Big Dick Cheney: Guardian of free speech

NOTE: The original version of the posted was published today at 1:33 p.m. It has since been revised due to a review of the lawsuit mentioned below and the Colorado statute on harassment.

Thanks to Talking Points Memo for providing the initial info on this matter.

The basic story

First we have the Bush administration telling certified freedom haters like me that we are morally confused and deficient, that we are naive, and that it is unacceptable for us to even think that the administration's Iraq policy is bad. And now Big Dick Cheney has taken the next step, as shown in an October 3, 2006, article from the Rocky Mountain News:

Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.

The law

First, I have reviewed the lawsuit. Howards sued only the Secret Service officer who arrested him. As pled in the lawsuit, he really had no facts on which to sue Cheney. Still, does anyone really think the Secret Service agent was not acting on Cheney's orders? Anyway, I highly doubt the lawsuit will succeed. It would take too long to explain, but suits against federal officials are exceedingly difficult to win. Also, as much as I dislike Cheney and the entire Bush administration, I would not have taken the case--and that is based strictly on a business/time and energy basis. I will, however, do what I can to bring this incident to the public's attention.

Second, assault is a criminal offense, and the elements of the offense are generally the same across all jurisdictions. Part of what follows is an examination of whether Howards committed assault. There will also be a discussion as to whether Howards committed harassment under Colorado law.

• Colorado law

Since this incident took place in Colorado, an examination of Colorado statutes is warranted. Go to this site to see all the Colorado statutes on assault. From the menu on the left, click on "Colorado Statutes." On the next lefthand menu click on "Title 18." Then on the main part of the page click on "Article 3. Offenses Against the Person." Scroll down to "PART 2 ASSAULTS" and find the links to all the assault statutes. You will find that Assault in the first degree involves intent to cause serious bodily injury or extreme indifference to the value of human life. Howards's actions clearly did not come within those categories. Assault in the second degree involves intent to cause bodily injury to another person or intentionally causing bodily injury through intent to prevent a peace officer or firefighter from performing a lawful duty. Again, Howards's actions did not fall within these requirements. Assault in the third degree involves knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to another person or causing such injury through criminal negligence by means of a deadly weapon. Once again, Howards's actions did not fall within these requirements. Colorado's assault statutes also include the offense of "Menacing," which is committed if a person, "by any threat or physical action...knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." Telling Cheney that "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible" did not constitute Menacing.

My review of Colorado law shows that Howards in no way committed assault by telling Cheney "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible."

And what about harassment? There is a Colorado statute defining the criminal offense of harassment. Go to the link above, get to the Colorado statutes, click on "Article 18," then click on "Art. 9," then scroll down to "18-9-111." That statute says

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him to physical contact; or

(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person; or

(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or

(d) Repealed.

(e) Initiates communication with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system in a manner intended to harass or threaten bodily injury or property damage, or makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal by telephone, computer, computer network, or computer system that is obscene; or

(f) Makes a telephone call or causes a telephone to ring repeatedly, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate conversation; or

(g) Makes repeated communications at inconvenient hours that invade the privacy of another and interfere in the use and enjoyment of another's home or private residence or other private property; or

(h) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges, or makes communications in offensively coarse language to, another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.

While it could be credibly argued that Howards was trying to annoy Big Dick, no credible argument can be raised to show that Howards's actions match any of those listed above. No wonder the charges against Howard were dismissed.

The bottom line is that the actions taken against Howards had no basis whatsoever in Colorado law.

• Federal law

Colorado law is really the only relevant law since Howards was charged under Colorado law, but just for grins, let's take a look at federal law. 18 U.S.C. 111 addresses assault against an officer of the United States (meaning it covers Cheney), and defines the offense as follows:

(a) In General. Whoever--
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such persons term of service[.]

Howards did not forcibly assault Cheney, and I fail to see how Howards's actions in any way resisted, impeded, or interfered with Cheney's official duties. And if Howards intimidated Cheney, then Big Dick should be called Little Dick instead. I guess Howards did oppose Cheney, but there is no way that saying "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible" constituted opposition which kept Cheney from performing any official duties.

Also, I have not found any federal statute defining "harassment" which would be applicable to this situation.

Simply put, the actions taken against Howards had no basis in federal law.

Conclusion

Cheney had Howards handcuffed and arrested for simply exercising his First Amendment right of free speech. More specifically, Cheney had Howards handcuffed and arrested for publicly stating his dissent to the administration's Iraq policies.

I am so glad that the Bush administration's Iraq policies are helping to protect our freedom here at home. Let's raise our glasses of Victory Gin to toast Oceania.