Liz Cheney is at it again. Her new web ad about the Obama justice department and attorneys who have represented or advocated for Guantanamo detainees questions their values and loyalty to the U.S. Are they really al-Qaeda sympathizers? No, they are not. They are just doing their jobs.
Ms. Cheney is playing the “guilt-by-association” card. There is a really big problem once you go down that path, extremely twisted logic. The following clip from The Rachel Maddow Show demonstrates taking guilt-by-association to its full conclusion (7 min.). The question is where do you stop? How far down the rabbit hole do you go?
Queue the scary music:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Be afraid!!! Are you scared?
Using Liz Cheney’s logic, aren’t all defense attorneys criminals if they defend guilty people in court? No. Our Constitution guarantees presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused are entitled to a vigorous defense. What about the attorney who defended Timothy McVeigh? Is he a terrorist sympathizer, too? No.
Defending the guilty is an integral part of our justice system. It’s the American way. It’s one of our founding principals. We can’t abandon those principals because we are dealing with foreign detainees whose arrests were botched. Botched arrests happen regularly, not quite like these, but they are not new. We have the processes to deal with it.
Let’s allow the DOJ to go forward and prosecute the detainees against whom we have reasonable evidence. We know our court system is far more effective than military tribunals. Here’s the score: Federal court system: 300 convictions of terrorist suspects since 2001; military tribunal system: 2 convictions.
Even Republicans and Conservatives are saying Cheney’s ad goes too far. It steps way over the line of reason when Bill O’Reilly of Fox News won’t even agree with her. The following clip from Countdown explores the legal and moral outrage over this web ad (7 min.):
I have to hope Liz Cheney keeps up her conspiracy witch hunts in public for as long as she wants. When it makes Conservatives back away from her, it’s possible for the moderates to move left just a bit and get back to the middle where moderates like to be.
When fear-mongers start to sound like loons to those who are already ideologically extreme, they are finally being seen in the correct light.
Do you buy Liz Cheney and Keep America Safe’s bullpucky on this? If not, what other fear-mongering crap do you now question about what they have said?
If it’s a Cheney talking, I must admit I won’t believe a word of it because whatever “it” is that any of them are saying comes out of irrational fear of another terrorist attack on the U.S. Future terrorist attacks are possible, but so was nuclear war during the entire cold war. You can’t live your life in constant fear of what might happen. If we cower in fear, the terrorists win.
I wonder if the Cheney home is equipped with a fully stocked bomb shelter and survival gear…
BTW, Rachel posted bail with Kent Jones in the amount of slices of pizza, and borrowed the handcuffs from Jimmy Fallon. She was back on her show the next night.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sherri Joubert. Sherri Joubert said: RT @joubess Twisted bin Logic…Beware! http://bit.ly/bYZuTm #maddow [...]
April 29th, 2010 at 1:16 am
The focus here is very US biased for me to fully grasp – never heard of Liz C before – but the message is very clear. Sadly it happens all the time in media throughout the world, and with an election in full swing we’re not immune. With the leader of our 3rd party suddenly doing well, the right wing papers were then full of “stories” questioning his “Britishness” and the fact his Spanish wife is ineligible to vote!
Unfortunately, I’m sure such tactics do work as without an alternative view people believe what they see or read. Thanks for putting out the alternative in this case.
David Rogers´s last blog ..Time for Change
April 29th, 2010 at 2:17 am
I think this is a great post. with the elections taking place in the UK at the moment, there has been a huge amount of media coverage of the politicians at the heart of it, and their actions with respect to issues such as justice and morality. It concerns me that these people are responsible for running the country – and it seems that the US are in a similar position, with key figures abusing positions of trust and authority.
Jen
April 29th, 2010 at 3:17 am
Even though I do follow the occasional news story, this ain’t one of them. Borrowing from wise-man Buffet, “A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician”, I’ve concluded – a couple of years ago – news concerning Ms Cheney I could afford to miss. You’re asking how far down we will go down the rabbit hole. I do hope and pray we as a people will continue to see the difference between remarkable horses and remarkable mathematicians.
Beat Schindler´s last blog ..Personal Growth The Easy Way: Focus On Your Strengths
April 29th, 2010 at 6:14 am
I served 25 years in the US Military in various medical capacities. I would consider myself a loyalist. But, I hate bumper sticker mentality – America, love it or leave it type stuff.
We must have room for debate, argument and Due-Process. It is what makes us great – opportunity. That includes the opportunity to be heard in court on your day. If you can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. Even the most heinous criminals deserve this so that we can say we bent over backwards even for them.
I am for tough penalties, even capital penalties, for some crimes – like misuse of public funds and public office – but inflammatory rhetoric does nothing but encourage knee jerk reaction for which we will be ashamed of later and which we can not undo.
Bruce´s last blog ..Why some People will Always be Fat
April 29th, 2010 at 6:27 am
Dear Sherri -
A brillliant piece.
I loved the Maddow video. I don’t know how I missed it.
Liz
is
a
nut
case.
Do you think anyone really listens to her?
Corinne Edwards´s last blog ..TOO BUSY – BUSY – BUSY
April 29th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Hi Sherry,
14 minutes of ‘news’ shows should last me for a whole month.
But I am a fan of avoiding ‘fear-mongering’ tactics and public slander.
keep smiling,
Ben
Benjamin´s last blog ..Daily Meditation – Principles (4-22-10)
April 29th, 2010 at 8:12 am
I don’t know that I should comment on this. When it comes to Cheney family I trust them as much as I trust a terrortiest. When it comes to attorneys they will defend anyone if the price is right. Attorneys don’t care what anyone may have done, just pay me the bucks and I’ll do everything to get you off the hook. Liz Cheney has a big mouth just like her father. End of story.
I could talk more, but i don’t believe you really want me to.
Debbie
Debbie @ Happy Maker´s last blog ..Secret to happiness is Feeling Fearless in Your Clothing
April 29th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Sherri, You are certainly passionate about a lot of topics. You are a terrific advocate for many groups of people who are in need of advocating..
Michelle Vandepas´s last blog ..Heal Pain Naturally and Stop Your Chronic Pain
April 29th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
As always, interesting stuff. I was not even aware of this and in a “free” country people have a right to express their opinions, and in the modern age those opinions can often be spread farther than ever before.
Joel´s last blog ..Will A Blog Really Help Me Promote My Business?
April 29th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I have less interest in politics. So, I don’t have much to say here. : )
Raymond Chua´s last blog ..The Science of Getting Rich
April 30th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I’ve never seen that show before, but this is quite brilliant!
Thanks for sharing.
Krizia
Eat Smart Age Smart´s last blog ..Motivation to lose weight tips for success
April 30th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Both sides play these games and then point at the other calling them “fear mongers.” Distractions and bs – there are so many important issues on the table and these sound bytes (from both sides) merely clog up the faucet of valuable information.
Keller Hawthorne´s last blog ..The Greatest SEO Myths of Our Century Exposed – Part 2
May 6th, 2010 at 8:50 am
If it weren’t so scary, it would be hilarious. This “Keep America Scared” story reads like great science fiction. Next, we’ll find out that al-queda are really aliens from another planet. Disorganizing people’s thinking is an excellent way to disempower your opponent and keep him or her off-balance. It’s impossible to think clearly when we’re afraid and holding our breath. With friends like Liz Chaney, who needs enemies? Why do I feel like she’s the one I need to fear the most?
Cheryl from thatgirlisfunny´s last blog ..11 blogging tips from expert bloggers – be undeniably interesting
May 10th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
@David and Jen,
I’m late on replying to comments, but with the (lack of) results of the UK election, what do you believe the lack of a clear majority means? I have to guess that there was some fear-mongering that put a minority party into the running, and kept you from electing a clear majority.
Is there any discussion about the poling places being closed to people who were already in line to vote in the U.K.? Is that a regular problem or something that just cropped up this season?
(Tongue in cheek) I’m sure the U.S. Supreme Court would very much like to help you out. They love deciding elections (c.f. Gore v Bush, 2000; SCOTUS stopped the vote count in Florida, handing the election to Bush by giving him Florida’s electoral votes).
May 10th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
@Beat,
I’m generally not interested in anything Liz Cheney has to say, unless it makes for good comedy or absurdity. She is not news-worthy in the usual sense of the word, though I would love to see a face-off between Maddow and Cheney. It would be incredibly entertaining for a liberal pundit to try to get a fear-mongering conservative to discuss public policy.
I posted this clip because it demonstrates how we think when we judge character by associations with others. In everyday life we do it all the time. We tend to know how far to go and where to stop. People do usually see the difference between remarkable horses and remarkable mathematicians.
How far down the rabbit hole should we go? We shouldn’t go there. It’s not a rabbit hole, it’s a dead end. It’s not constructive at all in our legal system. Making up different rules for different defendants isn’t legally or Constitutionally an option, though it seems to be happening.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Debbie,
In our legal system, a major duty of attorneys is to both prosecute the accused to the best of their ability, and defend the accused to the best of their ability. The guilty deserve a vigorous defense just as much as the innocent. We presume innocence until proven guilty, so the guilty aren’t legally guilty until proven so.
This right is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It’s our “due process of law” right. No one can be denied life, liberty, or property without the due process of law. We plan to take liberty, if not life, away from those we still detain at Gitmo.
Some attorneys are scum, I agree. And I also have no trust of the Cheney family. Dick Cheney has managed to achieve and maintain positions of power and authority, I think, through the subtle use of fear tactics on those he advised. It may not take much to steer an official who trusts you to a certain way of thinking by suggesting going the other way could lead to disaster. “Disaster” is a place no politician wants to be.
But in the case of defending accused terrorist detainees, the burden of defense falls on the U.S. government, just as the prosecution and court proceedings fall on the federal justice system. These detainees can’t afford attorneys. They often have no knowledge of our procedures. By accusing U.S. attorneys assigned to defend federal criminals of guilt by association is absurd. Those attorneys are assigned the job of defending these criminals. Others are assigned the job of prosecuting them. If everyone does their job right, justice will be served.
Terrorists are entitled to the same rights as all others accused in the U.S. It’s one of America’s core values. They deserve a vigorous defense, due process of law, and most of all, a writ of habeas corpus, which most of our indefinite detainees are not entitled to as of now.
All persons arrested and detained in the U.S., citizen or not, are treated equally to American citizens in our legal system. It worked extremely well for 225 years before the Bush 43 Justice Department went and monkeyed with it. We’re not supposed to have enemy combatant detainees. That status doesn’t legally exist, or at least it didn’t before 2001.
I believe this whole debacle came into being because of fear that our justice system might somehow let terrorists off on technicalities. So far, with over 300 cases we’ve had fair trials and fair convictions. Those criminals are now serving their sentences in federal maximum security or super-max prisons. The 3 trials conducted by the military commissions resulted in convictions for minor crimes and all those convicts are now free.
I want detainees tried in federal court where their rights and our values are upheld, and where we have extremely good probability of convictions with life sentences.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Ben,
Glad I’ve fulfilled your news quota for a month! Now you’re freed up to write more great blog posts.
What I can’t figure out is how Liz Cheney keeps getting so much TV time. Most of it is on Fox News, so I guess that explains it. They only want guests who agree with their ideology, facts be damned. It also explains why Ms. Cheney won’t appear on TRMS. Rachel believes in real debate about facts. Maddow’s beef with most of the right wing-nuts is they play fast and loose with facts. They are entitled to their opinions and opinions should be debated openly and thoroughly, but we are not entitled to our own facts. If you can’t agree on the facts, you can’t have a discussion that makes any sense.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Dear Corinne,
Thanks for being such an avid reader and supporter of my blog. And such a Maddow fan. This clip is over the top! Rachel could replace Jon Stewart on The Daily Show if she really wanted to, but she’s too seriously into most of her work. Most of it isn’t funny. I was livid that I missed her when she came to Baton Rouge to interview my old boss at LSU about the BP oil spill last week. Had I known she would be here, I would have gone to visit my old environmental chem life that morning and hopefully run into her. Rachel fits so well into a lab environment in jeans and glasses it’s scary.
I think about 10% of the population may listen to Liz Cheney. More hear her because she is such a mainstay on Fox News, and a majority of the population watches Fox News (why, I have no idea; they bore me). But I think most people dismiss her opinions. Unlike her dad, she wasn’t VP and while she makes a big splash at CPAC, it’s because she’s riding in on her dad’s coat-tails.
I don’t think that many people really listen to Dick Cheney either. His popularity rating is still very low after over a year out of office. If they stay quiet and out of sight, their popularity goes up because they aren’t in the news to be kicked around like the present administration.
May 10th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Michelle,
I’ve come to realize this blog is about discussing a wide variety of topics that need advocacy.
The thing that gets me so passionate about so many things is most all have something to do with being fair and just, and treating everyone equally. The stories I write about are concerned with unconscionable injustices, at least they’re unconscionable to me.
People can’t change anything until they know what needs to be changed. There are a huge number of specific stories that need a bigger audience and more awareness so that those who might be able to help will see them.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
June 6th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Keller,
I posted the Maddow segment to demonstrate the point of guilt by association and why it is ultimately a dead end, or at least leads to crazy conclusions.
Had the conservative side made such a video or written something of this nature to demonstrate the same point, I would have quoted it. But, the conservative side won’t do that because it becomes a litmus test about their conservative street cred. Just look at what happened to David Frum when he spoke his mind and what he believed happened to the GOP. He got fired for honest, rigorous thought and analysis of the facts. I predict the GOP will decline substantially if they throw out the David Frums of their constituents. William F. Buckley would have praised and supported Frum, and Buckley’s absence from the GOP has allowed the right wing-nuts to take power and diminish the party’s reach in the process.
I was a Buckley Republican for 30 years. I had to leave the party when what is happening now began in the 2000′s during the Bush 43 administration. The GOP used to be the party of rigorous thought and debate on the facts, and that’s why we’ve had more Republican years in the Presidency since Nixon was first elected in 1968 than Democrats. Now, the Democrats are the party of facts, rigorous debate and reason. I believe Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he could see what was happening in his party today.
Sherri
June 6th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Cheryl,
I agree. Keeping people scared keeps them from thinking and reasoning clearly. It does keep people off balance.
I believe that’s why there is such a divide in this country between the left and middle, and the far right. Most Americans are either middle right or middle left. When the middle is disregarded and abused by being made afraid initially, they eventually come to their senses when they realize there really isn’t as much to fear as people they trusted have led them to believe. They stop trusting the people who made them afraid, and the political landscape and power come back to an age of reason.
Left or right, liberal or conservative, when fear, anger, hatred and violence work there way back into daily political discourse, we experience significant and often broad sweeping changes in societal structure and government’s role in it.
Sherri