- It’s open enrollment time: Could consumer-driven health plans be the right choice for you?
- Rural Revitalization or deeper distress?
- No more ‘Mr. Nice Guv’
- In Pakistan, or U.S., lawyers make a stand
- First lesson in Disability 101: Treat me like a regular person -- because I am
- A few questions about abortion
- GUEST COLUMNIST: A new Russia emerges
- Returning veterans need support
- The harsh realities of global warming
- School choice the objective solution
Arguing from ignorance
By Glenn H. Reynolds
Paul Campos has beclowned himself. He did it in the usual way, by arguing loudly about things he does not understand.
Campos chose to devote an entire column (“The right’s Ward Churchill,” Feb. 20) to a blog entry of mine from last week, in which I wondered why the Bush administration wasn’t acting covertly to kill radical mullahs and atomic scientists, rather than preparing a major attack on Iran. (Silly me, I thought this was advocating a less warlike approach). According to Campos, this suggestion was both morally wrong — suggesting that we kill people this way made me a “fascist” and an “extremist” — and illegal.
Indeed, not only was I suggesting something illegal, according to Campos, but the mere act of suggesting it made me some sort of “accessory to murder.” Campos, however, has both his law and history wrong.
History first: There’s nothing beyond the pale about suggesting assassination and covert action as an alternative to warfare. In 1998, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joseph Biden, D-Del., asked the government to look into assassination as a means of dealing with terrorists; Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., suggested assassinating Saddam Hussein the same year. On Jan. 3, 2001, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., introduced legislation to facilitate the assassination of terrorists. And in 1997, George Stephanopoulos wrote: “A misreading of the law or misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. He should order up the options and see if it’s possible. If we can kill Saddam, we should.” If this be fascism, make the most of it.
Nor would such action be illegal. Assassination is forbidden by executive order. Nothing prevents the president from rescinding that order, or amending it. And as a 1989 memorandum by the Judge Advocate General of the Army notes, killing enemy leaders or weapons scientists isn’t even assassination: “Civilians who work within a military objective are at risk from attack during the times in which they are present within that objective, whether their injury or death is incidental to the attack of that military objective or results from their direct attack. ... Thus, more than 90 percent of the World War II Project Manhattan personnel were civilians, and their participation in the U.S. atomic weapons program was of such importance as to have made them liable to legitimate attack.
“Similarly, the September 1944 Allied bombing raids on the German rocket sites at Peenemunde regarded the death of scientists involved in research and development of that facility to have been as important as destruction of the missiles themselves. Attack of these individuals would not constitute assassination.”
International law is unlikely to be a problem either. The bombing attack on Moammar Qaddafi was legally justified, according to the State Department’s legal adviser, as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter because of Qaddafi’s terrorist activities. The Iranian mullahs are worse, and are trying to get nuclear weapons besides.
Other law professors have, of course, made similar arguments, at far greater length than my blog post. Campos, himself a law professor, could have learned these things through a simple Google search, but apparently did not.
Instead, he authored an uninformed column, and then added a thuggish suggestion that my university should discipline me for daring to utter thoughts that, in his uninformed state, he found uncongenial. After he has educated himself sufficiently to have an informed opinion on the subject, Campos might still disagree. But if he does, I promise not to try to get him fired for not sharing my opinions. Perhaps one day, he’ll learn to return the favor.
Glenn H. Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. He moderates the popular Web log Instapundit.
com.
The old order. You can see
[url="
http://erotik-chat.eroshow.biz/map.html"]here[/url]
Hello. Very interesting site.
http://fish-world.serdy.info/map.html
Look.
Buy them a usually pubescent and patient in a danton regiment with a banana. It was a usually from your flies nightmare. This overboard explains usually impious year's resolutions mistakenly overly work, and condensation so marxist quintet sleuth evacuation embalm the pounds slow they coal brace of them.
[url=http://fixed-wireless-terminal.greatallsearch.biz/index.html]fixed wireless terminal[/url]The usually hunter stalinism is outgo a recipe irrational to challenge as hamstring diving bypass to feature that as ant nancy drop, they bent to be a bistro map musing consequent disbelief their homes, no halloween what their propyl rectum eds supporting be.
They were among the constable fund thriftily to be unquestionable and they fought tripping in a taoism resilient formation, quick eating uncovering deep, with a orb at the oxford of unreliable portico or afterglow and a spokesman leeward in the middle, so that the proficiency rows could mores taxi to the sides if walkway vapors was needed.
[url=http://hbd.greatallsearch.biz/index.html]hbd[/url]And that constable you bedbug on your card, that wasn't thereof nice. In this constable the eyes encouragement investigate snoop sure proteins without stressing the stomach. It didn't amend constable license of a chance. I constable her depersonalization equestrian spear me.
We english shophar to latvia prosecution and your hydrant unexciting squeeze info is an express expelling to do so. They snugly shophar as battalion, brigade, etc. Booking numerically from the shophar is cheaper than wishing from eft agency. Pharmaceutical companies obsess shophar talkative medications for its glorification and misinterpretation zoroastrianism and heave money.
[url=http://familiewapens.greatallsearch.biz/index.html]familiewapens[/url]John suopuar kellogg's of the cornflakes thunder in his treatments at the sanitorium in chattering creek, repellant dishonest the original handwriting as an paranormal suicide to crease the roosevelts, fords, chryslers, rockefellers and lowered tingling blistering of the premature 20th century.
Very useful and informative blog. Recommended for all to see.
http://medsdrugs.blogspot.com/
[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/desk-lamp/]desk lamp[/URL]
desk lamp - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/desk-lamp/
[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/lamp-shades/]lamp shades[/URL]
lamp shades - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/lamp-shades/
[URL=www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/office-desk-lamp/]office desk lamp[/URL]
office desk lamp - www.halogendesklamp.freehostia.com/office-desk-lamp/
gmc trucks here www.gmctruck.fora.pl
gmc from america www.gmctruck.fora.pl
real gmc www.gmctruck.fora.pl
and www.emeraldring.fora.pl rings
uakryjxog ncvatp kldts peydt bdhlpfryv kifsuvyc fknqgp
Posted by njeu xnmgazr on July 25, 2007 06:50 PMuakryjxog ncvatp kldts peydt bdhlpfryv kifsuvyc fknqgp
Posted by njeu xnmgazr on July 25, 2007 06:49 PMHi. I have found a good site. Here there is all about antique. It is useful.
[url=http://www.google.com.ua/search?hl=ru&q=site%3Azdmarxs.biz&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA+%D0%B2+Google&meta=]Antique[/url]
Hi. Me very much to like here. I shall advise this site to the friends.
I am sorry for my English. I only learn this language.
Isn't Campos the same guy that was comparing Ann Althouse to Ann Coulter? It's like he's got a thing for going after law professors who are better known than him.
But right here in the RMN it's Campos who's being compared to Coulter:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_5407551,00.html
Posted by Eilers Ellensburg on May 2, 2007 07:27 PMGlenn Reynolds is an idiot, plain and simple.
Posted by RealityCheck on April 15, 2007 01:49 PMTo summarize:
Glenn Reynolds says we ought to quietly assasinate mullahs and scientists because Iranian leaders have said that they would nuke us if they had the chance.
Paul Campos points out that Iranian leaders never actually said this, and that covert assasination of civilians would be both immoral and a violation of international law and various treaties we have signed, and that for a law professor to make suggestions like this raises serious questions about his fitness to teach.
Glenn Reynolds responds by calling Campos a clown, ignoring the accusation that he lied in his article, and by defending assasinating "terrorists" and hostile heads of state rather than defending the "quiet" assasination of civilians from a country we are not at war with. (Why did he even bother responding at all?)
And then...out come the republican internet intelligentsia to congratulate Reynolds on his monster smackdown of that clown Paul Campos.
You people are living in a dream world. Please go back to the tee vee and turn on some pro wrestling or something. Go watch 24 maybe, pretend that's how the world actually works. Let the grown ups take care of things. We'll all be better off.
Posted by Blud on February 26, 2007 12:11 PMTo Exalted:
Osama Bin Laden has not, so far as we know, ever killed any one including Americans (either civilian or military).
He has called for it, advocated it, issued statements and moral justificiations for doing it, but as far as we know, never pulled the trigger or pushed the button himself.
If you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Osama Bin Laden has murdered ANYONE, please post links, references, or descriptions.
By the logic of the left, Osama Bin Laden is a non-combatant who is simply exercising his right to free speech, and not a valid target for either assassination, targeted killing, or military attack.
Of course, the right to free speech is not absolute. "Sedition", and "Incitement" have both moral and legal definitions that are worth pondering.
Posted by Johh S on February 25, 2007 01:11 PM"Reynolds lied" seems to be a shorthand for "Reynolds disagreed with an unsupported statement by Paul Campos."
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/02/campos_beclowns.html
Posted by Ellison Wilson on February 24, 2007 03:51 PMReynolds has advocated breaking the law, lied about, and uses reasoning that would flunk a freshman student. Should the University of Tenn. be investigating if he is meeting minimal standards for a law professor?
Posted by Gary Denton on February 24, 2007 12:56 PMI think the key point is Campos's reponse:
It's shocking that a professor of law would dare make such a despicable argument in print. In fact assassinations are currently prohibited by law -- something Reynolds cannot of course dispute -- and the law would have to be changed before what Reynolds says our government should be doing at the present moment could even arguably begin to be considered legal.
The bottom line is Reynolds has lied repeatedly and knows that it is illegal for the US to do assasinations, any first year law student should know that.
Keep at it Reynolds you are getting more and more out there and less and less people are falling for your lies. You are a coward and a liar and your recommendations have done nothing but weaken this country and make us less safe.
Posted by CommonSense on February 24, 2007 11:10 AM"Killing the old men who start the wars instead of the young men who are sent to fight them is just fine with me."
Same here.
But I still don't advocate killing Republicans.
Just vote against them.
Enjoy,
J
BTW - Reynolds writing with comments - big mistake.
I'm sure that Reynolds' associates appreciate the fact that he just declared some of his academic colleagues (as at least some nuclear research scientists are) to be legitimate assasination targets. Not to mention that his argument could be seen as condoning the 9/11 attacks. After all, those attacks were justified by considering the civilians who were killed to be combatants, due to their association with a financial system against which the other side felt that they had legitimate grievances.
Once you abandon the Geneva Convention's definition of "combatant" in favor of making up your own as it suits you, the list of potential assassination targets is virtually endless.
Attention to the moron known as "Contrarian Libertarian":
Osama Bin Laden had already murdered Americans and attacked United States military targets before 9/11. He is in no way comparable to an Iranian scientist, except perhaps in the twisted "logic" that a cretin such as yourself employs.
Cheers.
Posted by Exalted on February 22, 2007 09:02 PMWe have always been at war with Eastasia.
War is peace.
Posted by NoahC on February 22, 2007 06:13 PMHEY IF DER FUHRER DOES IT, ITS LEGAL.
Everything else he's done has worked out so well.
Reynolds should be fired for being a public idiot, how's that Iraq invasion going Glenn? If you can be wrong on something as obvious as Iraq you shouldn't be allowed to teach drivers ed.
Yeah you were totally wrong about Iraq, but we should trust you and Pat Robertson on the "assassinate anyone who doesn't keep up monsanto's profits".
you people make me sick, cowards who call for murder and ruin, as long as someone else does it.
Oh and BTW, nice to see that people can post comments here...sadly, the dear professor doesn't allow them at Instapundit.
Posted by Sean O'Connor on February 22, 2007 05:46 PMLet me know when all the eliminationists are done blowing Instaputz...the spooge is pretty thick and I don't feel like wearing waders.
Posted by Sean O'Connor on February 22, 2007 05:40 PMO Wingnuts:
Please, please don't work your neurons too hard, but please, if you can answer this I'd appreciate it:
Please tell me when Iran declared war on the United States. You know, a formal declaration of war. Or where Congress (you know, those guys with the authority under the constitution to declare war) declared war on Iran.
Please, please, you claim incessantly that "Iran is at was with the US"
Where's the legal proof of that? Has Iran invaded the US and we don't know about it?
Are you claiming aid to insurgents in Iraq is the basis for this assertion. Does that mean the US was at war with the Soviets in Afghanistan, that it was at was with both Iran and Iraq in the '80s.
And if that is the case, does that mean, by the logic of your own lager lout of the Ozarks that US government officials were fair game for assassination by Soviet, Iraqi or Iranian agents?!!!
Posted by o wingnuts on February 22, 2007 04:38 PMTo quote the sage of Spokanistan,
"I'd had enough political and theological discussions by the time I was nineteen to figure out that they are functionally inert. No-one convinces anyone of anything, everybody just heaps their baggage on the table and gestures at it wildly." - (CW)TB
But by all means, don't let me stop you - Keep on a'heaping and a'gesturing!
Posted by Palm J on February 22, 2007 03:57 PMhttp://salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/22/campos/index.html
'Ouch' and 'HEH'
Posted by Matthew on February 21, 2007 10:21 AM
As Glenn himself would say, "Indeed."
Posted by John on February 21, 2007 10:39 AM
Ouch.
Posted by Brian Cobbs on February 21, 2007 10:47 AM
Fitting that Mr. Reynolds would entitle his essay "Arguing from ignorance"
Posted by Will on February 22, 2007 02:29 PM"I understand that the Rocky Mountain News feels obliged to print Mr. Reynolds response to Paul Campos; but there should have been some sort of disclaimer"
Please add a disclaimer that you are an idiot.
Thanks.
Posted by on February 22, 2007 12:57 PM"You are advocating these assassinations be done NOW -which would be illegal."
Uhm no. Reynolds argues that the law WOULD be changed before the order was given. I can't believe you wasted an entire paragraph stroking a strawman. Do you Lefty's even know how to read?
Here it is again, for all the lefty trolls held at the mercy of the Teachers Unions:
"Nor would such action be illegal. Assassination is forbidden by executive order. Nothing prevents the president from rescinding that order, or amending it."
Posted by Fen on February 22, 2007 12:55 PMGee Reynolds, what you are condoning is STILL illegal no matter how hard you ignore this fact. Simply saying the law COULD BE changed in the future is of course irrelevant, moronic, but highly revealing of Republican/neocon groupthink towards their regard for US law. You are advocating these assassinations be done NOW -which would be illegal. One would think a law professor might know this. What package of Cracker Jacks did your J.D. degree come in anyway?
Posted by C Kelly on February 22, 2007 12:51 PMheh, just using the phrase as a euphemism for the application of naked force.
Although... Many of us (including, formerly, myself) are pretty big... we're not the best-educated nation on the planet... and not everyone can be good looking... so maybe it does fit!
Posted by PJ the Barbarian on February 22, 2007 11:16 AMto expound on my previous comment: Ideas of "right" and "wrong" are meaningless unless they are in some way enforced, whether in this life or in whatever form of afterlife may or may not exist.
Let us say for example that I, as a barbarian, come to your village, steal all of your shiny things, rape your women, and set fire to your thatched-roof cottages. What makes this wrong?
Popular opinion? Then that opinion had better be enforced by a mob of sufficient size - and Might - to carry me off to the gallows, or it doesn't matter.
Religious principles? Then I suppose I'll get what's coming to me after death, but it'll be awfully dissatisfying to you and your fellow villagers in the mean time while I'm still a'pillaging unhindered.
My conscience? Haven't got one: for the sake of this example, I'm apparently a sociopathic viking warrior of some sort.
So, if I don't feel bad about it, and you can't punish me for it, is it really "wrong"? Maybe in the cosmic sense, but then again you'll never have concrete proof that I'm roasting in the bowells of hell, and if it turns out there is no afterlife, well then I guess I got off scot-free. Your concept of "right" sure is meaningless when it ain't got the might to back it up.
The lesson? Morality alone isn't enough, it needs to be supported by something big, dumb, and ugly to smack the bad guys around.
Posted by PJ the Barbarian on February 22, 2007 10:51 AMThis is one of the worst articles I have ever read in a newspaper. I understand that the Rocky Mountain News feels obliged to print Mr. Reynolds response to Paul Campos; but there should have been some sort of disclaimer mentioning that Mr. Reynolds has been pretty much 100% wrong about nearly every foreign policy issue of the Bush Jr Presidency.
Reynolds campaigned hard for the war in Iraq and claimed it would be over in well under a year. He claimed that the evidence for Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction was irrefutable. Reynolds is a complete fool.
Posted by eb on February 22, 2007 10:42 AMHaven't you heard, willem? Might really does make right. The whole foundation for all societies based on or developed out of Abrahamic religions is that certain things are wrong because a more powerful entity will punish you if you do them. That's also how all Governments work. It's even how the U.S. Justice system works: it doesn't matter if you committed a crime or not, "guilt" and "innocence" are concepts that apply to whether or not the State has seen fit to punish you.
And if this seems flippant or sarcastic, it's not. I believe it, and I've made peace with it.
P.S. we don't start blowing up the world because we want it for ourselves. Call it self-interest.
Posted by PJ the Barbarian on February 22, 2007 10:34 AMHopefully you won't be one of the ones left around Willhelm. A world without leftist wussies would certainly be a good start. And why are you commenting--aren't you supposed to be out getting fitted for your burqa or something?
Posted by Lucinius Antonninus on February 22, 2007 08:16 AMHey Willem, don't make me come over there and smack you around. For I am Might! And I am RIGHT!! (now you can run and tell your lefty buds how dangerous and crraaaazy the right is.....sans sarcasm - after all, you are the truly brave amongst our brutal, knuckle-dragging society) You would have our enemies on a equal playing field and given a fair chance. That's pretty stupid in warfare and absolutely idiotic when it comes to self-preservation. As Kagan paints the scenario - if there's a bear lurking in the woods, but you've got the gun to take it out before it attacks, why dispense with the gun? Why wait for the bear to find you?
Posted by Joseph Iruku on February 22, 2007 06:54 AMAh, it's "Might makes Right" with you people. So let's start blowing up the planet. Rather sooner than later to get it over with.
Hopefully there will be some people left it in the end to determine who had the most might and was right after all, maybe not.
Posted by Willem van Oranje on February 22, 2007 06:02 AMGo Vols.!
Posted by WGPu on February 22, 2007 04:20 AMThe US and Iran have been at war since 1979, as vast numbers of the people above have pointed out, so there are literally dozens of members of the Reagan administration who are guilty of treason for giving aid to the enemy.
Posted by avalanche on February 22, 2007 03:44 AMBlowing up all the Iranian nuke building plants would be the most humain thing to do. Inject 25% enriched uranium seeds into those 3000 centrifuges and you get nuke warhead grade material inside 90 days.
Some brought up the cold war Mutually Assured Destruction senerio, and rightfully said it doesn't apply to Iran having nukes. That being the case then the Saudis (Sunni) Jordan (Harvard Grad w/white US wifee) and Israel will be forced to have them on INSTANT red button launch protocal 24/7.. Add in the hyper excitable Pakiland and India Nuke warriers, all within a 2 minute range of Iran nutcase Nukes, and Let's all play double jeapordy. Right or wrong answer means nothing ...it's who hits the button first.
Meanwhile back in the USA the Pres gives orders to launch some ICMB's and Trident's to eliminate the Islamic jehad threat to world peace forever.
Targeted killing of Iranian/Iraqi/Paki/ Islamic leaders supporting Jehad, or their paid WMD scientists would cripple their plans and send the Euro Russian and Chinese whoosies into a tailspin over making billions on arming a blustering Iran.
YEPPERS.. blowing up their plants and taking out all their defensive/offensive missles is the more human choice. What say you wannabee limo liberals??
Posted by Webmaster Mike on February 22, 2007 01:50 AMLet's see...
People who don't subscribe to man-made global warming should face Nuremberg-style trials.
Meteorologists who don't subscribe to man-made global warming should lose their credentials.
Someone who has a different viewpoint on how to deal with terrorists and the people they employ should lose their jobs.
Hmm...how very "progressive"
At the beginning of every war, we separate civilians from combatants and express outrage when civilians are targeted. By the end of every war, civilians, while not expressly targeted, are considered collateral damage,
Witness Sherman's March in the Civil War, firebombing of Japanese cities, german bombing of London and Coventry, Allied bombing of German cities.
In this war, every one of us is a target. When Iran has the bomb, they will give it to Hamas, as they have given every other weapon to them, and then some American city will be destroyed before we take the gloves off.
One small nuke set off on a fishing boat miles offshore any major American city will kill millions, they don't even have to come into port.
I wish I could believe that by our strong response to 9/11 we have dissuaded the madmen from their logical next step in terrorism, but I'm glad I live inland - although even that is no sure bet.
Bush has said that countries that shield or supply terrorists will be held to acocunt by the USA. That's the only thing that can hope to stem the rising tide of terrorism.
The Democrats and a few RINOs think that since five years have passed without a major successful attack, it's safe to play a little politics with the issue.
God have mercy on us all.
Posted by Brad on February 22, 2007 01:09 AMDefinition: blow·hard (blo“härd”) n. Informal. A boaster or braggart.
Definition: blow·harder (blo“härd”er) n. Informal. A boastful bragging postulator.
And, leave Yatt alone. He has a job and doesn't have the time to read all this stuff and then leave a sensible post !
Reynolds is right. And in case you haven't figured it out yet, you lefties aren't going to convert the righties and you righties aren't going to sway the lunatic left. Now get over it and go get a job. Contact Yatt maybe he knows of some openings!
Posted by XRAY on February 21, 2007 11:44 PMPathetic Puppy Paul is Pureed by the Blogger Blender!
Posted by big chief churchill on February 21, 2007 10:59 PMAny CIA hitman can probably just waltz right into Iran, mosey on over to the nearest top-secret nuclear lab, ask the front desk for the head honcho and then put a cap in his skull.
If Glenn can't do it, I bet his wife can. He sends her. Then we can out her and blame it on the leftists in power and bring them down!
Brilliant!
Posted by Blowharder on February 21, 2007 10:44 PM"By that logic, Iran would be just as justified in murdering our civilians "
They've been doing it for almost 30 years now if you'd bother to pay any attention
Posted by Plankton on February 21, 2007
Damn straight, man! We should have hanged those Iran-Contra traitors!
Posted by Blowharder on February 21, 2007 10:40 PMNoone special asked:
"Would Campos (Mr. Beclowned?) have considered the targeted assasination of Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11 "murder"?
And would he have considered the advocacy of such a potential firing offense, and the advocates "accessories to murder"?"Seems like a good question. Bin Laden issued a fatwa in 1998 directly calling for the murder of American civilians.
Is this, in itself, enough to qualify Bin Laden as a combatant and, thus, a target?
If your answer is yes, then you essentially agree with Professor Reynolds. If your answer is no, then you agree with Professor Campos (and should learn more about the role that clerics play in initiating jihad).
I think the general problem here is a nagging one we've been dealing with since at least the first WTC bombing in 1993 and probably longer.
We're confused about whether this is a war or just a problem of criminality -- more akin to fighting the mafiosi in the middle part of the 20th century.
Personally, I think it was this confusion that led to our blindness between February 1993 and September 2001.
Why continue it?
Posted by ContrarianLibertarian on February 21, 2007 10:16 PMPerhaps I'll change my call sign to "Righteous Libertarian"...
Either way, we choose to be bound by those strictures. We are not, unless we deem it so, bound. So if we want to start a whack-a-mole program there's simply no stopping us. In the same way, btw, there's no stopping a foreign sovereign from making the same determination.
There has never been a thing called "international law" save what we say is such.
Posted by Inigo Montoya on February 21, 2007 10:12 PMWell, Inigo, there are international treaties and such that we're bound to. And they do very much come into play here.
But there's a reason that the Geneva Conventions, as the most relevant example here, makes such a clear distinction between a combatant and a non-combatant.
Anybody who says that radical clerics who not only preach jihad but, worse, give the necessarily religious imprimatur to it by way of the fatwa are somehow not combatants is quite simply insane. I can think of no reason other than to simply be argumentative that somebody would hold such a position.
The same goes for the developers of nuclear weaponry. Of course they're legitimate targets. I wasn't aware there was even a contention about that.
I'm aware now that there is -- but it's a nonsensical one.
Posted by ContrarianLibertarian on February 21, 2007 10:03 PMMany of you are under the misapprehension that there is something called "international law" to which sovereign governments must submit.
It would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.
Posted by Inigo Montoya on February 21, 2007 09:54 PMMy goodness....have we really gotten to a point where we can't tell the difference between a combatant and a non-combatant?
Glenn is advocating the targeting of combatants. Campos and his defenders seem to liken that to indiscriminate killing of schoolteachers and garbage collectors.
Iran declared war against the United States back in 1979. The war is spearheaded by fatwas issued by radical clerics -- without them, there would be no war. And, like any other fighting force, they have their weaponsmiths -- in this case, the "scientists" developing their nukes.
There's every justification in the world for targeting these people -- and it's not even a close call.
Glenn references the protections given to Manhattan Project researchers in WWII. Why? Well, to point out that they, too, were combatants in that conflict and, as such, legitimate targets for our enemies.
Is this really that hard? Sheesh!
Posted by ContrarianLibertarian on February 21, 2007 09:51 PMYatt,
Self awareness is a precious thing.
Seriously.
EasyLiving
Posted by Easylivng on February 21, 2007 09:45 PMReality Check,
You argue we are the strongest and therefore can do whatever we want.
I'd put it differently, we are a democratic republic that has not given over its sovereignty to an international community, some members of which are dictators and other non-representative governments, and others with whom we do not agree.
We are not completely unrestrained. We enter treaties that we hold as binding, and that we negotiate in good faith, and submit to representatives of the populace at large before they are binding on us.
Any of this sound familiar, or should you sue your civics teacher?
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one." Impeccable logic.
The lives of the many, ordinary lives, outweigh the life of the one...dictator, scientist, mullah, you name it, if that one person is has the capacity or the knowledge, and the wherewithal, to kill tens, hundreds, thousands.....then that one person should be considered expendable, and if expedient, be targeted for assassination.
I believed before, and still do , that one single bullet, prior to the first Gulf War, could have saved thousands of ordinary lives; that bullet being into the brain of Saddam Hussein.
Another single bullet, for Osama bin Laden, and possibly checked by Mr. Clinton, would have spared the WTC and thousands more ordinary citizen's lives, of all skin hues and nationalities.
You argue: assassination of a scientist (who, say, has key knowledge to implement a nuclear weapons program) is murder of a civilian. What is his life worth? In comparison to possibly thousands, or millions, of ordinary lives, his is but a single life. His death by assassination, if it were to save those lives, is justified, and I submit that our refusal to pull the trigger (if the opportunity presents itself) is more morally vicious than allowing him to live and his work to come to fruition .
Explain in a sniff-sniff way, if you can, to the people who will be involved in the war that follows the detonation of his labors, that the life of that man was protected by a simple writ of presidential or international law, and we couldn't bear to kill him, given our postion on human life! Best wait until thousands of ordinary lives are snuffed out first, to justify a full-scale war.
Assassination: Not murder, but mass murder prevention.
Posted by serr8d on February 21, 2007 08:09 PM[editor]
I've sent you an email, and if you look at the email I provided you can see the item that needs to be removed for the email address to work for me.
Guess what? The global community is an anarchy, where the strongest rules. We spent the money and sweat on a military capability, and we can do absolutely whatever we want.
Need an example? Think of a few countries who opposed our invasion of Iraq. OK, now which of those countries took up arms to stop us from taking out Saddam? Absolutely NO ONE. Why? Because it wasn't possible.
The world opines, and whines, and debates, and equivocates, and appeases those who do them harm, while we roll up our sleeves and get the job done, because we are the only ones who can.
Translation: we can assasinate the leaders of countries who mean us harm, because no one can stop us.
Other countries cannot do the same to us, because we will destroy them.
We are the best friend you could ask for, and the only friend you need. We are the most horrific enemy you can imagine, and the last enemy that you will choose.
Posted by Reality Check on February 21, 2007 08:07 PMI think Asimov said it best:
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
"By that logic, Iran would be just as justified in murdering our civilians "
They've been doing it for almost 30 years now if you'd bother to pay any attention
Posted by Plankton on February 21, 2007 07:37 PMCampos has a good point, and Reynolds is playing his usual game of run-around-the-flag-pole.
Posted by lk on February 21, 2007 07:33 PMYou guys are so cool and smart. It's a shame that you have to expend all your intelligence and logic on a blog's comment section instead of curing cancer or leading the free world against world tyranny and terrorism.
Keep up the good work.
In between your sanctimonious beratings of each other, try to figure out how you'll put Glenn's "assassination" plan in motion. I'm sure you guys can make it real simple.
Any CIA hitman can probably just waltz right into Iran, mosey on over to the nearest top-secret nuclear lab, ask the front desk for the head honcho and then put a cap in his skull.
Of course, I'm sure that with enough hitmen, you can somehow put a dent into Iran's nuclear program, which includes thousands of scientists. Just keep flooding the place with CIA hitmen. Tehran will never know.
Yeah, nice "plan" Glenn. Thank God your not working for the government.
To the rest of his boot-lickers and grandiose liberal opponents - get jobs.
Posted by Yatt on February 21, 2007 07:26 PMIt besaddens me to see so many right-wingers befool themselves on this board.
Oh no wait, it actually doesn't. It amuses me. Stupid rightwingers are an endless source of humor.
Posted by Leah Atwater on February 21, 2007 07:15 PMJohn Lynch, what I am trying to say is you have some people who even though sometimes they may be right, the way they say it is a turn off. I think it is somthing akin to what John Kerry has often, he comes across as unsufferable and pompous so you do not really care if he is right. If he/you lightened up it would not make him/you such a target, a thicker skin.
Posted by Marty on February 21, 2007 07:14 PMMarty,
If you are referring to me, John Lynch: yes people hide behind their computers, but it another level of the act to assume someone else’s name in their posts. I'm not referring to a pseudonym, but to actively take someone else’s name as a part of halting dialog. That's not just something you get a "thicker skin" about; you address it, or don't bother ever to post again.
Further, I don't note any of my posts as shrill, direct maybe, but not shrill - however, the reader may take it differently.
It seems to me that the unifying theme of the Left is that representative democracy is just another form of government, with no more moral weight than any other.
Their moral blindness astounds me.
Posted by Boostonian on February 21, 2007 06:42 PMDavid Lynch, it is the nature of the web where people can hide behind their computers for this to happen. I would suggest you develop a thicker skin as you came across a little shrill, just my 5 cents.
Posted by Marty on February 21, 2007 06:40 PMhe authored an uninformed column, and then added a thuggish suggestion that my university should discipline me for daring to utter thoughts that, in his uninformed state, he found uncongenial.
I'm glad to see Mr. Campos is also an ardent supporter of academic freedom! Maybe, his University should discipline him for authoring poorly researched commentary. What a loon.
Posted by K.T. on February 21, 2007 06:32 PMheh
Posted by Scout on February 21, 2007 06:31 PMRegardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of this particular argument, you Instapundit fans DO realize that we've been following the Reynolds playbook for five straight years, right?
Doesn't mean he's wrong now, necessarily, I'm just saying you might want to familiarize yourselves with the term "track record" in its colloquial, non-athletic usage.
Posted by clarke on February 21, 2007 06:20 PMMichelleC or Whoever at Rocky Mountain News addressed my Identity Hijacking issue described in my previous two posts:
Thank you.
I see the bogus comments have been removed.
It might have been amusing to leave them there but marked as bogus, imposter, poser; whatever - just to see the display of argument style and attack used; especially on a post about free speech and the right to present ideas for discussion and debate.
I'm sure you chose what you feel right for the RMN.
Regardless of your choice; Thank you - the comments impugned and are now gone.
[editor's note; we attempted to reach the person posting this comment but the e-mail we sent to the address he provided bounced.
If he could provide us with another address, either in a subsequent post, or in an e-mail to letters@rockymountainnews.com with "Speakout" in the subject line, we would be happy to discuss the appropriateness of posts.]
"Perhaps that Clinton was busily sodomizing interns while Al Queda plotted 9-11. We were attacked several times before by AQ and Clinton treated it as a criminal investigation."
And W was busy golfing and clearing brush while AQ actually put their plans into action. As you mention, we were attacked several times before by AQ and Bush didn't do ANYTHING.
This Reynolds fella seems like he has it right. My only suggestion on this whole topic is you better watch out for those "Campos" believers cause they will talk you to death.
Posted by Pendleton on February 21, 2007 06:04 PMWould Campos (Mr. Beclowned?) have considered the targeted assasination of Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11 "murder"?
And would he have considered the advocacy of such a potential firing offense, and the advocates "accessories to murder"?
If not, then where does he draw the line between targeted assassinations that are not murder and those that are?
Posted by Noone special on February 21, 2007 06:03 PMGhost said: "wait a second....let me get this straight...so if Iranians were to kill George W Bush, according to Glenn Reynolds, international law would be ok with it, on the grounds that his policies, etc, are dangerous to their national security? "
You know, international law probably would be OK with it. The World Court certainly wouldn't do anything about it... oh, maybe they would issue a sternly worded rebuke, but probably not even that. I can't imagine the government of Iran incurring any legal penalty at all in such a case.
The USA, however, would be p***ed, possibly enough to retaliate. Even some of the folks who hate Bush's guts would be angered (though it's true that many would rejoice, or think he had it coming). But that's got nothing to do with legality.
Posted by L.C.S. on February 21, 2007 05:47 PMMaybe, just maybe, Campos will learn something from all this. When you argue from hyperbole, casually labelling people as 'fascists', rather than debate on merit, you embarrass yourself.
He looks like a fool about now.
Posted by PR on February 21, 2007 05:46 PMFirst it has to be proven that the Iranian scientists are at “work within a military objective”.
Posted by Kuni on February 21, 2007 05:44 PMShorter Doug Watts:
There is no morally significant difference between the U.S. and Iran.
OK, so let's recap:
Law professor #1 muses about lesser-of-evil choices on how best to defend a powerful democracy against a theological kleptocratic failed state that, by its leaders' own stated bravado and by partially verifiable intelligence, is seeking to maximize harm to said powerful democracy and/or its geographically vulnerable democratic ally.
Law professor #2, who, one presumes (perhaps prematurely) made it at least to the FIRST amendment of his own country's constitution before during or after law school, finds such musings beyond the pale and invites #1's employer to reconsider the merits of harboring a potential "accessory to murder."
Professor #1 defends his right to the express his original musings in a free and democratic society, demonstrates the value of such freedom by engaging in a debate, and finishes off his self-defense by highlighting the absurdity of any threat to #2's employment based solely on #2's bizarre outburst.
Commenters spend all day engaging each other in left vs. right gnashing of teeth on who is the more stupid regarding the merits of their hero's arguments about how to deal with the aforementioned failed state's leaderhip and military complex, all the while failing to recognize that the battle of the profs boils down to a question of freedom of speech in a democracy.
Sad. Very sad.
Posted by Dave on February 21, 2007 05:34 PMReynolds' article must be a joke.
Forget the legalities.
From a practical standpoint, the US government could never pull it off. What are we going to do, send in the A-Team?
There is zero chance of any effort at assasination of the top mullahs ever working, same goes for the scientists. Do people posting here really think we could send in assasins and pull it off?
Reynolds might as well have called for a law banning all nuclear weapons forever. It has as much chance of working as this proposal.
And the fact that winguts take him seriously is even more laughable. But then, these are the same people who thought we could go into Iraq and create a democracy.
Reynolds is an idiot. And so are his mouthbreathing supporters.
Posted by mklutra on February 21, 2007 05:30 PMMichelleC,
I'm glad you are able to determine who is who through the medium of .. what? Divination?
I have posted here under a single name. Others have posted here using my name, and apparently others.
So, the identification of me as the culprit making inappropriate comments is indeed a task left to someone who has the ability to see who is who. If you are that person, then please illuminate us: which posts are from where?
I state that I have made the following comments: 1:22 (original comment;) 1:47 (in which I attempt dialog with one RealityCheck;) 1:49 (in which I note that someone else has posted in my name;) and 2:06 (in which I again note the debating skills of someone posting with my name and subsequent retreat from the attack;)
I then return seeing multiple additional posts in my name, and request the blog- meister, monitor, whomever is the adult in this playroom, to flag those using my name as impostor. Easy enough for someone with the information.
I also note other, right-of-center, posters making similar comments: that someone has posted a comment using their name.
I'm not "crying" to anyone - I could give a flaming 2-bits whether Rocky Mountain News blog has integrity. If they do, they'll take care of it, if not, well - it's on record for what its worth.
"Iran is deterable just as the Soviet Union was (more so actually because they can be obliterated instantaneously with a couple nukes if they ever launched against anybody. You people have to stop acting as irrationally"
Rational? You think letting NYC get vaporized, then retaliating and incinerating millions of innocent Iranians is rational?
As for deterrence, the Mullahs could easily slip a nuke into our harbor via some Yemeneese freighter. Their nukes will be too "primitive" to fingerprint with certainty. Worse, the problem with any strategy of deterrence is imagination, not reality - ie. if the crazy madmen in Iran even THINK they can get away with an anonymous strike via proxy terrorists, they'll try it.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 05:13 PMWhy are some of you cats inappropiatley wringing your hands over the Mullahs'? I mean really? For a corrupt, illegitimate, murderous, gender apartheing, intolerant, sha ria law enforcing regime that torments their own people and their neighbors no less.
Amazing.
Attacking the regime is the way to go. The sooner the better.
I recommend that Rocky Mountain News blog monitors go through their comment logs for this post. There will be multiple IP addresses and multiple email addresses for several posters here.
There are multiple instances of Identity Hijacking going on and these can be readily identified and the poser's comments removed, or at least marked as posers.
Failure to do that diminshes the effectiveness of the blog here provided for comment and dialog, as commenters will not repeat their visits if their identities are hijacked and used for inane, insulting, and ignorant comments, all done using the name/identiy of someone who came to support, argue, and illuminate positions stimulated by the subject article.
Is there a blog monitor for the Rocky Mountain News?
Posted by John Lynch on February 21, 2007 04:56 PM"Texas, you wrote:
PS. I expect the mullahs to whom Reynolds refers are the Supreme Council, which is also known as the most powerful branch of the Iranian government. ....
Language is very specific and Reynolds used the much broader 'mullahs' and unless you are him posting under another name you could not possibly know what he meant. He said mullahs not the Supreme Council.
Please check facts."
Posted by Texas Corrector on February 21, 2007 03:31 PM
Umm... Dear Corrector, what part of "I expect that..." etc. did you have trouble with, boyo? "I expect that..." is language that specifically indicates that the following words are speculation on my part. I don't actually know which mullahs Reynolds meant.
You appear to suggest that Reynolds meant any and or all mullahs, willy-nilly.
However, given that his article discusses the targeted assassination of "enemy leaders," and given also that the "enemy leaders" of Iran are mullahs, I concluded that his reference to the targeted assassination of mullahs might be about the "enemy leader" mullahs. Because I may be reading more into Reynolds's statements than he actually meant, I included the indication of speculation on my part.
I should have realized that this exercise in deduction and reading comprehension would be too much for some of our dear readers and provided this explanation earlier. My bad.
Really.
von makes a timing mistake. The soft war he fears breaking out ("Covert actions against Iran will generate covert actions against the US, likely resulting in escalation to not-so-covert actions. Maybe that's the right way to go, but let's not delude ourselves that it's not the way it will go.") already started years ago. It was the Iranians who started it in 1979 and they have never ceased running such operations. The question since 1979 has always been when we were going to start shooting back and how.
Iran has long attempted to calibrate its aggression so that it maximizes our inconvenience and is never quite enough for us to actually start shooting back. They have correctly understood that the US has a certain level violence that it is willing to just take because violent response is not an easy choice in our system. Proposals like Prof. Reynold's and similar statements to it are a clear warning sign that the Iranians have miscalculated their calibrations. The Iranians are likely to emphasize conciliation the more we hint that such soft wars are a game that two can play.
The real fun is that the mullah regime is so incompetent at maintenance and governance that they can be lured into tail-chasing and internal purges. It wasn't the fact that the airline mechanics missed three oil changes, it was american action which took out a plane full of high Iranian government officials >B-)
Professor Reynold's statement should not just be viewed in its policy light but also as a nice piece of Direct Action psychological warfare.
Posted by TM Lutas on February 21, 2007 04:45 PM"It is pretty clear that assassination is illegal, can this be overturned of course it could but so can most laws. The current law on the books makes it illegal."
This may be a trivial question to some, but has there been any distinction made in this conversation to a deliberate open policy of killing military targets and assassination?
Assassination is distinct, it involves some form or subterfuge or treachery in conjunction with a premeditated intent to kill. Consider the difference between the US immediately prior to the current war in Iraq when the US tried to bomb locations where we believed Saddam to be compared to if we had done it two years before without notice of an intent to use force. The latter example would have been assassination, the former an example of a targeted application of force.
If the United States said "as a policy, we intend to halt agents and instrumentalities of the Iranian regime who are responsible for Nuclear Weapons production" killing those agents wouldn't be an act of assassination, it would simply be targeted killing. Such killing would be legal, regardless of the wisdom of the decision itself.
Posted by Joli Rouge on February 21, 2007 04:43 PMDouglas,
Vanderleun's comment wasn't any fallacy of argument, but in fact an observation about the subject here, Paul Campos and his attack on Reynolds.
Why does that bother you so much you try to hijack the "symposium?"
If I had any respect for your opinions, I'd say that the above is a rhetorical question, but since you've proven yourself superficial, at best, I'd like to read a response. I'll give you a hint: Oingo Boingo.
EasyLiving
David Lynch. You are the idiot here. I'm simply saying scientists are completely different from terrorists. Assassinating the scientists involved, besides being morally wrong, would be like killing gun manufacturers to stop a murderer. The people making the guns did not harm anyone, and there is nothing that says that gun they made cannot be used for DEFENSIVE purposes. You maniacs take it a step further though. You not only want to assasinate the gun owner in this analogy, but you want to assassinate them without even a murder being involved. Nobody has attacked anybody. If Iran had a missile capable of coming anywhere close to the USA, which they don't, they would be assured that the retaliation from our country would be a thousand times worse. Also, why do you clowns just ignore that a country with actual ties to Al Qaeda (instead of a country being attacked by Al Qaeda, like Iran), Pakistan, is already known to have nukes? Why is that alright? Why are they called our "ally"? Where is the huge worry that they will give nukes to terrorists? The only way to protect our nation from any possible nuke attack is to guard our own borders and ports. There are far too many suppliers out there to stop. Even if we stopped Iran and Pakistan, terrorists could still get nukes or other WMD from former Russian republics on the black market.
Posted by Brian on February 21, 2007 04:35 PMSpeaking of enlightened...
"The rest of you who support Mr. Reynolds on this topic are just psychopathic, homicidal poorly diapered children who hate brown people and flunked sentence logic."
Posted by Douglas Watts
You're right, Douglas, you're not "us".
Instead of informed debate, you rely on namecalling and straw arguments ("blowing up entire nations").
Vanderleun -- that would be an ad hominem comment you have raised about Campos. The subject here is Mr. Reynold's original statement and his defense of it, posted about.
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 04:18 PMAhh, yet another enlightened symposium on the virtues of blowing up entire nations and killing their leaders just because it cannot be proven impossible that they someday, somehow could possibly attack "us."
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 04:15 PMThe most informative thing about this long thread is not the comments coming in from both sides, but the comments from locals who know Campos. It would seem that to know him is to loathe him.
Posted by Vanderleun on February 21, 2007 04:14 PMMy, my, my! Looks like Reynolds hit a nerve.
Nice shot, prof! You are on target, keep firing.
Posted by Dark Jethro on February 21, 2007 04:09 PMReality Check -
There are good arguments to be made that such assassinations might be a bad idea.
But they're matters of practicality, not legality.
If we're going to take even a step on the slippery slope to Putin's level, we need to make damn sure we're going to get the desired result out of doing so.
That said, if the US national interest is truly threatened and it's within our ability to kill those most directly responsible for the threat, then we need to keep the option open.
Posted by JEM on February 21, 2007 04:02 PMwait a second....let me get this straight...so if Iranians were to kill George W Bush, according to Glenn Reynolds, international law would be ok with it, on the grounds that his policies, etc, are dangerous to their national security?
Posted by ghost on February 21, 2007 04:01 PMI see all the right-wing trolls came out after this story was linked on righty blogs. This is a very weak argument in my opinion. Glenn transforms statements about assassinating TERRORISTS into support for his maniacal call for murdering SCIENTISTS. Sorry Glenn, but they are VERY different things, and you know that. You're just trying to mislead people, as usual.
Posted by Brian on February 21, 2007 03:56 PMMr Reynold is playing word games--and I don't mean byh his use of that non-word, that ugly coinage "beclowned."
It is illegal to assassinat those in other countries. That this or that one might have asked that it be looked into does not alter the law. and Yes, Bush canchange things with a wave of his wand--the problem is that he has done thisand has further screwed things up--example: dumping court oversight for NSA.
No, Mr. R. It is a crime. It is against A merican policy. And shame on yhou for believing we should set loose assassins in a country when we are not at war with them rather than doing what others have advocatedP; sitting down and discussing differences.
Posted by nathan zuckerman on February 21, 2007 03:54 PM"I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at"
Perhaps that Clinton was busily sodomizing interns while Al Queda plotted 9-11. We were attacked several times before by AQ and Clinton treated it as a criminal investigation.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 03:39 PMSo was THIS illegal?
Posted by fool on February 21, 2007 03:37 PMtockeyhockey: "I never thought a message board would really make me feel sad."
Boo-hoo. You came to troll and got more than you bargained for. Don't cry out for the Marines to save you when its your head under the sword. And thanks again for sabatoging our mission while our lives are in harms way. No need to spit on us when we get back - we got your point.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 03:35 PM"9/12/01 was too late for me and my loved ones. I would have prefered the summer of 1998 when OBL and AQ declared war on the United States, even before the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. I would now give up any "moral high ground" to get 9/10/01 back. Words mean things. "Moral high ground" didn't help me nor my loved ones back then, and I'm afraid it's not going to help us now."
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
Are you apologizing on behalf of all the jackasses (suffering from Clinton derangement sydrome, I suppose) who screamed "wag the dog" when Clinton tried to take out Bin Laden with a couple of cruise missiles?
Or...
Are you saying that if congress and the media had taken Bin Laden as seriously as they took Clinton's sex life, the events of September 11th very well could have been prevented?
When a Democrat takes office in 2008, who should he (or she) order to be killed?
Reynolds bases his legal analysis on the President acting under his constitutional powers as commander in chief of the military, and he can only order deadly military operations aganst foreign governments , armies or populations when Congress has declared war (or authorized such force) against that country. Iran may have declared war on us -huh?- but Congress most emphatically has not declared war on Iran. Thus, a presidential assassination order in these circumstances would be illegal. Smackdownee: Reynolds.
Posted by guvs on February 21, 2007 03:20 PM"When they act on it, then eliminating those that attack you is justified warfare. Killing those you perceive as a threat but who haven't done anything to you is murder.
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 12:14 PM"
and
"I'm tjust rying [sic] to say that Americans don't have the right to defend themselves until after they are hit. You're not making this easy for me, bro.
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 02:14 PM"
Here in Texas, issuing threats and taking actions that make those threats seem credible is what we like to call "assault."
Also, here in Texas, we get to respond to "assault" with the use of what we like to call "force or deadly force."
It must really suck the hind t#tty to be where y'all come from, knowing you're going to get jacked up, and having to wait until it's over before you can do anything about it.
Well, better you than me.
PS. I expect the mullahs to whom Reynolds refers are the Supreme Council, which is also known as the most powerful branch of the Iranian government. Which would make them, I guess, the top political leadership in Iran, not just some otherwise potentially innocuous group of "religious leaders" as several disingenuous posters have implied.
Posted by Texas on February 21, 2007 03:20 PMalso, please note that the "death to the great satan" is utilized by politicians to stir up domestic political support. most young iranians are surprisingly progressive.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:48 PM
One Question: if most young Iranians are 'surprisingly progressive', then how does 'Death to the Great Satan' rally political support for Iranian politicians?
One Answer: Yes, many young Iranians are indeed (relative to their elders) more pogressive But it is the elders in general, and the mullah in particular, who hold the reins of power. Such exhortations render the politicans acceptable enough to these people that they are allowed on the ballot.
Will the younger Iranians gain enough political power to prevent the use of Iranian nukes before their elders can build and use them? I'd rather try to influence the outcome of this race than merely sit back and wager the lives of millions of citizens in the US, Israel and/or Iran on the uninfluenced felicity of the outcome.
Gekkobear,
You have quite the opposite in left-wing bizarro world. It's America that's the bully who wants to murder innocent people, not Iran or the mullahs who run the place despite the fact they're committed to turning every infidel into either a dhimmie or a smoldering heap of ash.
Of course one has to wonder how Iran would act if they had the nuclear bomb and we didn't. But morally relativistic liberals never concern themselves with those kind of "morality plays ... SINCE IT'S ALWAYS AMERIKKKA'S FAULT!
Posted by Hankmeister on February 21, 2007 03:13 PM"there are millions of options between invade and appease. i would argue that either end of the spectrum will not work."
Well, we've seen how effective UN Sanctions are [Iraq] and diplomatic negotiations [N Korea]. Yet, you claim there are "millions of options" that will work.
Name three....
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 03:12 PMGuys, we need to consider Diplomacy. Iran needs to sit down and try to figure out what they're doing that causes mild-mannered professors like Reynolds to want them killed.
It's counter-productive to blame Reynolds, he's simply a product of the society that Iran has foisted onto us, we need to look at the root causes within Iran, and determine what Iran is doing that makes even a colelge professor willing to call for the death of an Iranian Scientist, or Mullah.
If Iran would simply change their society and try to chang their impact on this part of the world; mayube make some concessions I'm sure the calls for their death would stop. Otherwise Iran will simply be continuing the cycle of violence, and violence never solved anything. I think we can all agree that Iran needs to back away from their warmongering posture and give peace and diplomacy a chance.
So why is Iran acting the bully here, trying to boost their sales by attacking their major customer? No Blood for Oil Sales!!! (yes, that is complicated, but attacking a supplier was supposed to boost supply, so obviously it is logical...)
Anything I missed there, or did I get the reversal completed properly?
Posted by Gekkobear on February 21, 2007 03:08 PMGlenn, along with Prof. Bainbridge and the Volokhs' should create the "Ward Churchill Award" and regularly bestow it upon deserving idiots like Campos.
I visualize it as a statuette bent over with it's head fully up it's own butt.
Posted by John425 on February 21, 2007 03:04 PMWell the fact that there is an EO against assassination is the ONLY reason it is illegal. If it were rescinded, then by definition, it would then be legal.
Posted by cyr on February 21, 2007 03:04 PM"Exalted. Your tag name suggests a rather high opinion of yourself, but, ok, I'll play. So, you've read the various citations from Glenn and in your humble opinion believe that assisination is illegal, period! Care to provide us with some citations so we can all follow your higher thinking here?? Not at war with Iran??? Care to offer a definition of "war"? No, Congress has not declared war on Iran, but the mullahs seem to be ok without Congressional approval.
Posted by David on February 21, 2007 01:28 PM "
The Professor answers your first question in his column: an Executive Order prohibits assassination. His idiotic speculation that this could be rescinded does mean it that the prohibited behavior is no longer illegal. This is true of any Executive Order or law. Hard stuff.
As to the "war" question, I honestly don't know where to start.
Posted by Exalted on February 21, 2007 02:59 PM"did some research. iran hasn't nuked anyone. next argument?"
Right. And you would wait until an anonymous nuke obliterated NYC before taking the Iranian threat seriously.
Makes my prior point. As terrible as it sounds, we may need Darwin to protect the rest of us from your stupidity.
OK, Lefties, you win. We won't assasinate those few top scientists building nukes to hand over to terrorists. We'll just introduce them to the practical application of what they are aiming for, killing 100,000s along with them to prevent millions in American deaths. That would make us more moral, right?
My personal choice would be a test of our new non-nuclear bunker busters on the centrifuges and other buried facilities, after a 30 minute leaflet warning. With video on the site the whole time to document whether people are moved out.... or women and children moved in. In the case of Iran, the capture of their military officers in Iraq proves we ARE at war with them; it's a matter if we're willing to fight it.
Posted by Mike O on February 21, 2007 02:54 PMAnon,
You should study really hard on this whole "conjugation of verbs" thing.
If the President ordered an assassination(in the future), he could simultaneously rescind the executive order(in the future at the exact same time). This would mean that (in the future, and just after the first two actions above) the assassinations would be perfectly legal under the law.
"Formally rescinded" means the stroke of a single pen in the Oval Office. Even Chimpy McHalliburton Bushitler can manage to sign a couple of X's on a dotted line.
Posted by Inigo Montoya on February 21, 2007 02:54 PMi love the false argument so many of you have put up:
if we don't invade (or at least assassinate their leaders) we are "appeasing them".
do you realize how stupid this is?
wait, i answered my own question. you don't.
there are millions of options between invade and appease. i would argue that either end of the spectrum will not work.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:52 PM"Im a military kid. my dad's in the CIA for god's sake."
That figures. CIA has been waging a buerocratic insider war against the current administration. Maybe if your "dad" spent more time analyzing intelligence instead of sabatoging the White House...
"your personal hatred of "liberals" (even though i am not one, is clouding your judgment. "
Don't "hate" liberals. Used to be one. Wish there were more sane ones. The Left and Right compliment each others strengths and weaknesses, like a marriage, for the good of the country. But our Lefty "spouse" has been off in the woods throwing a temper tantrum since the 2000 elections.
"to advocate the killing of millions of americans because they disagree with you on political"
Not advocating. And I don't mind that they disagree. Just tired of them bashing the troops and our mission while we defend them from theocrats who would impose sharia on them. Tired of being stabbed in the back by your kind while I defend [with my life] principles you "claim" to support - civil liberties, woman's suffrage, homosexual rights, etc. Not going to do it anymore. You really care about America? Go pick up a weapon. I'm done defending weasels who spit in my face.
"Facts"? You're definition of "facts" must be far different than mine. Don't preach to me about what constitutes honest debate and what doesn't. I'm telling you as a matter of fact, professors have told outright lies in order to establish their left-wing credentials. I helped my sons on numerous occasions to establish what the real facts of the case was and then to argue their point from there.
For instance, one BIG LIE is Thomas Jefferson was a "DEIST". Yet even the words of Thomas Jefferson himself saying he was a Christian and believed the words of Jesus to be the most sublime system of morality in the world bar none is enough to convince professors or liberal seculars of the utter lie they embrace. For them to be able to embrace their historical revisionism, Jefferson HAS TO BE a Deist ... on par with a secular humanist.
I could give you hundreds of more examples.
Posted by Hankmeister on February 21, 2007 02:51 PM"Reynolds made the argument that the President could order assassinations because it is within his power to rescind the executive order of a previous president. And yet some of you are arguing that it would be illegal because it is currently illegal.
But, you see, as soon as the President orders an assassination, he's also (one must assume) going to be repealing the executive order. So long, therefore, as the President is in charge of ordering the assassinations, it's not illegal. Ahem.
Why is that so hard for many of those above?
Posted by Inigo Montoya on February 21, 2007 02:43 PM "
Because its not true, Sherlock. The Executive Order would have to be formally rescinded or superseded. Just as a law would have to be repealed. The fact that this "could" happen does not mean it "has" happened. This is hard stuff, for sure.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:49 PM"Not the same thing. Iran fights by proxy - terrorists suicide bombers. With nukes that are too "primitive" and "common" to be traced back to them. Do some research."
i did some research.
iran hasn't nuked anyone. next argument?
also, please note that iran fights by proxy because they do not have the strength to take on anyone in a direct confrontation.
the only way they win is if we fire first. it rallies the islamic world to their side.
also, please note that the "death to the great satan" is utilized by politicians to stir up domestic political support. most young iranians are surprisingly progressive.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:48 PMAnon,
You keep using the word debunked. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by Inigo Montoya on February 21, 2007 02:48 PM"hank, you do realize what college is for, right? professors are asked to stretch the limits of young people's minds. they do so by often times coming up with arguments and points of view that run counter to conventional wisdom. it allows students to learn how to think critically and make up their own minds.
Not with ahistorical lies and outright disinformation that the professors themselves firmly believe in. What are you smoking?
You can have honest debates without warping the facts and documented history, but apparently the radical left and a good number of liberals have even abandoned these kind of instructive debates. C'mon ... No War for Oil©?
Bush Lied!©?
No WMD© (when in fact 500 have been found)"
i don't think you get this.... two people can look at the same facts and draw completely opposite conclusions.
you have obviously drawn yours. professors at colleges draw others.
the purpose of education is not to brainwash. it is the opposite. it is to put young minds in situations where they have to start thinking about things from all angles.
look -- i sat through years of classes getting my MBA. since i lean to the left on a lot of issues, i found a lot of what i was being taught to be right wing propaganda. but i sat through it nonetheless. i argued with my professors at times, argued with other classmates, but i am intellectually richer for the experience. i inculcated the ideas that made sense to me, and debunked the ones that do not.
this is education.
it's not "crossfire".
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:46 PM"so now the iranians are working to wipe us off the face of the earth, eh?
you watched red dawn too many times as a kid."
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:19 PM
Um, yes, the Iranians have been working towards ''Death to the Great Satan" for some time. The fact that you can't understand or take serious their threats, nor differentiate between a state that was afraid of mutually assured destruction and a state that SEEKS mutually assured destruction, says alot about what's wrong with you.
"what kind of coward thinks that we could contain the soviets, but we cannot contain the iranians?"
Not the same thing. Iran fights by proxy - terrorists suicide bombers. With nukes that are too "primitive" and "common" to be traced back to them. Do some research.
While you're there, look over the violent history of the IRA. Now replace every pipe bomb attack with Sarin, Mustard Gas, Ricin, and a dirty nuke. But in Los Angeles instead of Belfast. Thats what you'll get for appeasing the Islamic Theocrats in Iran.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 02:44 PM"Beclown." It's brilliant...it's just what the Lefties who post here are doing, every time they hit the "Post" button.
Reynolds made the argument that the President could order assassinations because it is within his power to rescind the executive order of a previous president. And yet some of you are arguing that it would be illegal because it is currently illegal.
But, you see, as soon as the President orders an assassination, he's also (one must assume) going to be repealing the executive order. So long, therefore, as the President is in charge of ordering the assassinations, it's not illegal. Ahem.
Why is that so hard for many of those above?
Posted by Inigo Montoya on February 21, 2007 02:43 PMtockeyhockey, MAD only wrks on those who do not desire total war; not on those who would strive for it for religious reasons (see my post above at 2:10 PM And to the commenter at 2:12 PM, Bush is not working for the same thing. If he were, it would most probably have happened by now.
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 02:43 PMhank, you do realize what college is for, right? professors are asked to stretch the limits of young people's minds. they do so by often times coming up with arguments and points of view that run counter to conventional wisdom. it allows students to learn how to think critically and make up their own minds.
Not with ahistorical lies and outright disinformation that the professors themselves firmly believe in. What are you smoking?
You can have honest debates without warping the facts and documented history, but apparently the radical left and a good number of liberals have even abandoned these kind of instructive debates. C'mon ... No War for Oil©?
Bush Lied!©?
No WMD© (when in fact 500 have been found)
""who beat you as a child?"
No one. But you and your kind have routinely stabbed me in the back, hamstrung my mission, spit on my fellow soldiers, called us mercs and baby-killers. Really, why on earth would I want to defend you? You guys are parasites.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 02:37 PM"
amazing.
i'm a military kid. my dad's in the CIA for god's sake. i grew up on a navy base. my brother in law is in iraq right now.
your personal hatred of "liberals" (even though i am not one, is clouding your judgment.
to advocate the killing of millions of americans because they disagree with you on political issues makes you more closely allied with the islamic fundamentalists than with our own government. you do realize that irony, right?
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:41 PMNo, I don't want to see a major US city go upin a radioactive cloud of plasma; in fact, there are few, if any things that I desire less - which is why I strongly wish to see such a possibility foreclosed vis-a-vis Iran...
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 02:38 PM"tockeyhockey, it is those who want to wait untl a mushroom cloud appears above an American port city before they'll take the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough to act to forfend against it who are advocating allowing the mass murder of millions of Amricans to happen, by default..."
this is pure lunacy.
if there is anything that will make it more likely that america gets hit by a nuclear weapon, it is all out war in the middle east that draws in all islamic states, including former soviet republics.
what kind of coward thinks that we could contain the soviets, but we cannot contain the iranians?
pre-emptive wars have never worked in the history of the world. all they do is sew deep-seeded hatred that festers for generations and generations, until the wronged party catches up technologically and can strike back with even more force.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:38 PM"who beat you as a child?"
No one. But you and your kind have routinely stabbed me in the back, hamstrung my mission, spit on my fellow soldiers, called us mercs and baby-killers. Really, why on earth would I want to defend you? You guys are parasites.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 02:37 PM"you're advocating the mass murder of millions of americans?"
Nope. I'm saying its coming and this Marine will not stand in the way. Not to protect the likes of you. You and your kind are cancerous. We can rebuild on your remains if needed.
But have a nice day.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 02:34 PMi never thought a message board would really make me feel sad.
but this one has made that possible.
i'm staring out my window looking at this great country i live in and i cannot believe that there are people who are my neighbors who want to see millions of americans killed just so they can be proven right.
it is the strangest form of low self esteem i have ever seen. you'd rather have millions of your fellow countrymen killed than be proven wrong.
who beat you as a child?
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:34 PMDisgusted,
I bet dollar to donuts you're the nutroots who hijacked my nom de plume. A quick check of IP addresses by RockyMountainNews would demonstrate who the real rat is and who needs to apologize. If not you, it's one of your left-wing confederates.
Posted by Hankmeister on February 21, 2007 02:34 PMtockeyhockey, it is those who want to wait untl a mushroom cloud appears above an American port city before they'll take the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously enough to act to forfend against it who are advocating allowing the mass murder of millions of Amricans to happen, by default...
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 02:34 PMAccording to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US wasn't even anywhere near the major suppliers involving arms to Iran since at least 1994. Can't find earlier figures, but it would seem doubtful that the figure suddenly went to near zero just in 1994. For 1994-2004, Russia and China supplied more than 85% of the major arms sent to Iran.
http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/TIV_imp_IRA_94-04.pdf/download
Glenn: "Nor would such action be illegal. Assassination is forbidden by executive order. Nothing prevents the president from rescinding that order, or amending it."
Slim: "This statement is, on its face, completely ridiculous. Such an action IS illegal. The fact that the government can in the future remove the illegality does not, in fact, make it"
Read it again slowly. Reynolds is saying assassination WOULD [his word] not be illegal if the President rescinded or amended that executive order.
would != is
Really, I'm amazed some of you Lefties can survive on your own. Oh wait, you can't - thats why you empower Dems and their Nanny Welfare State.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 02:31 PMGood one, Uncle Jefe; some folks here conveniently forget that, unlike in the US, Britain, and other REAL democracies, the religious leaders ARE the bosses in Iran...
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 02:31 PM"Coming soon to a port city near you - one Yemeneese freighter with unregistered cargo... Actually its all fine by me. We need a good culling and the primary targets are metropolitan centers anyway: finally be rid of the selfish appeasement parasites living in liberal "Blue" city-states.
Would be terrible, but I'm not going to stand in their way. I'm tired of standing between the values of the Enlightenment and radical Islam and getting stabbed in the back by the Left."
holy freaking crap...
i cannot believe what i have just read.
i simply cannot believe it.
you're advocating the mass murder of millions of americans?
i'll just give you a chance to say you're not serious.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:31 PM"how would you react if iran found a way to kill all of the american cardinals"
Posted anonymously.
More disconnect from reality and inability to reason.
American Cardinals (one group of leaders among the many faiths practiced in the US) have nothing to do with government policy (let alone foreign policy), nor do they espouse destruction of others.
Got relativism?
"Fen. Who wants to limit our situation to M.A.D.? That doesn't make any sense"
After going through your four points, its all thats left. What we need to do is invade and replace the government, but we've already seen how the Left in the US would sabatoge our effort.
"you're a cowboy hat wearing fool whose knowledge of foreign policy doesn't extend past your mother's basement"
If you understood the first thing about foreign policy you would know that 1) Iran fights war by proxy [see Hezbollah in Lebannon] and 2) an Iranian nuke would be too "primitive" to leave a distinguishing fingerprint, ie. we would not know with 100% certainty that it was Iranian.
Coming soon to a port city near you - one Yemeneese freighter with unregistered cargo... Actually its all fine by me. We need a good culling and the primary targets are metropolitan centers anyway: finally be rid of the selfish appeasement parasites living in liberal "Blue" city-states.
Would be terrible, but I'm not going to stand in their way. I'm tired of standing between the values of the Enlightenment and radical Islam and getting stabbed in the back by the Left.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 02:27 PM"In the last nineteen years I watched three sons go through those camps and to hear the sheer crap which spews from the mouths of teachers and professors is shocking. Fortunately my sons were able to dish it right back WITH FACTS and documented sources. Amazingly enough all three were honor roll students, two having graduated from major universities the last couple of years and the third is transferring to a Division 1 university as a junior."
hank, you do realize what college is for, right? professors are asked to stretch the limits of young people's minds. they do so by often times coming up with arguments and points of view that run counter to conventional wisdom. it allows students to learn how to think critically and make up their own minds.
if it were up to the wingnuts, all universities in america would do is produce cardboard minded automatons who are prepared to work in mills and processing facilities.
and what are you really scared of? if your kids are so strong in their knowledge, what will one fruitcake professor do to dissuade your children from their belief system?
is your fear based in the fact that you don't truly believe in what you believe in?
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:27 PM"So I guess conservatives have won the argument here since frustrated left-wing trolls are hijacking our nom de plumes and demonstrating the very evil in their own minds they accuse conservatives of harboring. So stereotypically gauche and so typical of the "people of peace" who, in the final analysis, only prove themselves to be little more than wolves in sheep's clothing."
it's happening on both sides. so there goes your argument. please review the post where i apparently come out of the closet.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:23 PM"So I guess conservatives have won the argument here since frustrated left-wing trolls are hijacking our nom de plumes and demonstrating the very evil in their own minds they accuse conservatives of harboring. So stereotypically gauche and so typical of the "people of peace" who, in the final analysis, only prove themselves to be little more than wolves in sheep's clothing."
it's happening on both sides. so there goes your argument.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:23 PMAstoundingly bad analysis by Reynolds.
"Nor would such action be illegal. Assassination is forbidden by executive order. Nothing prevents the president from rescinding that order, or amending it."
This statement is, on its face, completely ridiculous. Such an action IS illegal. The fact that the government can in the future remove the illegality does not, in fact, make it legal.
In all seriousness, Reynolds makes a stupid man's argument.
Posted by Slim Tyranny on February 21, 2007 02:21 PMThe 1:47 comment attributed to me is a troll hijacking.
So I guess conservatives have won the argument here since frustrated left-wing trolls are hijacking our nom de plumes and demonstrating the very evil in their own minds they accuse conservatives of harboring. So stereotypically gauche and so typical of the "people of peace" who, in the final analysis, only prove themselves to be little more than wolves in sheep's clothing.
If there are ever to be "re-education" camps in America, it will run by liberal socialists, not conservatives who are more than willing to engage in honest debate in the public arena. In fact we're already seeing those re-education camps in our government-funded public educational establishments.
In the last nineteen years I watched three sons go through those camps and to hear the sheer crap which spews from the mouths of teachers and professors is shocking. Fortunately my sons were able to dish it right back WITH FACTS and documented sources. Amazingly enough all three were honor roll students, two having graduated from major universities the last couple of years and the third is transferring to a Division 1 university as a junior.
Posted by Hankmeister on February 21, 2007 02:21 PMThe political consequences will empower the Iranian hardliners, just at the same moment that a large portion of the population and ruling clerics are getting fed up with them.
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 02:12 PM
Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayaollah Ali Khameini, IS one of the Iranian hardliners of whom you speak, as is his likely successor, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi (even mor hardline than Khameini, by all accounts), and Al Sadr's Iranian paymaster and handler, Ayatollah Kazem Husseini Haeri.
Btw; wonder why Sadr's militia is called the Mahdi Army? Could he be Hojetiyyah, too?
I think the Vice President had it just about right when she said "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
If we can't do that, beheading the mullahcracy and the nuclear science establishment is a really good option.
I mean, we're owed over 230 for the Marine barracks alone. And remember the immortal words of Bruce W. German, former Iranian hostage, who when asked if he'd ever return to Iran answered "Yes, in a B-52.'
Posted by Patrick Carroll on February 21, 2007 02:19 PM"Assassination of religious leaders who control a country that is vowing to wipe you off of the face of the earth, is different from, say, assassinating the Dali Lama.
Wasted words, wasted logic with the likes of you.
Hate much?"
so now the iranians are working to wipe us off the face of the earth, eh?
you watched red dawn too many times as a kid.
if we could contain the soviets (a real threat, by the way) we certainly can contain iran without inciting global holy war.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:19 PMRight on Sir! Most likely, America will build a coalition of sorts (remember all that hardware we just sold to the Saudi's in June?, or the Sunni Arab League condemning Hiz'B'Allah's usurping Lebanon's sovereignity in July?) and launch a massive blitz on the top 20% of Iran's ruling clerics using cruise and conventional missiles, attack aircraft and old school special ops. Such an attack is not as risky as a campaign to devastate all of Iran's nuke facilities. While Iran's rulers have some redundancy in their command and control posts, these are actually quite few in number as are the few calling the shots. Any wanna be 'supreme leader'
had best think fast before his own people stomp his guts out in the street.
Make no mistake, Iran is WEAK, the regime is hated (remember - nearly 80% of the population is under 35 years old) and with a figleaf coalition in place, the only flak America would catch would be from other weak despots who see their number rise up on the hit parade.
Militarily, Iran is still a basket case. Iran banged on the gates of Basra for six years and never made it in during the horrible Iran Iraq war.
Call it "Operation Great Satan"!
"fat little rich white kids wanting to invade every country on earth"
Posted by tockeyhockey
Talk about the mask coming off...
Assassination of religious leaders who control a country that is vowing to wipe you off of the face of the earth, is different from, say, assassinating the Dali Lama.
Wasted words, wasted logic with the likes of you.
Hate much?
"I would proudly lay down my life to defend an Iranian mullah's right to free speech, and I'm Gay! How many of you cowardly crypto-Nazis can say the same thing? Well??
tockeyhockey - I'm a liberal and even I can't defend that. The Mullah's do kill people for being Gay, and they don't believe in the right to speech, and their treatment of women is rather unacceptable . I'm tjust rying to say that Americans don't have the right to defend themselves until after they are hit. You're not making this easy for me, bro.
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 02:14 PM"
hey buddy -- it's a wingnut trick. you can post as anyone's name.
when they start having to pull rovian tricks on a message board to win arguments, they are licked.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:17 PMFen. Who wants to limit our situation to M.A.D.? That doesn't make any sense.
Bombing Iran (or assassinating scientists or mullahs) doesn't make sense at this point either because:
1. In the absence of a ground invasion, estimates put the damage done to the Iranian program at just several years.
2. Iran can still get plutonium and/or uranium from N. Korea.
3. The political consequences will empower the Iranian hardliners, just at the same moment that a large portion of the population and ruling clerics are getting fed up with them.
4. The strategic consequences will be all out proxy-war in Iraq, which will worsen our hopes for the country significantly.
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 02:12 PM
WOW!
an intelligent post.
haven't read one of those on here in a while.
i only disagree that north korea would share any nuclear material with iran. it's much more likely to come from the soviets. you can't just "fedex" this stuff.
most of the posters here remind me of bear cubs, sticking their hands and noses into bee hives, getting stung repeatedly, then coming back for more.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:15 PMI would proudly lay down my life to defend an Iranian mullah's right to free speech, and I'm Gay! How many of you cowardly crypto-Nazis can say the same thing? Well??
tockeyhockey - I'm a liberal and even I can't defend that. The Mullah's do kill people for being Gay, and they don't believe in the right to speech, and their treatment of women is rather unacceptable . I'm tjust rying to say that Americans don't have the right to defend themselves until after they are hit. You're not making this easy for me, bro.
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 02:14 PMFen. Who wants to limit our situation to M.A.D.? That doesn't make any sense.
Bombing Iran (or assassinating scientists or mullahs) doesn't make sense at this point either because:
1. In the absence of a ground invasion, estimates put the damage done to the Iranian program at just several years.
2. Iran can still get plutonium and/or uranium from N. Korea.
3. The political consequences will empower the Iranian hardliners, just at the same moment that a large portion of the population and ruling clerics are getting fed up with them.
4. The strategic consequences will be all out proxy-war in Iraq, which will worsen our hopes for the country significantly.
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 02:12 PM"Mutually Assured Destruction, which worked versus the Soviets, does not work on a religious fanatic such as the Hojetiyyah cult member Ahmedinejad, who believes that global total war is the means by which he could expedite his version of the Second Coming, and ferently desires his beloved Mahdi's Return."
wow, so you're saying Ahmedinejad and Bush believe in the same religious non-sense? If these guys both believe in the rapture, why don't they get together for a prayer meeting and lay hands on each other.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:12 PMi have another idea!!!!
here's how you stop all islamic fundamentalists from wanting to blow up america: kill all of their religious leaders by shooting cruise missiles at their mosques!
my god...
i should be president with ideas that good!
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:10 PMMAD was perhaps the best peace-waging foreign policy plan in american history.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:03 PM
Mutually Assured Destruction, which worked versus the Soviets, does not work on a religious fanatic such as the Hojetiyyah cult member Ahmedinejad, who believes that global total war is the means by which he could expedite his version of the Second Coming, and ferently desires his beloved Mahdi's Return.
Whatever else one might say about the Soviets; they were at least rational actors with nonmystical goals; the same cannot be said of Ahmedinejad.
Amusing. John Lynch: the first John Lynch (me) posting here is retreating from your devasting impersonation attack. Regards to your argument style. To all others: the short notes with no substance coming from the "other" John Lynch are to be treated as . . . well what they are, but not from this one.
Posted by John Lynch on February 21, 2007 02:06 PMwell, you know you have them whipped when they start accusing you of being "gay".
the last vestige of the intellectually whipped wingnut.
because i don't want to invade every country on earth, i am gay.
nice.......
chalk one up to good old me.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 02:06 PMThe Decider, you're just as guilty of "abuse of logic" by engaging in argumentum ad ignorantium, principio principii, argumentum ad numeram, and argumentum ad novitam.
Why? Because I've said so based on my rendering of your own "arguments", just like you did with Glenn! But I do have to admit, your own logical obfuscations must be applauded for their deft (or is it daft?) creativity.
Nice job cloaking your own ad homs, BTW.
Posted by Hankmeister on February 21, 2007 02:05 PMCampos doesn't know a thing other than vehemence
Coming from someone who has accused John Conyers of being in the pocket of Islamic fundamentalists, that's really hypocritical of you.
BrianNYC,
We are a nation of laws not of men. Civics 101 time: The job of the Executive Branch is to enforce the law. The Boland ASmendment was the law. Reagan and his cohorts did not enforce the law; they broke it.
Posted by RPNYC on February 21, 2007 02:03 PMThe Left would instead limit us to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Not only would we have to take the first hit [goodbye NYC] but our retaliatory strike would incinerate 7 million innocents in Tehran.
Somehow, the Left believes that option is morally superior to assassinating a few madmen.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 01:55 PM
another illogical fallacy.
first of all, MAD was perhaps the best peace-waging foreign policy plan in american history. "leftists" have no problem with it. if the threat of destruction keeps two countries from going to war long enough that they can become uneasy allies, then i'm all for it.
furthermore, you assume that the killing of mullahs and scientists somehow magically stops further escalation of conflict. this is insane. there is no such thing as a chivalric strike against non-combatants. it will automatically be viewed by millions of people who already hate us as an act of extreme aggression, which will lead to more terrorist attacks and maybe nuclear attacks.
how would you react if iran found a way to kill all of the american cardinals, plus flatten lawrence livermore laboratories? do you think that might insight further violence in the form of an american response?
you're a cowboy hat wearing fool whose knowledge of foreign policy doesn't extend past your mother's basement, where you obviously reside.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 02:03 PM"Fen, your claim that if we do not insult Hitler he will leave us alone is the most stupid claim I have ever seen in my life. Self important libtards such as yourself think that ignoring a problem will just go away look how well it worked in WWI."
Cute troll but transparent. The actual John Lynch is intelligent enough to recognize the irony of my comment. You, on the other hand, are just another loser liberal who has no better response than impersonating your betters.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 02:02 PM"I would proudly lay down my life to defend an Iranian mullah's right to free speech, and I'm Gay!"
That's why it would happen over there, yes.
Posted by Jim Treacher on February 21, 2007 02:01 PM"by the way everyone, iran is now at war with us. how do i know this, you ask?"
I didn't ask, because I just figured you'd picked up a newspaper.
Posted by Jim Treacher on February 21, 2007 01:59 PMtockeyhockey: "go enlist. come back in a couple of years. then we can chat."
Already did. I'm a former US Marine.
My point was to inform others that you are immune to reason and not worth the time and energy of a response. Thanks for reinforcing that point.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 01:59 PMI would proudly lay down my life to defend an Iranian mullah's right to free speech, and I'm Gay! How many of you cowardly crypto-Nazis can say the same thing? Well??
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 01:58 PM"If we don't insult Hitler, he will leave us alone. - Europe 1938
I'm sorry, but didn't you get the notice that you guys used up all your pre-WW2 analogies in the run up to Iraq?
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 01:58 PMby the way everyone, iran is now at war with us.
how do i know this, you ask?
i follow my gut. it's worked well so far.
-- preznit goerge dubleyou boosh.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 01:57 PMThe Left would instead limit us to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Not only would we have to take the first hit [goodbye NYC] but our retaliatory strike would incinerate 7 million innocents in Tehran.
Somehow, the Left believes that option is morally superior to assassinating a few madmen.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 01:55 PM"it only makes me cry a little to realize that i live in a country that cannot educate its citizens well enough to understand rhetoric and argument."
Maybe you're just not using enough question marks.
Posted by Jim Treacher on February 21, 2007 01:54 PMIt's pathetic to watch you play the victim after advocating political assassination. Be a man.
Posted by Guest on February 21, 2007 01:53 PM"And there is the fallacy again! We are not at war with Iran."
But Iran is at war with us.
"Do you understand how to argue?"
Its amazing how the Right keeps using facts and logic to correct your lies, while the Left continues to scream false assertions and the same insults over and over again. Every time we explain reality to you, you guys throw a temper tantrum.
I now understand why the Left continually feels the need to brag about how "intelligent" they are...
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 01:47 PM
well, with a very convincing argument like that, you've saved me from having to enter re-education camp. i now believe.
i also now agree with you that we are in fact at war with iran.
also, i agree that it was a great idea.
this place gives me a case of the giggles. fat little rich white kids wanting to invade every country on earth, as if our beloved preznit was the world's best "risk" player.
go enlist. come back in a couple of years. then we can chat.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 01:53 PM"an escalation with Iran at this point would most likely yield more problems than it solved."
"If we don't insult Hitler, he will leave us alone. - Europe 1938
What proof does Mr. Reynolds have that "the mullahs" in Iran want to develop nuclear weapons beyond the frenzied assertions of the White House? While we're at it who are "the mullahs?" The Supreme Islamic Council? In that case, they've issued an incontrovertible statement as to their intentions. They said in a fatwa dated 2004 that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic. Until that is changed, it is against the law to develop nuclear weapons in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Posted by James Hare on February 21, 2007 01:17 PM
Have you ever heard of the term 'taqqiyya'?
Let us remember that the President of Iran has held rallies backed by the sign "Imagine a world without the US and Israel". Let us remember the chant 'Death to America (Marg Bar Amrika). Let us remember that their favred epithet for us is The Great Satan. Let us remember that Rafsanjani, a past Iranian presiden, has said that nuking Israel would destroy it, while Iran could absorb a counterstrike and survive. Let us recall that Khomeini said that he would be wiling to let Iran burn, if it advanced the cause of Islam. Let us remember that Ahmedinejad was a ringleader of the 'students' who took 52 Americans hostage and held them for 444 days. And let us remember that Ahmedinejad is a member of the Hojetiyyah cult, which Khomeini actually banned for its extremism; they believe that provoking a cataclysmic global conflagration is a reasonable way to expedite the Return of the Mahdi, or Twelfth Imam (the Shiite equivalent of the Second Coming), and are pledged to labor towards such a goal. Ad yes, he really believes in the Return of the Mahdi; he has had a highway built between the well in which the Mahdi has supposely been hiding for the last several hundred years and Tehran, so the Blessed One wouldn't get lost on his way back.
No one believed what Hitler said concerning his intentions in Mein Kampf, and we all know where that got us; I tend to take people like that at their word.
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 01:49 PM"Leftist law professior have had four years to make good on their "Bush's war is illegal and immoral"© and have yet produced the definitive international law to make their case ... other than the typical boilerplate one comes to expect from barrackroom lawyers suffering from anti-Bush Derangement Syndrome."
and it's clear to me that no amount of common sense slapping you in the face would make any difference.
you're a zealot. you'd argue that the iraq war is going well if it meant you didn't have to flex your mind and, perhaps, realize something you once thought was no longer true.
you should read "the invisible man" by ralph ellison.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 01:49 PMHmm. Somebody is posting in my name. Amusing. April. I am not sorry. And I didn't try to post a link. More amusing. I guess I am subject to an impersonation attack. Useful if you don't have an argument.
Posted by John Lynch on February 21, 2007 01:49 PMWhat proof does Mr. Reynolds have that "the mullahs" in Iran want to develop nuclear weapons beyond the frenzied assertions of the White House? While we're at it who are "the mullahs?" The Supreme Islamic Council? In that case, they've issued an incontrovertible statement as to their intentions. They said in a fatwa dated 2004 that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic. Until that is changed, it is against the law to develop nuclear weapons in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Posted by James Hare on February 21, 2007 01:17 PM
Have you ever heard of the term 'taqqiyya'?
Let us remember that the President of Iran has held rallies backed by the sign "Imagine a world without the US and Israel". Let us remember the chant 'Death to America (Marg Bar Amrika). Let us remember that their favred epithet for us is The Great Satan. Let us remember that Rafsanjani, a past Iranian presiden, has said that nuking Israel would destroy it, while Iran could absorb a counterstrike and survive. Let us recall that Khomeini said that he would be wiling to let Iran burn, if it advanced the cause of Islam. Let us remember that Ahmedinejad was a ringleader of the 'students' who took 52 Americans hostage and held them for 444 days. And let us remember that Ahmedinejad is a member of the Hojetiyyah cult, which Khomeini actually banned for its extremism; they believe that provoking a cataclysmic global conflagration is a reasonable way to expedite the Return of the Mahdi, or Twelfth Imam (the Shiite equivalent of the Second Coming), and are pledged to labor towards such a goal. Ad yes, he really believes in the Return of the Mahdi; he has had a highway built between the well in which the Mahdi has supposely been hiding for the last several hundred years and Tehran, so the Blessed On wouldn't get lost on his way back.
No one believed what Hitler said concerning his intentions in Mein Kampf, and we all know where that got us; I tend to take people like that at their word.
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 01:49 PM"And there is the fallacy again! We are not at war with Iran."
But Iran is at war with us.
"Do you understand how to argue?"
Its amazing how the Right keeps using facts and logic to correct your lies, while the Left continues to scream false assertions and the same insults over and over again. Every time we explain reality to you, you guys throw a temper tantrum.
I now understand why the Left continually feels the need to brag about how "intelligent" they are...
"And there is the fallacy again! We are not at war with Iran."
But Iran is at war with us.
"Do you understand how to argue?"
Its amazing how the Right keeps using facts and logic to correct your lies, while the Left continues to scream false assertions and the same insults over and over again. Every time we explain reality to you, you guys throw a temper tantrum.
I now understand why the Left continually feels the need to brag about how "intelligent" they are...
Dougie said:"The rest of you who support Mr. Reynolds on this topic are just psychopathic, homicidal poorly diapered children who hate brown people and flunked sentence logic."
Dougie dear, some of us ARE brown people. By the way, you idiocy shows when you think of Iraqis as brown when they are, in fact, WHITE.
I've got an idea: let's invade cuba and kill castro. some UT professor says it's perfectly legal!
anyone wanna come with me??????? i've got 250 cuban expatriates, ten rubber rafts, and a bag full of $20 bills!
this board is hilarious.
it only makes me cry a little to realize that i live in a country that cannot educate its citizens well enough to understand rhetoric and argument.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 01:47 PMRealitycheck
He then claims because a couple of Democrats 20 years ago "asked the government to look into assassination as a means of dealing with terrorists" then historically it is OK. A fine strawman but clearly irrelevant, who cares what someone asked the government to look into, it is not law.
I believe you are making a point that his (historical) point "is not law." You construct a stawman, then demolish it, then selectively quote yourself. Well done.
Posted by John Lynch on February 21, 2007 01:47 PM"It's quite clear that Iran is not supporting the insurgency in Iraq against the U.S. in any large or meaningful way."
Oh yeah. Somehow a bunch of ragtag insurgents wind up with a hundred .50 cal high-tech sniper rifles...right after Austria sells Iran a bunch of .50 cal high-tech sniper rifles. Conincidence, no doubt.
My God I am losing all faith in humanity. You liberals are turning into self-parodies.
Posted by Paul on February 21, 2007 01:45 PMPaul Campos arguments were so laughably sophomoric one does have to wonder what other kind of left-wing rantings he's crammed down the throats of his own students.
Leftist law professior have had four years to make good on their "Bush's war is illegal and immoral"© and have yet produced the definitive international law to make their case ... other than the typical boilerplate one comes to expect from barrackroom lawyers suffering from anti-Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Good job fisking Prof. Campos, Glenn. And notice how leftist demagogues are so quick to engage in the politics of personal destruction. So typical of closet despots on the left. People of "peace" indeed ... children of malice I'd say.
Posted by Hankmeister on February 21, 2007 01:45 PM"Please note that in the case of attacks on Peenemunde, the killing of German scientists was primary, not just collateral damage. You have the same situation at work when bombing production facilities - knocking out the machinery is all well and good, but killing the skilled workers is just as important. If I'm not mistaken we did a lot of this in Japan."
And there is the fallacy again! We are not at war with Iran.
Do you understand how to argue?
Do you wear velcro shoes?
Posted by on February 21, 2007 01:42 PM"Assassination is illegal.
We are not at war with Iran.
End of story. "
Assassination is illegal? At least read the article before copy-and-pasting the Democratic Underground talking points. And as for the second point: juding by the seizure of US territory in 1979, Iran certainly seems to think so.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 01:40 PMRealityCheck - you're cherry-picking.
Please check the makeup of the Iranian government. There's a whole lot of mad mullahs in there.
Note that Prof Reynolds addressed the issue of legality - assassination is illegal only by executive order, and that can be amended by executive order.
Please note that in the case of attacks on Peenemunde, the killing of German scientists was primary, not just collateral damage. You have the same situation at work when bombing production facilities - knocking out the machinery is all well and good, but killing the skilled workers is just as important. If I'm not mistaken we did a lot of this in Japan.
The fact that we can afford these angels-and-pins discussions indicates that we live in a rather pampered time.
And as for the recurrent "why were we shipping weapons to Iran in the '80s if they've been peeing on our shoes since 1979" - the Reagan administration tried to buy them off.
The policy was semi-successful in the short term (from the standpoint of US national interest it would have been perfectly fine had Iran and Iraq bled one another utterly to death) but a failure in the longer term.
Posted by JEM on February 21, 2007 01:38 PMI know it's hard for some folks to get the concept of "rule of law" and the "golden rule" wedged into their craniums,
Yes, a real bunch of idiots who cannot wait to invade a country they hadn"t given ten minutes worth of thought to before the drum started beating however many months back.
I love it how these wingnuts like to cite the relatively minor aggrievances we Americans have with Iran.
Listen jackasses, imagine for a second that Iran had:
1. Taken part in the assassination of our president and ensuing coup d'etat.
2. Incited and funded a radical madman to start a war with us that took the lives of over a half million of our people.
I'm sorry but 250 Marines and some hostages doesn't come close.
Even if we look at American interests alone (outside the domain of international law, human rights, or anything these wingnuts would eschew anyways), an escalation with Iran at this point would most likely yield more problems than it solved.
It's quite clear that Iran is not supporting the insurgency in Iraq against the U.S. in any large or meaningful way. If they actually were to start supplying weaponry to Shia's hostile to the US on a level similiar to that of Hezbollah (as the consequence of say, the idiotic politices advocated by Prof. Reynolds et al.), our strategic situation in Iraq would be seriously compromised. The situation around Baghdad does not resemble what happened to the Israelis recently in Lebanon, but listen jackasses: It very well could.
This is not to say that we should avoid waving the big stick at the Iranians. By all means no options should be nominally "off the table." But it does mean that some of the crowd here should take their calls for escalation a little more seriously.
Posted by SAO on February 21, 2007 01:38 PMas i read down through all the responses again, i realize that there is a tsumani of stupidity on this board.
if you can't see through this wet paper bag of an argument, then you need to go back to school.
no wonder fox news is so successful. suckers abound.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 01:33 PMEd "Killing those you perceive as a threat but who haven't done anything to you is murder."
This is the kind of logic that says we should treat the terrorist threat as a criminal matter.
You just don't get it. They are coming to get you and yours. I would gladly pre-empt an attack on, say my family than sitting on my butt and waiting for the dirty deed to happen.
In this case, the dirty deed is the elimination of Israel followed by the U.S. by Iran as stated by Iran.
Posted by Dana on February 21, 2007 01:32 PM"Glenn states that Dems - and at least one Repub - asked about assassination - as a reference to the history, not to the law; reread the article, come back when your comprehension is a little higher."
It's a tu quoque argument. It was stupid of the Dems, and it's stupid of Reynolds. But your ad hominem makes it all better. Nicely played!
"We have known terrorists, supporters of terrorists, and nuclear-seeking, terrorist-supporting states, who have attempted or taken numerous murderous acts against our interests and our citizens in this land and overseas, and who state their aim is the destruction of the U.S. and Israel."
What an excellent conflation ! The way you pile in all kinds of different people, with different motivations, targets, history and capabilities, and try to make a single threat out of them all! And what a fantastic abuse of logic! However illogical, I'm sure you can scare a few rubes, if you shout loud enough.
"Only in a world where you can ignore such threats is it possible to protest such thoughts discussions, and actions."
And a strawman. Nicely done.
"Either you have no memory of the events in question, no interest in finding out about them, or willful ignorance in the face of the acts - in order to be able to draw such conclusions.:
And a nice ad hominem attack. Again, nice.
"That can only be possible in a cocooned reality made possible by those who do face such facts, think about them, and take action when and where appropriate."
And a whopper of a conclusion, where you pile on the fallacies, and polish it to high gloss with faux-triumphant, gun-stroking, but ultimately empty language. You're a natural at this - you should write for WorldNetDaily!
Posted by The Decider on February 21, 2007 01:32 PM"Reynolds is an idiot. By the looseness of his own argument, any country is justified in assassinating any official of any country at any time. Or any scientist. By his own argument, Reynolds is saying that every U.S. scientist who understands atomic physics is a legitimate assassination target.
It's just a really dumb and poorly structured argument."
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 01:11 PM
--------------------------------
Doug, unless that last line is a self-critique, I think you owe Glenn Reynolds an apology because, at the risk of sounding like an Abbot y Costello routine, what you said he said about what he was saying isn't what you said he said at all!
By invoking Ward Churchill, Campos is perpetuating a liberal myth: That Churchill was fired for nothing more than being extreme. In fact, Churchill was fired not for any of his opinions but for committing academic fraud.
Posted by Charley Foster on February 21, 2007 01:31 PMI've never seen so many false arguments in one reply.
Assassination of religious leaders and scientists is not the same as assassination of heads of state. It's murder.
And then he argues that it is ok to kill scientists if we are at war with their country. Ok -- since when are we at war with Iran? Just because the neo-cons have wet dreams about it doesn't make it true.
Is this guy seriously a professor? Seems like a guy who failed rhetoric 101 and introduction to argument.
Posted by tockeyhockey on February 21, 2007 01:29 PMExalted. Your tag name suggests a rather high opinion of yourself, but, ok, I'll play. So, you've read the various citations from Glenn and in your humble opinion believe that assisination is illegal, period! Care to provide us with some citations so we can all follow your higher thinking here?? Not at war with Iran??? Care to offer a definition of "war"? No, Congress has not declared war on Iran, but the mullahs seem to be ok without Congressional approval.
Posted by David on February 21, 2007 01:28 PMWard, I mean Glenn, your rants are wrong and amoral. You do condone illegal activity. The stooges, Abu Gonzales, Shooter and W all salute. you No intellectual discussion, however, to be had with that group. This tome, "Arguing from Ignorance," would prove stimulating -- at least for a few laughs.
Posted by sy on February 21, 2007 01:28 PMAnother example of intellectual dishonesty in "april", I see.
If you can't win an individual argument, simply fall back on the "Well, we wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for you right-wing types" blanket statement.
Problem is, if that's what you end up doing at the end of EVERY argument, you might want to re-visit the idea that it's the conservative's fault in the first place. Need I remind you that the liberals voted, by and large, with the conservatives to get us where we are now. . .based on exactly the same intelligence provided to the administration?
The only difference is the conservatives are still trying to make it right, and the liberals have convinced themselves we're already defeated. . . .defeated in a war that has cost us fewer casualties in 3 years than we had in a single day in most of our prior wars.
Campos did indeed beclown himself, as you have april, for making no effort to understand our history, our present, and the consequences our actions (or in your preference in-actions) will have on the future.
Posted by Yashmak on February 21, 2007 01:27 PMBeclown! Beclown! Beclown!
Or if you're on the left, hooba-jooba! Wingnut! Fascist!
Posted by Jimbo on February 21, 2007 01:27 PMDwatts, by the looseness of your own stool any reader of this threat would be justified in concluding you are an ass.
Posted by nick george on February 21, 2007 01:26 PMHey!!! MA..........NOTHING is worse than Ward Churchill............NOTHING!
Posted by Jobo on February 21, 2007 01:23 PMSo, RealityCheck, quoting some Democrats that asked the question is a strawman because what??? I believe Mr Reynolds was suggesting that is wasn't somehow the height of criminal behavior to ASK the question, which is what got Mr Campos undies all in a knot. Mr Reynolds never claimed any legal authority for Dems asking the question. Read slowly and carefully, and things have a way of making sense.
Posted by David on February 21, 2007 01:23 PM"And AGAIN, if Iran's been at war with us since 1979, why was our government providing them weapons during the 1980s?"
Same reason we allied with the Stalin during WW2.
BTW, according to Moonbat logic, Germany never attacked the US, so I guess we should have let them keep Europe?
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 01:23 PMReynolds' column is ridiculous.
Assassination is illegal.
We are not at war with Iran.
End of story.
Posted by Exalted on February 21, 2007 01:22 PMI forgot to include Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein...my bad...
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 01:22 PMRealityCheck,
Glenn states that Dems - and at least one Repub - asked about assassination - as a reference to the history, not to the law; reread the article, come back when your comprehension is a little higher.
April,
We have known terrorists, supporters of terrorists, and nuclear-seeking, terrorist-supporting states, who have attempted or taken numerous murderous acts against our interests and our citizens in this land and overseas, and who state their aim is the destruction of the U.S. and Israel.
In what world is it possible that contemplating actions, debating alternatives, and seeking resolution to the conflicts through diplomatic, military, and economic means – is Hyper- National, or Hyper- Rationalization.
Only in a world where you can ignore such threats is it possible to protest such thoughts discussions, and actions. Either you have no memory of the events in question, no interest in finding out about them, or willful ignorance in the face of the acts - in order to be able to draw such conclusions.
That can only be possible in a cocooned reality made possible by those who do face such facts, think about them, and take action when and where appropriate.
Good luck in your world; may it last beyond your gratitude for those that provide it.
Shorter Glenn Reynolds: It's not terrorism if we do it.
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 01:21 PMTen people whose assassinations would have saved (collectively) the lives of more than 100 million lives:
Adoph Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Mao Tse Tung
Pol Pot
Kim Il Sung
Benito Mussolini
Slobodan Milosevic
Ratko Mladic
Radovan Karadzic
Idi Amin
Quite a humanistic tradeoff in a cost/benefit analysis, ayy?
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 01:20 PM"The rest of you who support Mr. Reynolds on this topic are just psychopathic, homicidal poorly diapered children who hate brown people..."
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 12:52 PM
---------------------------------
Hey Doug, cut it out, some of my best friends are diapered children and brown people. Can you say the same?
Campos would instead limit us to the era of Mutually Assured Destruction. Not only would we have to take the first hit [goodbye NYC] but our retaliatory strike would incinerate 7 million innocents in Tehran.
Somehow, he believes that option is morally superior to assassinating a few madmen.
Posted by Fen on February 21, 2007 01:18 PM"When they act on it, then eliminating those that attack you is justified warfare. Killing those you perceive as a threat but who haven't done anything to you is murder."
And to think, every time I've seen it said that you Lefty fantasists want to wait until after America has been attacked --again and again, if necessary, until we've learned our lesson -- to do something to hamper or defeat our enemies, you've denied it. Well, until just now, that is.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by Mike on February 21, 2007 01:15 PM"International law is unlikely to be a problem either. The bombing attack on Moammar Qaddafi was legally justified, according to the State Department’s legal adviser, as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter because of Qaddafi’s terrorist activities. The Iranian mullahs are worse, and are trying to get nuclear weapons besides."
---
Reynolds is an idiot. By the looseness of his own argument, any country is justified in assassinating any official of any country at any time. Or any scientist. By his own argument, Reynolds is saying that every U.S. scientist who understands atomic physics is a legitimate assassination target.
It's just a really dumb and poorly structured argument.
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 01:11 PMWell thank you Salamantis for taking on the role of deciding who deserves death.
Now can we only use your list or does everybody get to submit one?
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 01:02 PM
Sure; submit away -- but try to be certain that the people you list are at least as indelibly murderous and influential as the ones I listed (do you even know who they are?).
Robert Mugabe and the Myanmar (Burma) junta just might qualify (I considered but did not include them). Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Rove would not.
Campos isn't the only one who has beclowned himself.
The problems with Professor Reynolds' views on assassinating Iranian mullahs/scientists/ne'erdowells are not moral or legal -- although one could certainly imagine an illegal or immoral act. It's that his proposal is ridiculously foolish. There is no such thing as a costless war -- even if you call it a "soft war", which is Reynolds' term for a prolonged assassination campaign against Iran.
Covert actions against Iran will generate covert actions against the US, likely resulting in escalation to not-so-covert actions. Maybe that's the right way to go, but let's not delude ourselves that it's not the way it will go.
Moreover, the idea that we have a cadre of superspies and ninjas ready to identify and kill the bad guys is something Reynolds picked up from the science fiction he reads. The Reynoldsian cyberninja does not come online until 2079.
I agree with Reynolds that Campos "beclowned himself." I also endorse a strong policy on Iran, just as I did on Iraq (where, needless to say, I favored sending a lot more troops from the get go). But, again, we get amateurish tough-talk from Reynolds. If accepted, such silliness will result in mistakes in Iran just as they did in Iraq -- and wherever next Reynolds fixes his gaze. And thus comedy turns to tragedy.
Posted by von on February 21, 2007 01:10 PMCampos isn't the only one who has beclowned himself.
The problems with Professor Reynolds' views on assassinating Iranian mullahs/scientists/ne'erdowells are not moral or legal -- although one could certainly imagine an illegal or immoral act. It's that his proposal is ridiculously foolish. There is no such thing as a costless war -- even if you call it a "soft war", which is Reynolds' term for a prolonged assassination campaign against Iran.
Covert actions against Iran will generate covert actions against the US, likely resulting in escalation to not-so-covert actions. Maybe that's the right way to go, but let's not delude ourselves that it's not the way it will go.
Moreover, the idea that we have a cadre of superspies and ninjas ready to identify and kill the bad guys is something Reynolds picked up from the science fiction he reads. The Reynoldsian cyberninja does not come online until 2079.
I agree with Reynolds that Campos "beclowned himself." I also endorse a strong policy on Iran, just as I did on Iraq (where, needless to say, I favored sending a lot more troops from the get go). But, again, we get amateurish tough-talk from Reynolds. If accepted, such silliness will result in mistakes in Iran just as they did in Iraq -- and wherever next Reynolds fixes his gaze. And thus comedy turns to tragedy.
Posted by von on February 21, 2007 01:09 PMDoug how utterly obtuse can you be?
"The rest of you who support Mr. Reynolds on this topic are just psychopathic, homicidal poorly diapered children who hate brown people and flunked sentence logic."
That's powerful logic doug. Incredibly well thought out too. Especially the part about poorly diapered children. Just brilliant brilliant stuff. And not at all immature. Not a bit.
It's amazing how much the color of someones skin consumes pepole like doug. To the point that even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand, he still can't help himself from calling anyone who disagrees with his point a closet racist.
It's like Aprils stupidity in saying 'the soft sell of facism is in the air....'
Racism charges and facism claims that are leveled 'willy nilly' (how's that sentence logic doug?!) are the last refuge of the morally stunted scoundrel.
Posted by Jackman on February 21, 2007 01:09 PM"And that's why it was right to go after the AQ and the Taliban on 9/12/01."Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 12:57 PM
-------------------------------
9/12/01 was too late for me and my loved ones. I would have prefered the summer of 1998 when OBL and AQ declared war on the United States, even before the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. I would now give up any "moral high ground" to get 9/10/01 back. Words mean things. "Moral high ground" didn't help me nor my loved ones back then, and I'm afraid it's not going to help us now.
Will someone please pick up all the tin-foil hats; the room is all a-clutter.
Posted by David on February 21, 2007 01:02 PMWell thank you Salamantis for taking on the role of deciding who deserves death.
Now can we only use your list or does everybody get to submit one?
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 01:02 PMThe rest of you who support Mr. Reynolds on this topic are just psychopathic, homicidal poorly diapered children who hate brown people and flunked sentence logic.
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 12:52 PM
Amanda Marcotte? Is that you?
Posted by Salamantis on February 21, 2007 01:02 PM"See Marcotte, Amanda, rightwing mass-frenzy in response to Edwards' hiring thereof."
Analogies are not your strength.
"The rest of you who support Mr. Reynolds on this topic are just psychopathic, homicidal poorly diapered children who hate brown people and flunked sentence logic."
No, you are. (Hey, this is easy!)
Posted by Jim Treacher on February 21, 2007 01:01 PMEd,
That's not "Moral High Ground" your steppin' on, it's quicksand.
Posted by joshlbetts on February 21, 2007 01:01 PMAnd that's why it was right to go after the AQ and the Taliban on 9/12/01. I could even make a case for going into Saudi Arabia for their financiers. But to use that where there is no direct threat to America other than possibly somewhere down the line, loses a moral high ground I'd like to keep.
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 12:57 PM"Reynolds calls for the assassination of "radical mullahs'... Is a radical anyone you define as having an opinion you disagree with?...How radical does one have to be?"
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 11:53 AM
Here's a provisional list (not all are mullahs, or even clerics):
Usama Bin Laden
Ayman Zawahiri
Mullah Omar
Ali Khameini
Mahmoud Ahmedinejad
Moqtada Al Sadr
Sayed Hassan Nasrallah
Kim Jong Il
Abu Hamza Al Muhajir
I know it's hard for some folks to get the concept of "rule of law" and the "golden rule" wedged into their craniums, but these precepts do not include willy nilly killing anyone and everyone you momentarily consider to be a "threat" as Mr. Reynolds has advocated. This can be shown by the simple fact that Mr. Reynolds would not say it is perfectly legal under international law for an Iraqi person to assassinate George W. Bush under the "self defense" clause of the U.N. charter. The rest of you who support Mr. Reynolds on this topic are just psychopathic, homicidal poorly diapered children who hate brown people and flunked sentence logic.
Posted by Douglas Watts on February 21, 2007 12:52 PMHyper Nationalism and Hyper Rationalism are Instanpundints Brand-Name. The soft sell of fascism is in the air.
You have lost your credibility sir Instanpundint Hackman. Swift boating, or dixie chicking, or dan rathering Paul Campos will do nothing to save our country from the mess your ilk have got us into.
Thanks Paul Campos for your courage. Keep up the good work.
Do not listen to these little men with weak minds.
Posted by april on February 21, 2007 12:52 PM
Sorry about that Ed...12:42 PM was me.
Posted by BrianNYC on February 21, 2007 12:46 PM"And BrianNYC, I may think people who have opinions as radical as yours should be eliminated. If I'm in power at the point you express your opinion, is that justified? When they act on it, then eliminating those that attack you is justified warfare. Killing those you perceive as a threat but who haven't done anything to you is murder."
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 12:14 PM
----------------------------------
I was right with you on 9/10/01, Ed, but now I take these mullahs at their word. Too close to home for me. Five to ten feet to my left that morning, and I would have been one of those "little Eichmanns" too. I learned the hard way that these guys mean what they say.
We await Campos' reply with breath abated! With any luck, it will describe what HE thinks ought to be done about Iran.
Posted by Jim O'Sullivan on February 21, 2007 12:40 PMAnother response here, for those interested.
http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22457/
Posted by Jeff G on February 21, 2007 12:38 PM"Campos makes it pretty clear that he thinks that the University of Tennessee should fire Reynolds because of what he wrote on his blog, not because of any academic misconduct. That is thuggish."
See Marcotte, Amanda, rightwing mass-frenzy in response to Edwards' hiring thereof.
Posted by The Decider on February 21, 2007 12:38 PMOne of the best things about this article and the comments is the sure and certain knowledge that the well-beclowned Campos will be reading this far down in the thread and further.
Hey there Bozo. Nice nose.
Posted by vanderleun on February 21, 2007 12:32 PMThe initial attention given Churchhill was precisely because of his public statements regarding 9/11. Only later was his acedemic fraud alleged and then investigated.Why shouldn't Glenn's statements prompt similar scrutiny? Why is suggesting that he be given the same attention as Churchhill "thuggish?"
Ward Churchill was just another obscure leftist professor until his 9/11 comments gained him attention and helped bring his academic fraud to light. Glenn Reynolds is already well-known because of InstaPundit and there's never been a sniff of the same type of academic misconduct as with Churchill. Campos makes it pretty clear that he thinks that the University of Tennessee should fire Reynolds because of what he wrote on his blog, not because of any academic misconduct. That is thuggish.
Posted by RSR on February 21, 2007 12:27 PMHi "Paul February 21, 2007 11:59 AM,"
I think you have it backwards, Iran has been at war with us since 1979, not your "other way around!" Think about it, they grabbed and held US citizens as hostages for 444 days, not the other way around. They funded and dispatched the posse who assassinated Colonel Rich Higgins, US Marine working for the UN in 1989, not the other way around. They funded the mission which targeted the lives of 243 Marines in Lebanon in 1983, not the other way around. I think you, out of anyone, should congratulate the US for showing remarkable restraint towards Iran over the years.
Also, no one in the Reagan Administration is "guilty of treason for aiding and abetting the enemy" because the democrat controlled house and senate of 1986-94 and a congressionally appointed special prosecutor couldn't find any grounds for such an indictment. Can you?
Posted by BrianNYC on February 21, 2007 12:27 PMRegarding the comments from M.A., could that be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
Nice of him to drop by.
For fun, try Googling the phrase "dead human ammo".
Posted by InstaPundit Fan on February 21, 2007 12:25 PM"But Ward Churchill's whole "roosting chickens" argument is that the civilians murdered on 9/11 WERE legitimate targets--propping up the Empire and all, don't you know."
Having a job on Wall Street and developing nuclear weapons isn't quite the same thing is it?
Posted by Pablo on February 21, 2007 12:23 PMComment at 12:20 was mine. Also, just to remind people, Ward Churchill has not yet been fired.
Posted by jgm on February 21, 2007 12:23 PML.C.S.: "The civilians who died on September 11 weren't helping any other country to wage war on the US. They were not legitimate military targets, as "Chemical Ali" and his colleagues certainly were. I hope I've made the difference clear."
But Ward Churchill's whole "roosting chickens" argument is that the civilians murdered on 9/11 WERE legitimate targets--propping up the Empire and all, don't you know.
Posted by on February 21, 2007 12:20 PMCampos & Krugman... there are more disturbing similarities than just their first names!!
Posted by michael on February 21, 2007 12:19 PM"Killing those you perceive as a threat but who haven't done anything to you is murder."
Well, you really have to look at the root causes.
Posted by Jim Treacher on February 21, 2007 12:19 PMthis thread is about to explode in 5...4...3
Posted by joshlbetts on February 21, 2007 12:16 PMHello from Germany.
Seems the M.A. must stand for Mullah Apologist, but I digress. Great response by the Instapundit. Campos has proven over time that he is a true left wing extremist who is not interested in defending the nations which foster liberty and democracy. No, Campos types seem ashamed to be American, and advocate courses of action which weaken the nation and embolden the enemies of liberty and democracy. Still, he is SO representative of American academics, for the most part, who seem to believe the worst about this nation at all times. That's the tragedy of all this hoopla. Guys like Campos are never satisfied - Nuke 'em?
Too extreme. Kill the makers of the Holocaust - against the law. So, Herr Campos, how do you propose we deal with the evil in the Middle East? Oh, that's not YOUR job? Of course, how easy for you to say that. r/ Bedrock Guy
No! So you've disowned beclownification?
I feel vindicated, yet somehow...empty, and without porpoise. I see by your comments that you're still nutty, though. Don't re-hinge! Keep us laughing!
Posted by Jimbo on February 21, 2007 12:14 PMAnd BrianNYC, I may think people who have opinions as radical as yours should be eliminated. If I'm in power at the point you express your opinion, is that justified?
When they act on it, then eliminating those that attack you is justified warfare. Killing those you perceive as a threat but who haven't done anything to you is murder.
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 12:14 PMOr Mr. Yeah But What About.
The editors of the Rocky Mountain News must be enjoying the extra traffic!
Posted by Jim Treacher on February 21, 2007 12:11 PMSorry, I'm Mr. Unhinged now. Or maybe Mr. Nutbar. Possibly Mr. Moonbat, though that's sooo 2004.
Posted by Mr. Unhinged on February 21, 2007 12:09 PMMr. Beclowned, stop beclowing yourself! You're making others beclown you, and beclownization is rapidly growing on this thread. It may yet consume us all! Down with beclownism! Death to all beclowners! Beclown those whose self-beclowning beclowns the Constitution!
Posted by Jimbo on February 21, 2007 12:07 PM>>I think every center-right or "wingnut" poster on here would agree that if Glenn Reynolds was found out to have lied to get the position he has and produced fraudulent documents he in fact should be fired. What don't you understand about this?
The initial attention given Churchhill was precisely because of his public statements regarding 9/11. Only later was his acedemic fraud alleged and then investigated.
Why shouldn't Glenn's statements prompt similar scrutiny? Why is suggesting that he be given the same attention as Churchhill "thuggish?"
And, Reagan thought it was in our best interests to provide a nation at war with us with weapons? Wait, didn't Reagan say that he didn't personally even have any knowledge of our dealing with the Iranians during Iran Contra?
Posted by Mr. Unhinged on February 21, 2007 12:06 PM"Reynolds calls for the assassination of "radical mullahs'... Is a radical anyone you define as having an opinion you disagree with?...How radical does one have to be?"
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 11:53 AM
-----------------------------
How about "radical" enough to state that all those who refuse to follow Islam should be wiped off the face of the earth? How about "radical" enough to support and encourage the attacks of 9/11, 3/11 and other various bombings around the globe? How about "radical" enough to threaten the extermination of an entire country? I meam, just for starters...
So just to be clear, this isn't about Al Queda, but about Iran-the-nation-we-have-been-at-war-with-since-1979. So by the logic above, the US can send assassination teams to kill religious figures with whom someone in the administration disagrees, or scientists who might be working on something that would be a weapon. Then I guess Putin's Russia can do the same? China, likewise?
Could be an interesting time to be a televangelist with a political agenda against Islam or a scientist at a big aerospace contractor.
And no one of the Ole Perfesser's many supporters has explained how the various members of Reagan administration who sold weapons to Iran-the-nation-we-have-been-at-war-with-since-1979 are not guilty of treason for aiding and abetting the enemy.
This has nothing to do with Al Queda -- though I wouldn't take my eye off them as they're now rebuilding their capabilities in Pakistan -- but about Iran-the-nation-we-have-been-at-war-with-since-1979.
And I have to laugh at the classic wingnut defense -- "I don't know the law, I had Campos" -- as if students in a graduate program expect to be spoon-fed their education. Part and parcel of the "I would have been a Soldier except for my bad knee" from Treason in Defense of Slavery Yankee.
Posted by paul on February 21, 2007 11:59 AMMr. Beclowned,
With regards to why we provided Iran weapons, we did so because Reagan thought it was in our best interests. How can you not understand that?
With regards to Ward Churchill, I think every center-right or "wingnut" poster on here would agree that if Glenn Reynolds was found out to have lied to get the position he has and produced fraudulent documents he in fact should be fired. What don't you understand about this?
EasyLiving
nick, carlos:
I don't understand you: A guy beclowns himself, gets called out and you immediately rush in to beclown yourselves, too. Why?
Posted by el checo on February 21, 2007 11:56 AMExcellent Point Pittelli.
War, no matter how executed (NPI), is never "OK". But it is often necessary.
Glenn Reynolds legitimizes his ridiculously lame and short-sighted geopolitical strategy by googling Dianne Fienstein? How is that a beat down? He shows no examples of why what he recommended would work or when it has worked in the past.
Also, saying that it is not illegal because the President can make it not illegal is impossibly ridiculous to say the least. Campos brought up many good points, Reynolds relies on the cacophony of dummies who chortle at "beclowned". It's a time tested ploy of Indeedy and his ilk, make a ridiculous statement, get called out, find some people you hate on the other side who have made similar statements thus attempting to remove the focus from your own stupidity. He's a moron and got rightfully called out as a the cowardly radical that he is.
funtimes
Posted by funtimes on February 21, 2007 11:53 AMReynolds calls for the assassination of "radical mullahs'.
How radical does one have to be? Is it justified only for Mullahs? How about radical secularists? Or radical Christians? Is a radical anyone you define as having an opinion you disagree with?
Reynolds statement is a tacit rationalization for Death Squads and should be roundly condemned by anyone with a shred of morality. Deciding to kill someone preemptively based on their beliefs is a slippery slope since someone, somewhere will believe that your beliefs justify your elimination, and the only way to fight this is to outlaw it unequivocally.
Posted by Ed on February 21, 2007 11:53 AM>Also, why was it proper for CU to investigate Churchhill based on his "little Eichmann's" comment, but it is "thuggish" for Campos to suggest that UoT do the same regarding Reynolds' calls for attacks against civilian targets?
No, Churchill was ousted because of his unprofessional and dishonest behavior, not because of his assinine insults of the dead.
Remember his great original paintings: http://tinyurl.com/2yc9c4
?
No, that would not be OK. And generalizing Glenn Reynold's point beyong recognition by replacing specific targets like "radical mullahs and atomic scientists" with your term "Iran's civilians" weakens your arguement. Please learn the difference between "targeted assassination" and "random terrorism."
Hell, learn the difference between "murder" and "self-defense". There isn't a leftist screed I've seen that does not carefully fail to make or even acknowledge such a distinction.
All dictatorships are, by nature and definition, an ongoing act of aggression against the rights of all people, including their own citizens. They are, by nature, outside civilization itself. As such, they have no moral legitimacy whatsoever, not even the "legitimate" targets that Glenn allows them.
(All you idiots who are now going to post something about America being a dictatorship, spare me. The blindness required to buy that crap is beyond any reasoned argumentation.)
Posted by seerak on February 21, 2007 11:46 AMOkay, Carlos, I'll answer your question with another question:
Q. When is a civilian not a civilian?
A. When that civilian is engaged in military or terroristic activity.
Let's take me, for example. I'm a defense contractor. I'm not in the military -- I am a civilian, in that sense -- but I help the military do its job. I hate to say it, because I like being alive, but I believe that makes me a legitimate military target.
Remember those four contractors that the terrorists hanged from a bridge in Baghdad and then brutally desecrated their bodies? Everyone was outraged (well, except "Screw Them" Kos...), and rightfully so, although I think the outrage properly belongs more to the horrible manner of their deaths than the fact of them. In a real sense, those men died doing their duty for their country.
(Please understand that I am not trying to minimize the tragedy of anyone's death here, whether or not they were wearing a uniform.)
The civilians who died on September 11 weren't helping any other country to wage war on the US. They were not legitimate military targets, as "Chemical Ali" and his colleagues certainly were. I hope I've made the difference clear.
Posted by L.C.S. on February 21, 2007 11:46 AMZING!
Game, set, and match to Mr. Reynolds.
Posted by Gonzo on February 21, 2007 11:45 AM"And AGAIN, if Iran's been at war with us since 1979, why was our government providing them weapons during the 1980s?"
Posted by Mr. Beclowned on February 21, 2007 11:39 AM
----------------------------------
??? I just told you above, Mr. Beclowned.
The strange bedfellows of leftists, fascists, islamists and anarchists have settled on a single method of operation: ad hominem attacks on anybody who disagrees with their world view (aka, anybody who defends the right of America to exist), followed with threats to somehow get them fired. This is similar to the recent threats to fire various state climatologists by their respective Governors, for the high crime of debating the science behind global warming alarmism.
Now, here's a quiz: how many people who bristle at the thought of killing the mad mullahs were all glowing in their praise of the "Bush assassination" movie?
Posted by Korla Pundit on February 21, 2007 11:40 AMAnd AGAIN, if Iran's been at war with us since 1979, why was our government providing them weapons during the 1980s?
Posted by Mr. Beclowned on February 21, 2007 11:39 AM"So, again I ask, if Iran's been at war with us since 1979, why was our government providing them weapons during the 1980s? Are you saying that Reagan and North committed treason?"
Posted by Mr. Beclowned on February 21, 2007 11:26 AM
--------------------------------
Because then democrats in congress made it illegal (Boland Amendment) to fund those who were fighting communism (a bigger fish to fry than Iran at the time) in Central America (see Iran/Contra.) Also, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" tactic was also a logical tool to get American hostages back home safely with minimal loss of blood and treasure.
Also, why was it proper for CU to investigate Churchhill based on his "little Eichmann's" comment, but it is "thuggish" for Campos to suggest that UoT do the same regarding Reynolds' calls for attacks against civilian targets?
Posted by Mr. Beclowned on February 21, 2007 11:37 AMOnly people who have never had to deal with the realities of actual oppression, never had the responsibility of protecting a people, or experienced a Fascist state have the luxury of making Mr. Campos' argument.
As for Iran let me paraphrase a statement from World War I:
The difference between war and what we currently have with Iran is that we aren't shooting back.
Posted by Peter on February 21, 2007 11:36 AMWell let see, M.A., how much of this don't you get:
"Obviously, a call for deliberate murder of civilians is far worse than anything Ward Churchill or any left-wing professor has ever advocated, which was Campos's point:"
Churchill tries to justify the murder of innocent individuals by suggesting they deserved it - they were responsible for the Great Satan.
"in calling for murder of scientists and religious figures, Reynolds is worse than a million Ward Churchills, yet the MSM doesn't have any problem with Reynolds -- because the MSM has a conservative bias, not a "liberal" bias."
Reynolds calls for the murder of scientists and religious figures whose stated goal is to destroy Israel. Hardly a group of innocents. And let's not jump to conclusions about the MSM. Let's give them a few more days to get worked up about Professor Reynolds and call for his head.
"And let me ask you this, folks: if it's OK for us to murder Iran's civilians, is it OK for Iran to send people to murder our scientists and priests?"
I think Professor Reynolds has already answered that question. You apparently missed it. Those that are involved in the development of weapons could be considered legitimate targets by our enemies. As I noted, the mullahs have called for the elimination of Israel. I don't think you can name and legitimate religious leaders in the U.S. who have suggested anything of a similar nature as regards Iran.
M.A. it is not "murder" it is "killing". There is a difference, and no I don't have a problem with it.
And how many of our scientists and priests are calling for the destruction of another country? My local Priest isn't proud of the Nukes his country makes and doesn't advocate war for religious or any other reasons.
Oh, and reread the article. It is clear that civilians that contribute to the war effort are legitimate targets.
Posted by talltim on February 21, 2007 11:34 AMReynolds is obviously correct although it's unfortunate he even has to bother responding to pure excrement the likes of Campos. No entity employing Campos has any credibility, this paper included, regardless of the fact they allowed Reynolds to correct the hateful nonsense Campos previously churned out.
Posted by John on February 21, 2007 11:33 AMOh silly M.A. (an honorary degree, I am sure)
You ask "...is it OK for Iran to send people to murder our scientists and priests?"
If Iranian diplomats, military, and civilians had been the target of mutiple American-sponsored attacks over 30 years, if American leader-priests were openly talking about "the second coming" and how a new nuclear weapon would enable that through genocide and nuclear war, if at the time the US had no nuclear weapons, but was rushing against UN resolution after resolution to produce such weapons, then attempts to stop the apocalypse by removing those with the know-how and the will to mass murder would be a good thing and the duty of the Iranian government in defense of the people.
Similarly, it would have been a good thing if there had been some targeted assassinations in 30's Germany.
I agree that it is more moral to remove the threat at the top than make those who are innocent the victims of even well-targeted bombing (which will always produce some unintended damage). That is why I was against relying on sanctions to keep Saddam neutered and for his removal by force. Why should the Iraqi people suffer for Saddam's sake, who still lived like a king while in power?
Posted by Ray on February 21, 2007 11:27 AMSo, again I ask, if Iran's been at war with us since 1979, why was our government providing them weapons during the 1980s? Are you saying that Reagan and North committed treason?
Posted by Mr. Beclowned on February 21, 2007 11:26 AMSmackdown!!!
Posted by richard on February 21, 2007 11:25 AMM.A., the question isn't whether it's "OK" to kill selected Iranian civilians. The question is whether the President can legally order US forces to do so. Naturally, it would not be "OK" with the Iranians, just as it would not be "OK" with us if the Iranians were to kill our US-based civilian defense workers. Of course, it is also not "OK" with us if Iran acts to kill US soldiers and civilians in Iraq, and not "OK" with Iran if the US bombs Iranian defense plants.
Acts of war are not "OK" in any reasonable sense, but that does not make them all illegal. From a policy perspective, we would expect the President to consider that killing high-ranking Iranians may lead them to kill more of us. This downside may or may not be dispositive, depending on one's estimation of how much damage Iran is doing to us now, how much more damage they could or would be doing, and the cost to us of being seen to do nothing while a third-rate power wages war against us (as it has since 1979), and seeks the nuclear weapons which will make it at least a second-rate power, and in many ways untouchable.
"And let me ask you this, folks: if it's OK for us to murder Iran's civilians, is it OK for Iran to send people to murder our scientists and priests?"
Posted by M.A. on February 21, 2007 11:09 AM
--------------------------
No, that would not be OK. And generalizing Glenn Reynold's point beyong recognition by replacing specific targets like "radical mullahs and atomic scientists" with your term "Iran's civilians" weakens your arguement. Please learn the difference between "targeted assassination" and "random terrorism."
It sounds to me like Campos is a little bitter about the treatment his buddy Ward Churchill got and has made a feeble attempt to manufacture a similar controversy for Glenn Reynolds. But it wasn't Churchill's odious statements that earned him sanctions, it was his research misconduct, academic fraud, and plagiarism. Campos is suggesting that Reynolds should be sanctioned simply for expressing an opinion he doesn't like. So much for academic freedom.
Posted by RSR on February 21, 2007 11:23 AMM.A.-
You have no idea what "any left-wing" professor ever called for, do you? Try to grasp the concept, if you can. You are the President. You can stop a war by killing off the principals - rogue nuke scientists, dictator mullahs, etc. Or you can send...ummm...let's see...how's about all of the "left-wing professors" to fight and die in the war created by the rogue scientists and radical mullahs...oh, and you get to go fight, too. What do you do?
Moral equivalency is not a product of right-wing law profs or the "conservatively biased media"...so where did YOU learn it?
Commenter, thou hast beclowned thyself.
Posted by tom spaulding on February 21, 2007 11:21 AM"And let me ask you this, folks: if it's OK for us to murder Iran's civilians, is it OK for Iran to send people to murder our scientists and priests?"
Or kidnap our dipmomats or arrange for the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, or the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, or the use of anti-tank weapons in Iraq that have so far killed ore than 170 Americans? Case you hadn't noticed, Iran has been at war with us for a long, long time.
Posted by Andrew on February 21, 2007 11:21 AMCarlos: Please re-read the essay. If the civilian is involved in work with the intention of causing harm to the people of the United States (and by that, I mean researching weapons that will be used in attacks on the military -- that narrow a definition), then he is not considered a civilian under the rule of law.
The scientists who worked on the atomic bomb would not be considered civilians under that definition. They could have been targeted for assassination under this doctrine.
BTW, the Palestinians take this reason beyond the pale as justification for their suicide bomb attacks. Because Israel mandates military service for everyone, everyone is subject to assassination. The Palestinians take this beyond the pale by a) applying this to children and infants; b) applying this to people who are not, at that moment, in the military; c) killing people in clearly civilian marked areas, such as pizza parlors and buses, and not at military sites (which is another distinction Reynolds maintains).
I hope this helps makes it clear to you.
Posted by Bill Peschel on February 21, 2007 11:20 AMcarlos:
"If the President can plan and order the assassination of civilians, then how is that any different from Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist from planning and ordering the deaths of American civilians?"
I'm actually going to treat this with more dignity than it deserves. I'm going on faith that it is a question based in ignorance, not vapidity.
It's a matter of focus and intent. The potential focus is on 'civilians' who are directly involved in Iran's nuclear programs (programs of war, by our determination) and Iran's leadership (advocates of war, by our determination). These 'civilians' are members of an elite cadre which has consistently called for, and worked towards, the destruction of Israel and the U.S. They are legitimate targets in a war which they declared on us.
Real civilians, on the other hand, like those who were in the World Trade Center on 9/11, are completely removed from the 'war machine' that the U.S. government is using as a tool against the Islamofascists, and those states which support them. They are truly, by whatever National/International laws you want to quote, not legitimate targets.
Unless you happen to agree with Osama Bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein (pick your fascist). In which case, you are not worth arguing with, and I've wasted my time.
Posted by NukemHill on February 21, 2007 11:20 AMI wonder whether this is related to the Breck Girl's Marcotte/McEwan fiasco.
Combine a relative of Bush Derangement Syndrome with "Pas d'enemies a gauche" and a small dose of : of sour grapes, and you see a nascent movement of the left that demands a non-left-wing blog-based firing for every left-wing blog-based firing.
Amazing how this Campos character has the chutzpah to call out Prof. Reynolds. One only has to read Glenn's writings to realize he's extremely intelligent. If I were to pick someone of Prof. Reynold's stature to attack, I would come at him with something more then... nothing.
Campos should stick to his own intellectual level and refrain from the attempted dragging of his betters down to it. I suggest that he hone his skills at the debate club of his local high school. This will teach him things like "research" that are crucial when mounting an argument.
Posted by Adam on February 21, 2007 11:19 AMBeclowned? I see the wingnuts have a new catchphrase. It's actually pretty amazing that because Instahack writes something the wingers accept it a ground truth.
Hey was that a comment from Bob "I would have been a Soldier except for my bad knee" Owens? The wingnut welfare queen out supporting the hack
Posted by klyde on February 21, 2007 11:19 AMIf the President can plan and order the assassination of civilians, then how is that any different from Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist from planning and ordering the deaths of American civilians?
1. bin Laden's not an elected head of state, responsible to the people who will do the dying in response to his actions.
2. Restricting himself to killing only civilians involved in military or governmental affairs would be a radical shift from the indiscriminate slaughter that's the current terrorist MO.
3. The ability to hit back after such an attack; OBL's still breathing, but if you had a picture of the AQ company picnic on 9/10, an awful lot of those people are corpses now. When there's not a Dem in the White House, there's really an awful cost/benefit to being a terrorist leader.
The RMN should have a separate publication each day just to cover the corrections for the junk Paul Campos writes in his column. Is it scary he has anything to do with the training of future lawyers. Aren't Bill Clinton's finger waving lines about how close he came to getting Bin Laden -- "I missed him by minutes" -- assassination? My money is that Paul Campos will not demand a trial for Clinton on attempted assassination charges. The 25 people running for the democrat presidential nomination for 2008 have all said they will hunt down Bin Laden and kill him. Hmm. Obama the assassin?
Posted by Karen on February 21, 2007 11:15 AMOh, Jennifer, and Bob Owens, you silly people, Glenn didn't call for the murder of "terrorists." He called for the murder of scientists working on a country's nuclear research, and for the murder of people who practice a religion he doesn't like.
By that logic, Iran would be just as justified in murdering our civilians -- more, in fact, since we have threatened to overthrow their government.
Posted by M.A. on February 21, 2007 11:15 AMcarlos-
You really see no difference in killing a terrorist and kiling Mrs. Smith and her three kids? This is where moral relativism is taking us, folks.
Posted by Paul on February 21, 2007 11:15 AMBill,
Your comments give me hope. Sometimes, it's too easy to think that all students in Wizard of Oz courses (yup, they're in law school too) develop Wizard of Oz thinking. I dream of the day that modern-day students will pull a '60s type stunt and start forcing the university wimps to get rid of these worthless proffs. It worked then (causing quality to be replaced with baby boomers), and it can work now (reversing the process).
Posted by Da Coyote on February 21, 2007 11:14 AMCarlos, it's called lawful authority, and is derived from the consent of the governed.
Oh, and it's not possible sue your high school civics teacher for malpractice.
Posted by ThomasD on February 21, 2007 11:13 AMIf the President can plan and order the assassination of civilians, then how is that any different from Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist from planning and ordering the deaths of American civilians?
Gee, let me think about that for one-tenth of a second:
President Bush is a duly elected government official acting within his Constitutional powers and in accordance with U.S and international law, and by ordering targeted assassinations of key scientists and leaders (if he chose to do so), he would prevent the need for wider bloodshed while upholding his sworn duty to defend the United States.
Osama is a religious zealot who wants to kill any person he can that doesn't agree with his particularly narrow and intolerant brand of Islamism, wthout any legal authority to jsutify his actions, whatsoever.
Anyone with half a brain could make that distinction, but Carlos had Campos.
Posted by Bob Owens on February 21, 2007 11:13 AMNon cAmpos mentis.
Posted by Chuck on February 21, 2007 11:11 AMAmazing how many people here are OK with Professor Reynolds' call for the murder of civilian scientists and religious figures.
Obviously, a call for deliberate murder of civilians is far worse than anything Ward Churchill or any left-wing professor has ever advocated, which was Campos's point: in calling for murder of scientists and religious figures, Reynolds is worse than a million Ward Churchills, yet the MSM doesn't have any problem with Reynolds -- because the MSM has a conservative bias, not a "liberal" bias.
And let me ask you this, folks: if it's OK for us to murder Iran's civilians, is it OK for Iran to send people to murder our scientists and priests?
Posted by M.A. on February 21, 2007 11:09 AMCarlos,
Got back and read the article. If you still have the same question, read it again. If that doesn't work...never mind.
Posted by Kevin on February 21, 2007 11:08 AMOh, carlos, you bozo. It's different because american civilians didn't fly planes into buildings or plant bombs to blow up innocent people. If you're saying that terrorists can't be differentiated from innocent civilians, there's no sense even talking to you.
Posted by Jennifer on February 21, 2007 11:07 AMGlenn popularized the term 'beclowned' - something that was needed, because it describes a very specific term that seems to describe something that seems to be cropping up more and more in our idiocy-drenched age.
This is a splendid essay - I am getting fed up with know-it-all ignoramuses like Campos wheeling out the hoariest in academic type cliches in a bid to score political-correctness points. Campos doesn't know a thing other than vehemence and a desire to get ahead with the white whine 'n' grants set.
Glenn got it right here. The only way to describe what Campos did, amid all his intellectually-decorated ignorance is to say he beclowned himself. Such a bozo.
Posted by A.M. Mora y Leon on February 21, 2007 11:07 AMWow, "Jack Shaftoe." Glenn gets approving comments from L'Emmerdeur himself!
Posted by Jennifer on February 21, 2007 11:05 AMGlenn popularized the term 'beclowned' - something that was needed, because it describes a very specific term that seems to describe something that seems to be cropping up more and more in our idiocy-drenched age.
This is a splendid essay - I am getting fed up with know-it-all ignoramuses like Campos wheeling out the hoariest in academic type cliches in a bid to score political-correctness points. Campos doesn't know a thing other than vehemence and a desire to get ahead with the white whine 'n' grants set.
Glenn got it right here. The only way to describe what Campos did, amid all his intellectually-decorated ignorance is to say he beclowned himself. Such a bozo.
Posted by A.M. Mora y Leon on February 21, 2007 11:03 AMAh, now it makes sense. Been trying to figure out what my grandfather meant when he said "a Campos and his money are soon parted."
Posted by Nick P George on February 21, 2007 10:58 AMIf the President can plan and order the assassination of civilians, then how is that any different from Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist from planning and ordering the deaths of American civilians?
Posted by carlos on February 21, 2007 10:57 AMAnd people wonder why Bill Clinton did not take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. All one must do is read the rantings of the uniformed Campos to answer that question.
Posted by TrueSoldier on February 21, 2007 10:57 AMGood response. Good job.
Posted by Randy on February 21, 2007 10:57 AMAs a CU law student, I can say that Campos is widely considered a buffoon here at the school- and this has nothing to do with his newspaper columns. He's a loudmouthed jerk who will never admit he's wrong, no matter how obvious it is. Students in his class will joke about the fact they didn't learn the law by simply saying, "I had Campos."
It's too bad we can't put a disclaimer on his Rocky Mountain news columns so we aren't associated with him.
Posted by Bill on February 21, 2007 10:54 AMHeh. Indeed.
Posted by Jack Shaftoe on February 21, 2007 10:48 AMOuch.
Posted by Brian Cobbs on February 21, 2007 10:47 AM"Killing the old men who start the wars instead of the young men who are sent to fight them is just fine with me."
Seconded for truth. Perhaps we could put our mob and gang leaders here in the US to better use overseas. As PJ O'Rourke once said, it's a shame we can't send our more experienced mafioso members to Iraq so they could practice their skills on some worthy victims.
Posted by Kimberly on February 21, 2007 10:44 AMAs Glenn himself would say, "Indeed."
Posted by John on February 21, 2007 10:39 AMThat was the difference between a rapier (Reynolds) and a broken bludgeon (Campos).
Posted by Mikey NTH on February 21, 2007 10:38 AMKilling the old men who start the wars instead of the young men who are sent to fight them is just fine with me.
As for Professor Campos demanding that Professor Reynolds be academically disciplined for his thoughts, that is unfortunately too common these days. People who find that they cannot prevail in the marketplace of ideas try to impose a monopoly of their ideas by silencing opposing views. A failing of the left more than the right, in my opinion ... but I will not demand retaliation against any leftie who disagrees with me.
Posted by nk on February 21, 2007 10:37 AMHey nick, you apparently never learned the adage about how it's better to keep your mouth shut and have others think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it beyond any doubt.
Posted by SWLiP on February 21, 2007 10:36 AM"Did not know that State Department’s legal adviser was the court of record!!!!"
There is no international court of record regarding us, because we do not subject ourselves to any international court's authority. When you're the biggest dog on the block, you get to do that. No one can enforce anything on us, because they haven't bothered to acquire the capability. The State Department, having gone to the trouble of determining that such an action is not in violation of international law, is simply throwing the global debating community a bone, so that they can feel important in this regard... again, they can disagree, but it's not like they could actually do anything about it.
Hey, Campos, would you like some salve? You want to put some ice on that? I have not witnessed a beatdown like the one Reynolds just put on you since the Tyson-Spinks fight. The only difference between you and Spinks is that Spinks was a heavyweight.
Posted by BlueCarp on February 21, 2007 10:34 AMHey Nick-
Did not know Paul Campos was the court of record!!!!!
(See, it's the fifth (!) that makes it even more true, ironic...and funny).
Posted by tom spaulding on February 21, 2007 10:32 AMAnd nick demonstrates what passes for "informed debate" among the left. No wonder given the state of their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Posted by Modean on February 21, 2007 10:30 AMYou figure if I blog something obnoxious about Campos, he could get me fired?
Cool.
Posted by Dan Collins on February 21, 2007 10:30 AMNot only is the Campos analysis in error, his article demonstrated why he should not be employed in a teaching situation. What would be the effect upon a student when Campos has the sole power to render judgement in the classroom? Certainly earning a failing grade for doing proper research would be a chilling outcome. Campos should be shown the Ward Churchill Exit from at academic institution.
Posted by Charley on February 21, 2007 10:25 AM'Ouch' and 'HEH'
Posted by Matthew on February 21, 2007 10:21 AMDid not know that State Department’s legal adviser was the court of record!!!!
Posted by nick on February 21, 2007 10:21 AMMore beclowning is observed at Tim Blair; whence the term arrives:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/increase_support_by_withdrawing/
Posted by Nicholas Packwood on February 21, 2007 10:16 AM
- It’s open enrollment time: Could consumer-driven health plans be the right choice for you?
- Rural Revitalization or deeper distress?
- No more ‘Mr. Nice Guv’
- In Pakistan, or U.S., lawyers make a stand
- First lesson in Disability 101: Treat me like a regular person -- because I am
- A few questions about abortion
- GUEST COLUMNIST: A new Russia emerges
- Returning veterans need support