Glenn Reynolds = Ward Churchill
By Mona
Finally, a MSM organ (The Rocky Mountain News) is highlighting the extremists on the pro-Bush right, in this case Glenn “Instapundit†Reynolds’ outrageous advocacy that the United States assassinate Iranian civilians – scientists and religious leaders. In an RMN op-ed, Law Professor Paul Campos denounces Reynolds as a right-wing equivalent of Ward Churchill, and rightly so.
So what does Reynolds have to say about Campos’ exposure of his (Reynolds’) extremist and barbaric views? Why, the perfessor claims we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979, so killing their people is righteous. This “defense†of his obscene remarks is twaddle, of course, for many reasons but not least for one set forth by Anonymous Liberal (links omitted):
…if we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979, then President Reagan, then-Vice President Bush, and the rest of the Reagan administration are necessarily guilty of high treason. During the Iran-Contra affair, they illegally sold arms to Iran (via Israel), including thousands of BGM-71 TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided) anti-tank missiles. Iran subsequently reverse-engineered these missiles and now produces its own version, called the Toophan, which Hezbollah reportedly used against Israeli tanks in the recent conflict in Lebanon. If we were “at war” with Iran at the time of these arms sales, is there any non-treasonous interpretation of this conduct? I don’t think so.
And even funnier (in a sickening sort of way) is that Reynolds’ codswollop would render Michael Ledeen complicit in treason as well, for reasons I noted in comments to my Ledeen post last week, my emphasis:
According to the Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair issued in November 1987, the sale of U.S. arms to Iran through Israel began in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan. The report shows that Israel’s involvement was stimulated by separate overtures in 1985 from Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar and National Security Council (NSC) consultant Michael Ledeen, the latter working for National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane. When Ledeen asked Prime Minister Shimon Peres for assistance, the Israeli leader agreed to sell weapons to Iran at America’s behest, providing the sale had high-level U.S. approval.
Traitors everywhere in neocon circles and the Reagan Administration, it would seem.
Campos is wrong about a very crucial matter, however. He thinks Reynolds may well merit sanction by the University of Tennessee for his assassination advocacy. I would contribute to an ACLU fund to defend Reynolds’ right to announce any heinous political views, even those that he did about murdering Iranian civilians.
But as for some public exposure of the foul views of “mainstream†Bush-supporters, I can only say: About damned time. No legal or employment consequences should ensue, but the shunning, shaming and ostracism should flow in huge, unrelenting waves.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 20, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
When an Iranian says “The United States has been at war with us since 1953″ I will enjoy the shrieks of “Moral equivalence!”
Comment by Scott Lemieux —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
Agreed on all counts.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
You know, if we got to send the Iran-Contra crew to jail for treason, as well as Ledeen, then I for one wouldn’t mind Reynolds going on about how we’ve been at double secret undeclared war with Iran.
However, even if we were at DSUW with Iran, assassination of targeted civilians is still not a legitimate war tactic.
Comment by Eric Martin —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
No Jim, starting coups to topple democratically elected leaders of the target country is NOT an act of war. It’s just…you know…freedom’s on the march.
I should add: anti-semite.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
The correct link for “claims” appears to be http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2703.php
I’ll only point out that the whole “why don’t we use special ops and assassins to kill the heads of state and other people directly causing us problems instead of going to war and killing lots of people” bit is one of the genuinely bad ideas floating around actual libertarian discussion. Even Harry “9/11? Ehn, call it even for all our intervention and move on with our lives,” Brown was willing to entertain putting up a bounty for the killing of Saddam Hussein back in 1996.
I’ve called it the “Rambo fetish” before, though it clearly involves a little of the Le Femme Nikita series when we get to bounties and hits on scientists working for unfriendly groups.
Comment by Nell —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
I may have misinterpreted his post and comment, but Andrew Olmsted appears to disagree with Rich P. on the legitimacy of assassinations of civilians.
Comment by Mona —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Eric the .5b: Thanks. If Reynolds isn’t doing this purposely, then his endless musical links are indicia of a very poor blogging commitment. His urls change constantly. I’ve seen speculation it has to do with when he updates, but whatever it is, he really should fix it — and he is Mr. Techno-whiz, after all.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
I would contribute to an ACLU fund to defend Reynolds’ right to announce any heinous political views, even those that he did about murdering Iranian civilians.
The ACLU defending Reynolds…mmmm, that’s some tasty irony you got there. Heh.
Comment by COD —
February 20, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I thought Browne’s bounty idea was more just to make the point about not needing the military to eliminate a direct threat to the US. I think it was more of a hypothetical “if we ever did need to defend ourselves from Saddam, paying $5 mill for his scalp would be a lot cheaper and easier than a military action.” At least that was how I understood it back in the day.
Also, I vow to work codswollop into conversation every day this week. What a great term.
Trackback by Fables of the reconstruction —
February 20, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
I’ll Mercilessly Ridicule What You Say, But Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It, You Hack…
Mona at Unqualified Offerings: Finally, a MSM organ (The Rocky Mountain News) is highlighting the extremists on the pro-Bush right, in this case Glenn “Instapundit†Reynolds’ outrageous advocacy that the United States assassinate Iranian civilian…
Comment by Mithras —
February 20, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Reynolds would never allow himself to be represented by the ACLU. His gun-toting buds would disown him.
Comment by Kevin Hayden —
February 20, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Enter the Name the Goon contest
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
February 20, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
Nell, that Andrew Olmsted link really has it all — assassinate a religious leader, or bomb cities to destroy Nazi factories, it’s all the same.
I’m not even going to bother looking up the Geneva Convention or making a moral argument; it’s impossible to with Glenn the Genocidaire anywhere nearby. But if nothing else, then assassinating religious or scientific leaders in a country with which we are not at war sounds like a good way to go to war. Don’t any of these military people remember what a “casus belli” is? And once at war, it’s a great way to convince the people of that country that you must be resisted at all costs, because you’ll stop at nothing. If you *are* in a war with actual Nazis, you might as well (speaking purely in terms of effectiveness) because you’re already at total war. But driving around Iran and blowing away a mullah here and a physicist there — well, that’s the kind of forward thinking that has brought us so close to victory in Iraq.
Comment by abb1 —
February 21, 2007 @ 6:09 am
I think it’s somewhat similar to Ward Churchill, but not exactly. When did Ward Churchill advocate any assassinations?
IIRC, he merely argued that people employed by or cooperating with the US military-industrial complex shouldn’t be characterized as “innocent civilians” when a blow-back occurs.
I know, it’s a bit radical, and I don’t agree with it in general, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near advocating the actual murders. I don’t think Churchill said that those people in the WTC actually deserved to die; only that they’re partly responsible for the chain of events that led to their demise.
Comment by mds —
February 21, 2007 @ 10:46 am
I think it’s somewhat similar to Ward Churchill, but not exactly.
The point is not to draw an exact equivalence, but (1) to illustrate the rampant hypocrisy of those who attack Professor Churchill while embracing equally or more reprehensible opinions, and (2) to cause Professor Reynolds to have a level 3 conniption because, dude, he’s just been compared to Ward Churchill.
I do hope that Professor Campos is primarily attempting to highlight further hypocrisy by suggesting sanction for Professor Reynolds, given that calls for Professor Churchill’s firing (or even jailing) were widespread. If not, well, then, the ACLU would be willing to at least throw in an amicus brief. And that would be some tasty cake frosting because, dude, he’d be defended by the ACLU.
Comment by Larry M —
February 21, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Frankly I think that the comparison is unfair – to Ward Churchill.
Comment by diana —
February 21, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Glenn Reynolds is non compos mentis. Why doesn’t someone point out that he believes in a very weird form of nanotechnology, which dictates belief in virtual immortality? Everyone is allowed one eccentricity but he’s a veritable collection of them.
Comment by Eric Martin —
February 21, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
IIRC, he merely argued that people employed by or cooperating with the US military-industrial complex shouldn’t be characterized as “innocent civilians†when a blow-back occurs.
Not really. It wasn’t just employees of the “military-industrial complex” unless what is meant by that is anyone working in the US economy. The WTC victims were employed in a wide range of occupations – many in bond trading and the securities markets generally speaking, many in the legal profession, many in accounting, other financial industry professions, etc.
Others were security guards, maids and janitors, delivery/messengers, food preparation and service.
So, I don’t see how the argument could be made that all such workers are cogs in the military industrical complex. Also, to the extent that they’d deserve the title of “little Eichmanns.”
Since then, Churchill sought to carve out the second tier of employees (janitors, maids, security guards, etc.), but really, a freakin bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald is a legitimate target? A little Eichmann?
Comment by Larry M —
February 21, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I don’t entirely agree with Churchill, but really wasn’t his point that, in a Democracy, where our leaders are elected, all of the voters have some responsibility for the actions of our government? Now, it does not necessarily follow (1) that that makes them “little Eichmans,” nor does it follow that (2) they are legitimate targets, but doesn’t he, indeed, have a point with regard to our responsibility for our government’s actions?
Comment by Nell —
February 21, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
@RichP: That post isn’t really characteristic of Andrew, and the discussion didn’t go on long enough for him to backpedal to civilized norms, which much of his other writing leads me to think he’d do.
@all: Andrew’s shipping out to Iraq soon, and shutting down his blog. Here’s where you can wish him good speed, and/or read about the Army and political blogging…
Comment by Eric Martin —
February 21, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Larry M,
Yes, if we take out the most reprehensible portions of Churchill’s idiocy, he has a point. Just peel away the layers of odiousness.
We are all responsible as citizens for our government, this is true. But what conclusions should be drawn from this?
If, as you say, this does not make us legitimate targets or little Eichmanns, then, well, I agree. But I don’t see what the point is then, other than as a philosophical musing or as a call to fulfill our collective civic duties.
Which I’m all for.
Churchill, of course, used it to legitimate the attacks on the WTC.
Using that rationale, couldn’t we hold Iranians responsible for the actions of their government? Shouldn’t me and you (assuming you’re an American) be held responsible for everything Bush and Cheney do (the thickest of ironies)?
I’m not saying you agree with this reading of responsibility, it’s just that I don’t see what the value of Churchill’s buried point is at the end of the day unless it’s put in motion.
Comment by bryan —
February 21, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
so… massive shaming and shunning and all that? This doesn’t affect the employment?
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
February 21, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Churchill is on firmer ground, regarding collective guilt, in his book “A Little Matter Of Genocide”. He can point to many incidents where local populations of settlers decided to slaughter the local Indians. Sometimes those settlers had support from the Federal government, but if you take the overall campaign, from 1607 to, say, 1900, to clear North America of Indians, then it is clear the genocidal push came from the white populace that was present at the time. The pogroms can’t be attributed to any one government, since there were so many different governments during the period.
Comment by David Nieporent —
February 24, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Regardless of what one thinks of the merits — moral or practical — of Glenn Reynolds’ suggestion, I wish his critics would demonstrate that they had the faintest knowledge about Iran, when they interpret Reynolds proposition about killing radical mullahs as a call to kill “religious leaders,” as if Reynolds were suggesting that we go send someone into an arbitrary mosque on some Friday and shoot the guy in the pulpit for fun. The radical mullahs” are the government of Iran, not random bystanders.
If you think that’s still unacceptable, that’s one thing — but criticize him for what he’s proposing, not for your complete misunderstanding of what he’s proposing.