Reynolds’ idea of a response to the fact that his scheme to “quietly” assassinate research scientists is an egregious violation of international law is to point out that a Reagan administration lawyer once said it was OK to try to drop a bomb on Moamar Quaddafi. If this is Reynolds’ idea of persuasive legal reasoning, how does he justify ever giving one of his students a poor grade?
» Breaking News
Babysitter Synjan Mitchell Arrested For Leaving Kids To Go Drinking
Gemma Atkinson Promotes Command & Conquer Red Alert
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
Good. Please keep this up! This is sure to resonate with the electorate demonstrating how serious and strong liberals are when it comes to national defense!
I’ve been saying this for years. I can’t believe this guy TEACHES law. It also invites all sorts of theories on the regional distribution of inteligence.
Just like how opposition to domestic spying caused the weak on terror Dems to lose all those seats in 2006!!!
Oh, wait.
Okay. So the right and far-right has now advocated evertyhing from internment camps to assassinations to the near genocidal killing of as many Iraqis and Afghans as we can as a lesson to everyone else we leave alive.
Now JWG seems to agree that no suggestion from the right is too fucking illegal, immmoral or crazy to dismiss out of hand as a bad idea.
What a wonderful group of people you all are.
OK, JWG.
Let’s kill off a few nuclear scientists. After all, they are working on weapons that could harm Americans.
Now what about the scientists’ assistants? They do the drudge work that makes it possible for the scientists to concentrate on the really dangerous stuff right? We need to kill them too.
People who cook for and feed the scientists? They need to go. Giving those scientists food to eat gives them the strength they need for their nefarious work.
And dry cleaners, don’t forget them. The dry cleaners of hostile nuclear scientists help them achieve an unrumpled, professional, credible appearance. If it weren’t for the dry cleaners, those scientists would probably be ignored.
Then we’ll be safe, won’t we?
The janitors, Quaker. Don’t forget the janitors.
The email for the doofus is pundit@instapundit.com and for the Chancellor(his assistant anyway) is traci.leonard@utk.edu
There’s no reason not to complain to his boss.
National defense does not depend on a rogue president assassinating people nor is it aided by a world-wide network of Gulags and the suspension of habeas corpus. In fact, real Americans reject your authoritarian nonsense just as they rejected the lure of fascism in the 1930’s.
So I guess when we indiscriminately target countries with cruise missile attacks, killing many of the very same people as in this other scenario, there’s nothing wrong with that.
That appears to be what you’re all saying.
Clinton’s bombing of Iraqi sites that no doubt killed scientists, janitors and cooks? Not a problem. In fact, people like Oliver freaking BRAG about it.
Covertly taking action against the people developing the technology? Oh Lord no! Horrible! Terrible!
You’re all a bunch of phony hypocrites. Your faux outrage is fun to watch, but its fake all the same.
Given that the US government may decide to bomb and kill many people resulting in collateral damage, I think it is reasonable to discuss alternative strategies that could lead to less collateral damage.
Assassination is illegal due to a presidential executive order. At any presidential whim it no longer has to be illegal. That is quite different than a congressional bill that becomes law.
As far as dismissing ideas out of hand, the only thing that comes to mind is the age old “Kill them all and let God sort them out” mentality since that obviously is increasing collateral damage.
I fail to see how encouraging discussion about ways to reduce collateral damage is so horrible.
I suppose if assassination is always so horrible we should get the Democrats to sponsor and pass a law forbidding it altogether.
Which candidate is going to call for this first, do you suppose?
Well, I’d like to know where was all the outrage when President Clinton signed memos authorizing the CIA to use lethal force against Osama bin Laden.
1) Gosh…someone on the left using the un-American slur…who would’ve ever believed it possible?
2) I opposed Bush’s attempts at limiting habeas corpus (as I suspect most libertarians did). I also oppose torture while we’re at it. However, I don’t believe discussing these topics is out of bounds.
3) I don’t think you really understand what a “gulag” is.
At any presidential whim it no longer has to be illegal.
Yeah, well, that’s true. I wonder why it hasn’t been dealt with yet. Probably just an oversight.
Oh and just as a reminder, Clinton’s authorization to assassinate bin Laden was predicated on the same legal reasoning that Campos now says is absurd legal reasoning.
Yeah, well, that’s true. I wonder why it hasn’t been dealt with yet. Probably just an oversight.
Because more than one Justice Department has determined that the executive order does not apply to military targets, nor does it apply in cases where it is pre-emptive self-defense.
Oh and just as a reminder, Clinton’s authorization to assassinate bin Laden was predicated on the same legal reasoning that Campos now says is absurd legal reasoning.
Bin Laden was a terrorist involved in acts of war against America.
No matter what Reynolds thinks, scientists and imams are not terrorists and working on nuclear research, or being a Muslim, is not an act of war against America.
So we repeat: Reynolds has called for the murder of civilians. Not “collateral damage” — deliberate cold-blooded murder.
That’s actually worse than anything the Iranians have done (hostage-taking is bad, but murder’s worse), so Reynolds — and you — are actually worse than the mullahs.
I do not believe that scientists working on nuclear weapons technologies, if that is indeed what they are working on, are somehow sacrosanct from attack simply because they are civilians.
That said, given the current state of affairs between the US and Iran to begin discriminate assassinations of these scientists and other Iranian leaders now, as Reynolds insists we should be doing, would not be an act of self-defense but an act of provocation.
Iran is, at the least, four or five years away from building able to build one nuclear weapon but Reynolds wants to start offing Iranian leaders and scientists now.
That’s crazy, absolutely crazy.
Oliver’s short bus
I find it precious how after four years of bombing two different countries and killing thousands of innocent civilians and sending over 3,000 American soldiers to die a handful of right-wingers are suddenly pretending to care about casualty counts. And…
I suppose if assassination is always so horrible we should get the Democrats to sponsor and pass a law forbidding it altogether. JWG
Friend, maybe you are new to this civil society concept, but there is generally no need to pass laws that are already on the books. You might check, for example, Article 23b of the Hague Convention of 1899 and the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I) for a bit of background.
Neither the US nor Iran has ratified Protocol I. Maybe I’m wrong.
In any event, the point is that a case can be made that the people working on WMD that are intended to be used against America or its allies are enemy combatants and not subject to the restrictions you cite.
And there is no American law “on the books” prohibiting assassination other than an executive order which can be changed by the decision of one person.
This is a debate worth having. Perhaps we will agree that these scientists should not be considered enemy combatants.
Yet the current argument seems to be that engaging in this debate is beyond the pale. Even bringing it up should cause a person to lose his job.
So I guess when we indiscriminately target countries with cruise missile attacks, killing many of the very same people as in this other scenario, there’s nothing wrong with that.
I don’t think anybody here said that. Except you, Jay.
Yes, I find something wrong with it, and we can discuss that too, if you like, but let’s not let that derail this thread Mr. Don’t-Call-Me-A-Troll.
The problems with Reynolds argument are many. First, we’re not talking about leaders of countries or terrorist organizations. We’re talking about scientists. Remember back before the current war when we kept trying to get Iraqi scientists out of the country to interview them?
We did that because they were under threat of their lives to do what Saddam wanted. For that we kill them?
Second, such killings would be entirely speculative. It would be difficult to know with certainty what work a given scientist is up to.
Third, killing people in other countries would be an enormous breach of their national sovereignty–an act of war. Reynolds is proposing to initiate war any time we feel like it.
And finally, once you’ve established a precedent to kill scientists, what’s to stop anyone from killing politcians, journalists, or the Dixie Chicks?
Bin Laden was a terrorist involved in acts of war against America.
Acts of war? Excuse me but when conservatives claimed that Al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole was the equivalent of an act of war, liberals denigrated it as “sabre rattling.” Now all of a sudden, taking bin Laden out was ok even though he was not part of the military nor was he acting on behalf of any country. Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved with any attacks on the US. Yet Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 and gave the go ahead for covert operations that sought to overthrow Saddam, meaning people would have been killed. Again, I ask: Where was the outrage? When Clinton had his interview, bragging to Chris Wallace how he tried to have him killed, liberal blogs were cheering from the rafters!
And when one considers that Iran is moving forward with nuclear program in direct defiance to UN rules (Big huge shock there! It’s not like the UN seeks to enforce anything unless the country is the United States or Israel), as well as arming insurgents, they aren’t exactly innocent.
And sorry Quaker, but I’m not about to entertain the bogus outrage of people who like to pick and choose their outrage based on whether or not the person has a D or R after their name. It’s completely and utterly phony.
To be honest, I agree with most of your points. The thing is, people can disagree without this bogus “Oh dear heavens. I can’t believe people would thing of such things” nonsense going around that does nothing but make me reach for a barf bag. In addition, this idea of attempting to start some campaign to get Reynolds fired is completely chickenshit.
Shorter Jay:
I still have no life.
Nuclear scientist…
Terrorist…
hmmm…
Nuclear scientist…
Terrorist…
Doesn’t that, all on it’s own, explain the difference?
No?
How about, “on the one hand, you have scientists engaged in a legitimate area of study. Well, legitimate if they are working for a nation approved by the U.S., anyway. On the other, you have an avowed terrorist who has taken up arms against the U.S. and its foreign interests and has multiple acts of extreme violence and terror to his credit. See the difference?”
Personally, I don’t think it is possible to be “at war” with terrorism, for reasons already covered repeatedly in multiple threads on this very blog. Suffice to say, an enemy with no fixed national borders cannot be fought effectively with conventional warfare.
Exactly how many countries has Iran invaded in the past, oh, 50-100 years? How about the U.S.?
Iran funds terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. I’m sorry, Contra what, again? Did somebody say mujahadeen?
Who, again, put the Shah in power (and Saddam)? How’d that Pinochet guy work out?
Which country wants to resume nuclear testing, wants to develop low yield nuclear weapons for “conventional” use, has abandoned the ABM treaty, and refuses to sign a treaty keeping weapons out of space, all of which violates the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Between the Soviet Union and the U.S., which country balked at the chance to eliminate nearly 100% of the nuclear arsenals of the two major super powers, effectively keeping the world under the threat of nuclear annihilation to this very day?
Did somebody mention a country illegally building a nuclear arsenal in violation of the U.N.? Did they mean Israel? Oh, wait, that’s right, that started in back in the 60’s and the U.S. shielded them. Well, at least the U.N. forced Israel to give up the illegally occupied West Bank. I mean, well, er, uh, forget that. Thank goodness the U.S. never defies the U.N.
What’s that? Iraq?
Please, you could type “defies U.N.” into Google and get a million hits on just about anyone.
Let’s not even get started on the whole “who offered to stop nuclear development, help in the fight against al-Qaeda, and even offered to talk about recognition of Israel but got shat on” deal.
Shorter Jay:
I still have no life.
Oh and I suppose your illustrious, glorious and adventured-filled life spared you a few moments to type this up. Thanks for gracing us with your presence.
And what do we do with the Domestic Bush Administration that just posts all the documents about another country’s nuclear program online for the world to see.
Again, is there a principal here among progressives or not? Is it wrong for a state to selectively or indiscriminately kill civilians or military of another state it is not at war with? Thats it ina nutshell. If you say it is wrong, I think you have to explain decades of silence on the part of progressives regarding other preemptory strikes. Was Jimmy Carter a war criminal for Desert One? Bill Clinton for the aspirin factory? Reagan for Lebanon? Israel for Osirik?
Take your pick. But at least apply the same moral and legal ‘principal’ to both sides. I have yet to hear calls for war rime tribunals against Carter or Clinton. Why?
You need better examples. Desert one was a reasonable response to a direct act of war. Carter’s fault was supporting the Shah. And Reagan in Lebanon, well, that was his fault, neutral peacekeeping means don’t take sides in a dispute. Etc.
Second, you have to judge the consequences of such an action, something conservatives don’t understand. Would such a bombing be effective? What would Iran’s response be? Would we radicalize another 70 million muslims? What would the response be among the SHiite Iraqis and how would that effect our troops? What would the world’s response be to such an action? How would our economy deal with the sudden rise of oil prices if Iran and Iraq shut down? Etc.
I’m going to make this clear:
If you defend this idea of Glenn Reynolds to covertly kill people, then you’re a fucking sociopath and should never sepak again.
Dugger asks if we have principles.
I’m not about to entertain the bogus outrage of people who like to pick and choose their outrage based on whether or not the person has a D or R after their name.
Bwaha!!
That’s a beautiful glass house you have there.
Is it wrong for a state to selectively or indiscriminately kill civilians or military of another state it is not at war with? Thats it ina nutshell. If you say it is wrong, I think you have to explain decades of silence on the part of progressives regarding other preemptory strikes.
Yes, it is, and no, I don’t.
Why should I have to explain what other people have done or said or failed to say?
Didn’t Clinton order strikes against Iraq in response to them firing on planes patrolling the No-Fly Zone? Weren’t the targeted sites where they were making their WMDs and chemical weapons? In defiance of the terms of their surrender after Gulf War ‘91?
Justifiable response =/= indiscriminate bombing.
If Bush or Cheney wanted to lob one over to Ottowa, you might have a point.
Bin Laden is an enemy combatant, not a civilian. Oh, a Saudi enemy combatant, FYI.
Nucklear researchers, even evil nucklear researchers, are still civilians.
And BTW, why would Carter be considered a war criminal for Desert One? As far as I know, the only people/troops killed were ours.
“I think you have to explain decades of silence on the part of progressives regarding other preemptory strikes.”
And just what silence are you talking about? You mean the silence on all the blogs in the 70s, 80s and 90s?
Yes, the silence of the blogosphere in 1978 was deafening, wasn’t it?
Look at Dugger demand answers! Where is my list????!!!!!
Ahh. We have the guiding legal principal. It is if progressives consider it a “reasonable response”. Too bad Reynolds can’t be as brilliant as this. Since everyone agrees on all that is and isn’t reasonable, that clears everything up.
And duros, Carter pre-emptorily invaded a sovereign state and took military action within that state, including holding terrified Iraqi citizens, just minding their own business, at gunpoint - for hours - in the desert. My God man! Have you no heart?! How could Carter do that to those poor innocent people who hadn’t invaded this country or done us any harm.
I demand a war crimes tribunal. Lets make Ramsey Clark the Grand Inquisitor.
” Mr. Carter we all know you are an anti-semite now, but didn’t you once attack with a miltiary force innocent Iranian civilians? Answer yes or no!”
For the love of God it’s principle. And no, he ordered an attack on an Iranian compound that was holding American citizens hostage. It was fucked up by other people.
You know, George W. Bush has done many, many things worse than ordering an attack that other people fucked up spectacularly. I don’t want to say hypocrite…wait, yes I do. Hypocrite.
“Would Dugger please report to the Guiding Legal Principal’s office”
Were you that stoned during the Iranian Hostage Crisis to suggest that Carter “pre-emptorily invade a sovereign state?”
” Mr. Carter we all know you are an anti-Semite now,…
Carter:antisemitism
Helen Thomas:Stalin
Perspective, Dugger. Get some. And some ice cream while you’re at it
August, good point.
Iranian militants did invade US territory where they took hostages Dugger. That is an act of war in my book.
Nevertheless, we did not declare war on Iran. Right? Then Jimmy Carter (he was CINC) invaded Iranian territory and attacked Irani civilians- who had nothing to do with the embassy - nothing at all. they were as pure as teh driven snow. I mean if we are saying Glenn Reynolds is all evil and everything for suggesting selective pre-emptive lethal strikes against nuclear scientists working for an avowedly genocidal, anti-semitic regime, how different is that, principal-wise, from Jimmy Carter invading that very same nation - secretly, with no declaration of war?
All I’m saying is that I don’t think you’ve thought this thing out. OW hates Reynolds and tosses out allegations or repeats allegations against him whenever he can. Is it wrong, if they are going to be that harsh (calling him a murderer,etc), to ask why the silence re others killed or attacked by Presidents progressives happen to have liked. Will you all insist your Pres candidate forswear any and all pre-emptibve military actions against any foreign regime.
Or is it really, at heart, just more repackaged Bush hate?
What is the principal???
CARTER’S ACTIONS WERE NOT PRE-EMPTIVE!!!! THEY WERE RESPONSIVE!!
DO YOU GET THAT?
That’s the muthafuckin’ principle.
Jimmy Carter (he was CINC) invaded Iranian territory and attacked Irani civilians
Did he?
My memory fails me. I thought our people landed way out somewhere. Did they have to take some prisoners or something?
I get it now. We must attack Iran now because they have a history of taking AMericans hostage. Good point Dugger.
Duros hits the nail on the head but Dugger will never get it. He accuses of us not having “thought it out” when he himself can’t even get a simple chronology straight.
The principal here is that pre-emptive military action, especially pre-emptively assassinating the leaders and scientists of a foreign country, is illegal, immoral and is more likely to cause more problems than it solves.
Assassinating Iranian leaders and scientists today would do more to inflame the very forces of radicalism and nationalism that Reynolds believes they will quell. Much like our botched pre-emptive action in Iraq. We have inflamed the very regional radicalism that the Bush administration said the invasion would delegitimate and sap of strength. In the case of Iraq, pre-emptive war has so far resulted in the EXACT OPPOSITE result than it was supposed to achieve.
Have you thought this out at all Dugger? Of course you haven’t. All you hear is “Let’s kill some people” and that’s all you need to hear.
Poor Dugger. I was going to say something along the lines of Carter didn’t invade Iran and then I realized Dugger needs help.
Poor effin’ Dugger. Somebody help him b4 he shaves his head.
Quaker
Actually at Desert One US troops held a busload of Iranian civilians at gunpoint.
dusty
So what do you call it when troops of one nation move under arms secretly and pre-emptively into (action) the sovereign territory of another? Picnic in force?
dusty
Guess who was commander in chief of those soldiers?
dusty
Anything else, bud?
Actually at Desert One US troops held a busload of Iranian civilians at gunpoint.
I see. Well then, yes, that’s just exactly like selectively murdering scientists, isn’t it?
No. Not the same. Didn’t say it was. Did and od ask where is the principal. A military invasion of a nation and holding the citizens of another hostage state is OK? Is death the only issue. Can break all the other laws of that nation we want?
For the record, I think Clinton, Carter, Reagan etc were right (Carter messed up the enactment).
A military invasion of a nation and holding the citizens of another hostage state is OK?
Yeah, but see, that’s what the Iranian militants did to the US embassy. Carter’s actions were in response to that “act of foreign aggression.”