Imagine the trial of Dick Cheney
by
Christopher Vasillopulos*

Yet each of these questions has been answered “yes” by Cheney and his neocon collaborators when it comes to the Sept. 11 defendants. Do they not understand the concepts of due process and fair trials? Or do they simply not want trials at all for those who are guilty? Everyone knows the Sept. 11 accused are guilty, so why have a trial? Why give them a chance to justify their actions? The short answers are that they are not guilty and that they have an absolute right to speak in court. Not only are they not guilty, the Sept. 11 defendants cannot be guilty until a trial takes place. Anyone shocked by this statement does not know what due process means. Guilt can only be established by a trial unless the defendant waives his right to a trial. This is true regardless of the weight of the evidence, even if the facts are not in dispute. Facts have no weight until a court rules on their significance. The most that can be said about an accused, regardless of the facts, is that it seems reasonable to believe that a trial will or should find him guilty. Facts exist independently of due process. Guilt is the product of due process.

But what about giving the accused the opportunity to say hateful things in court? Apparently Cheney believes that some defendants should not be given a day in court because their views might sound reasonable or might result in acquittal or a lesser penalty. Such a position not only eviscerates the concept of a fair trial, it destroys the concept of free speech, the most important right in the American Bill of Rights. Perhaps Cheney believes the US Constitution should not apply to those he knows are guilty. Many Americans agree with Cheney. But all this proves is that the US Constitution is not understood even by those it protects.

To speak in court allows the defendant to explain their reasons for their actions. They can say anything, hateful or not, so long as their words are relevant to the charges against them. Suppose a defendant says, “I killed x because he raped my daughter.” Should not a jury or a judge need to hear this? Suppose a defendant says, “I killed x because his government has murdered millions of Jews.” Should not a court need to hear this? Suppose a defendant says, “God told me to kill x.” Suppose, suppose… You fill in the blanks.

Does anyone believe that the Czechs would have convicted the assassins of Reinhard Heydrich? Or the Americans the assassins of Isoroku Yamamoto? Of course not! That was war! And the logic of war means that such killings, although not all killings, are within the bounds of warfare. What would be murder in peacetime can be considered good in wartime. The difficulty of this defense for Cheney is that it proves too much. If America is waging a war on terrorists, then the terrorists are waging a war on America. And the logic of war applies in both directions. If no war on terrorists exists, then the terrorists should be tried as criminal defendants. The logic of civilian trials then applies.

The Cheney position is that one side, the American, can wage a war, but the other side cannot. Americans can kill thousands of civilians in Iraq according to the same logic that Americans killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Japan and Germany during World War II. But no one can kill Americans according to the same logic. Apparently, it is impossible for anyone to be at war with America. Very convenient. His position further provides that terrorist acts are not criminal either; therefore due process does not apply. America’s enemies are worse than criminals, worse than serial killers and child murderers. So while Americans, like Timothy McVeigh, cannot be denied due process for their terrorist acts, all non-Americans can, so long as they are labeled “enemy combatants.” Very convenient.

Cheney is worse than a self-serving hypocrite. He should be indicted as a war criminal for his part in the killing of thousands of civilians in Iraq. And he should be provided with all the protections of due process and the other rights enshrined in the US Constitution, wherever he is tried. He should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and he should be allowed to spread his ideology of hate in court. For the value of principles like due process and free speech can be no better validated than when it hurts to apply them, even when they protect evil men like Cheney.