t do that by letting Cheney off the hook.
