As we’ve watched the Democrats frothing at the mouth over the last two weeks about Governor McDonnell’s Confederate History Month proclamation while giving a pass to Senator Jim Webb’s unabashed love of the Confederacy, one of the things that has bothered me the most is the blatant hypocrisy of some in the Democratic party. I know this shouldn’t surprise me – both sides tend to say one thing and do another (Newt Gingrich speaking about ‘family values’ comes to mind), but when it is such a 180 degree change – particularly on an issue that seemed so core to the other side’s belief system, it still surprises me.
.
When I first read that President Obama had placed Anwar al-Aulaqi, the former Fairfax County cleric who now resides in Yemen and was linked to the Fort Hood Shooter and the Christmas underwear bomber, on a list of CIA approved targets, I wasn’t surprised. As an operational member of Al Qaeda, he’s up there with the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership on our hit list. After a few seconds though, I realized that the President was basically authorizing the legal assassination of a U.S. citizen – without due process, without a jury trial, without any of the Constitutional protections that his status as an American citizen affords him. And a quick search of Google showed that, other than Keith Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com, the great liberal punditocracy has basically ignored this story. No wall-to-wall coverage. No angry panels on Meet the Press. Why?
.
The more I thought about this, the more it bothered me. While I am confident that al-Aulaqi is guilty, he’s an American citizen, and thus he has the right to a trial by jury to prove his guilt. Even if he were charged with treason, and I think that’s a fair charge given his statements advocating attacks on U.S. targets, he’s still got a Constitutional right to have those charges heard in a court room, with the full panoply of civil rights any American so charged would have. That’s the rule of law in our constitutional system.
that.
What is so hypocritical about the deafening silence coming from the left is simply the juxtaposition of how loud they were when the shoe was on the other foot. When President Bush claimed the power to detain American citizens without trial as enemy combatants indefinitely we heard denunciation after denunciation. Even well known conservatives criticized the Administration’s claim, including “arch-activist justice” (in the words of liberals) Antonin Scalia when he dissented in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, arguing that “[t]he very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” And that was just for detaining American citizens without trial – not authorizing their outright assassination.
.
And, as Greenwald notes on Salon.com, even some conservatives, including Kevin Williamson at National Review Online, think Obama is going too far. When Seymour Hersh started talking about secret assassination squads being run out of Dick Cheney’s office, the left was incensed. So where is the outrage now?
.
This isn’t warrantless wiretapping. It isn’t “torture” or waterboarding. It isn’t the accidental killings of civilians. It isn’t indefinite detention. We are talking about the authorized state sponsored execution of a U.S. citizen without a fair trial. But apparently that’s completely okay, because this is President Obama we’re talking about. He’s one of the “good guys.” He’s not George W. Bush, commander of the forces of darkness. It’s just like the difference between McDonnell’s omission of slavery in the Confederate History Month proclamation and Jim Webb’s wholesale lionizing of the failed state. As Lowell Feld over at Blue Virginia says to explain his hypocrisy “[u]nlike Bob McDonnell, however, Jim Webb . . . has many other redeeming qualities, of which Bob McDonnell has none.” Apparently having “redeeming qualities” exempts you from criticism when it comes to the Confederacy, and it apparently also shields you from criticism for authorizing the assassination American citizens without due process. So much for the benefit of having a Constitutional Law Professor as President.
.
This is the kind of thing that truly frustrates me. As readers here know, I am not above criticizing Republicans when I think they’re making bad decisions. And I am absolutely for holding our members to the same standards we hold the Democrats to. I think the biggest cancer on the body politic is the wholesale acceptance of hypocrisy and the partisan defense of it. When people think both sides say one thing and do another, criticize the other side but ignore their own side when they engage in the same behavior, and generally treat politics like some kind of game, they get turned off. This is, in my opinion, the #1 reason why more people choose to self-identify as Independent rather than as Democrat or Republican. When both sides are full of hypocrites, why associate with either?
.
If what Bush did was wrong, what Obama did is equally wrong. And the same voices who denounced Bush have an obligation to denounce Obama.
.
Don’t hold your breath.
.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.tooconservative.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter.png){kind=icon}
Apr 13th by Brian S
Next thing you know Obama will be saying the Bush administration should have detained Anwar al-Aulaqi or some such thing when he was hanging at the mosque on Leesburg Pike (and then what, sent him to Guantanamo?). The anointed one always needs to erect a strawman to play against.
But if the Bushies actually did something like that Obama would go into some screed about reactionaries clinging to their own religion and having antipathies against people not like them. Or violating fundamental human rights and protections under the Constitution. Bottom line, Obama is the biggest phony and empty suit that we’ve ever had as President of the United States. And it will only get worse.
hypocrisy is bipartisan, so are blunders.
I blame Dick Cheney!
Exactly local. Unfortunately, the reporting and commentary on hypocrisy and blunders tends to tilt left.
Authorizing the shooting of clergymen? That may be a policy that would benefit the country and would garner wide bi-partisan support.
.
I recall when we were debating the gay marriage ban here in Virginia that someone said that if it were the first step toward doing away with marriage altogether he was all for it. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture.
.
We wouldn’t have to shoot all the clergy. Maybe we could just make them all leave the country and never come back?.
.
The problem might be finding countries that would take them. It could prove more difficult than finding countries to take Guantanamo detainees. Seriously, who would want to let a pack of fundamentalist preachers into their country. And good luck finding them honest jobs. These hucksters have few marketable skills.
.
Yes, putting a contract out on Anwar al-Aulaqi may be just the ticket. But only as a first step in a broader policy to rid us of all clergy.
.
The guy made headlines being linked to the Ft. Hood shootings and the Eunuch Bomber, but he is not an isolated example. The clergy are responsible for all sorts damage in this country. And they do it with tax dollars. These bums are tax exempt.
.
I say, start with Anwar al-Aulaqi but don’t stop there. Get rid of all the clergy. Then we won’t have to deal with Al Qaeda or Hutaree or any of the other nuts who think an invisible man in the sky is instructing them to kill their fellow human beings.
brian,
true….but the dems blunders are funnier, well except for palin, she’s a good laugh sometimes
local gop, don’t you attack Bible Spice! She is my favorite.
Brian,
You wrote:”This is, in my opinion, the #1 reason why more people choose to self-identify as Independent rather than as Democrat or Republican. When both sides are full of hypocrites, why associate with either?”
Which would not sound like empty political rhetoric if every single example you cited in your piece was not an attempt (I will of course have to dig deeper to see if they are VALID attempts) to paint the Democratic Party as the hypocritical party. You can’t participate in partisan tactics and then lament the excesses of partisan tactics – well, you can but you know what that makes you, don’t you? Again, the irony…
Eric, don’t blame Brian. He fell in with a bad crowd and they corrupted him.
Eric, in case you missed it, I noted that both parties engage in hypocrisy (the Newt Gingrich link). My point is that the Democratic party is hypocritical in this regard, not that Republicans aren’t in others. I recognize that we have engaged in the same behavior, and I don’t like it either.
“Bible Spice”
*
ROFL. You have your moments, Dan.
As to the comparison of authorizing a CIA strike to how we treat prisoners, these are two different issues – apples and oranges. Essentially, the authorization allows the CIA to strike if they have him in their sights. If, however, he is captured alive, he will not be summarily executed – which is what you imply. Essentially, you are comparing rules of engagement to the rights of prisoners in order to (apparently) justify your own sense of outrage and foment the same in your partisan cohorts.
Eric, if you understood that Obama is an Islamonegrofascistmarxistterrorist who is out to destroy America you might get it and be outraged too.
And I do not think that Gov. McDonnell’s official proclamation of Confederate History Month being devoid of any mention of southern slavery (initially) can be compared to a book written by then private citizen Webb that says the war was really mostly a battle for state’s rights (while acknowledging slavery as an issue). Again, it looks like an apples to oranges construct to justify your own sense of moral outrage. Now if Senator Webb tried say introduced a Confederacy Appreciation bill devoid of any mention of slavery, I think you would see a firestorm over that as well.
In the end, I think the McDonnell did an honorable thing in acknowledging his error and has moved on and generally people have accepted this. You might want to let it die now.
I AM trying to just let the subject go, but I never once critisized MCDonnell for any thoughts her holds personally, and even speaks about publically regarding “our brave boys in blue”. What I DID critisize was his official proclamation of Confederate History Month using language that struck me as horribly chosen. Given that he changed the language and apologized, that would seem that such criticism wasn’t completely out of line. Since the change, I have not critisized him.
And I am not at all happy about the situation with the cleric, and I’ll add it to the list of things taking place in the Obama administration that I’m unhappy about. Of course, by posting on a conservative blog that I think singling out a cleric to be shot down in cold blood is troubling (to say the least) opens me up to the charge that I’m just a wussy dove Dem who is soft on terrorism (which anyone who knows me would find humorous–I’m actually very hawkish) but then, principles aren’t only for times it is easy to have them.
“but then, principles aren’t only for times it is easy to have them.”
.
It has been said that if you only follow them when it is easy or convenient then they aren’t really principles. They are merely hobbies.
I’ll echo the praise of Governor McDonnell’s action subsequent to the initial proclamation. He admitted to making an error and he corrected it.
.
I believe we call that integrity.
.
Case closed.
Eric, so would you support allowing police officers to shoot to kill individuals who are charged with capital crimes and are still on the loose? How is this any different? The LAPD would have been more justified in just shooting OJ than arresting him?
.
Frankly, most Republicans and most conservatives don’t have a problem with what Obama is doing here. While one NRO commenter did, others didn’t. This isn’t really a partisan issue.
.
As for the Confederate History Month, McDonnell came under far more fire than for simply omitting slavery. He was attacked because he brought up anything regarding the Confederacy, instead of calling it a “Civil War History month” and some in the press argued that anyone who tries to talk about Confederate heritage is really just a bigot tacitly supporting slavery, ala Roland Martin on CNN.com. So I do think it’s hypocritical for the same people who are attacking McDonnell to spend their time praising Jim Webb when he’s gone farther and spoken far more apologetically for the Confederacy than McDonnell ever has.
I’m interested Brian, what ISN’T “bigot” related about “Confederate Heritage”. I’m not saying there isn’t something, I just want to know what it is.
.
This Jon Meacham (a Southerner) abstract interested me:
.
If neo-Confederates are interested in history, let’s talk history. Since Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Confederate symbols have tended to be more about white resistance to black advances than about commemoration. In the 1880s and 1890s, after fighting Reconstruction with terrorism and after the Supreme Court struck down the 1875 Civil Rights Act, states began to legalize segregation. For white supremacists, iconography of the “Lost Cause” was central to their fight; Mississippi even grafted the Confederate battle emblem onto its state flag.
But after the Supreme Court allowed segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, Jim Crow was basically secure. There was less need to rally the troops, and Confederate imagery became associated with the most extreme of the extreme: the Ku Klux Klan.
In the aftermath of World War II, however, the rebel flag and other Confederate symbolism resurfaced as the civil rights movement spread. In 1948, supporters of Strom Thurmond’s pro-segregation Dixiecrat ticket waved the battle flag at campaign stops.
Then came the school-integration rulings of the 1950s. Georgia changed its flag to include the battle emblem in 1956, and South Carolina hoisted the colors over its Capitol in 1962 as part of its centennial celebrations of the war.
Ed, the fact that the symbology of the Confederacy has been coopted by racists doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss what happened during the war, and recognize the things that both sides did, good and bad.
.
And what Meacham leaves out is that all of that stuff that happened from 1860 until 1962 was done by Democrats.
“The LAPD would have been more justified in just shooting OJ than arresting him?”
.
That’s ridiculous, Brian. If they had shot OJ, who would have been out looking for the real killer?
And sure, there is evidence of hypocrisy among some who have criticized McDonnell’s proclamation. But let’s not be so hypocritical as to pretend that McDonnell was not intentionally trying to throw a bone to the neo-Confederate element in the Republican base. With both the proclamation and with the original wording of it.
.
He figured it would fly under the radar without being noticed by anyone but those for whom it was intended. He miscalculated on that. It was noticed.
.
He apologized for the wording and issued an amendment. Can’t ask for much more than that.
.
Ironically, he is catching heat from many in the neo-Confederate wing of the Republican base for what they deem to be his “surrender”. I guess they consider any acknowledgment that slavery played any part in the Civil War to be a “surrender”.
.
Glad you own those guys. They have an interesting interpretation of history.
Brian,
You wrote:
“…ala Roland Martin on CNN.com. So I do think it’s hypocritical for the same people who are attacking McDonnell to spend their time praising Jim Webb…”
Have you found a reference where Roland praised Jim Webb? If so, then I would agree that he is a hypocrit. The large majority of people who criticized McDonnell, however, do not agree with this sort of sweeping generalizations. This is the problem with framing your argument on cable news channels (like CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews). I don’t recall hearing this sort of thing on PBS’ Newshour.
“The LAPD would have been more justified in just shooting OJ than arresting him?”
More of your apples to oranges comparisons, Brian? Do I really have to go into the rules of engagement which state that a criminal who poses no harm to police should not be apprehended using lethal force? Let’s say OJ had a gun and was pointing it at the helicopter? Would not the police be justified in using lethal force to apprehend him?
Again, I do not think the CIA authorization allows for execution of the terrorist if he can be safely apprehended (ala Saddam Hussein) and this policy does not equate to the US policy of the treatment of prisoners (i.e. suspected terrorists) in any way, shape, or form. They are clearly two different things.
“And what Meacham leaves out is that all of that stuff that happened from 1860 until 1962 was done by Democrats.”
.
Fair point. And one Republicans love to make when attempting to deflect attention from the more unsavory elements of their constituency.
.
What is, of course, left unacknowledged is the subsequent migration of the segregationist haters to the Republican Party. That migration began in 1948 with the adoption of a civil rights plank with teeth in the Democratic Party platform that year. One of the Dixiecrats who stormed out of that convention to support Strom Thurmond was asked why he was leaving. That the Democrats had had civil rights planks under Roosevelt. The Dixiecrat responded, “Yes, but he (meaning Truman) Means it!”
.
The country wasn’t wild about Harry at that point. It was merely mild about Harry. His allowing that civil rights language could very well have cost him the election. And subsequent actions by Democrats caused the migration of the segregationist haters to the Republican Party to continue and increase. Much to the electoral detriment of Democrats. But to the benefit of their souls.
.
They are yours now. And you are welcome to them. And discussing the party affiliation of such people during the eighty or ninety years after the Civil War doesn’t change the fact that they feel very much at home in the Republican Party of 2010.
.
As I say, you are welcome to them. We don’t want them.
Eric, the OJ comparison isn’t apples and oranges. This is specifically what the Post article says: “The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.”
.
That doesn’t sound like an ROE to me, nor does it sound like he’s only authorized to be killed if he can’t be captured. It sounds like an affirmative grant of authority to kill him if they can do it. And he’s already survived one military strike, as I understand it.
.
These aren’t two different things.
.
Dan, the migration didn’t really begin until after 1965. Thurmond remained a Democrat until 1964.
.
There is no place, in either party today, for racists of the James O. Eastland or Theodore Bilbo style. There is no place, in either party today, for any kind of racists – especially not the kinds who would have supported Jim Crow, segregation, lynching, employment discrimination, voting discrimination and all of the other evils of the South between reconstruction and 1964. Not the Democratic Party and not the Republican party. It’s ridiculous to even make the argument that people who didn’t want to socialize with blacks or hispanics at all – not even in the most innocuous public situations like in a restaurant – would be okay with their political party being led by a black man. It’s ridiculous. But it doesn’t stop you guys from making the claim.
.
I’m sick of it. It’s simply not true.
I think the press that was generated was generated because a sitting governor made an official proclamation essentially honoring confederate history and on top of that leaving out the whole reason for the confederacy, slavery. honoring either side in the civil war should not be a partisan thing, but it is being made into a partisan thing by people’s actions. i just don’t get all the praise and “glorification” of the confederacy, it was a dark spot on american history and should not be celebrated or honored, especially by a sitting governor.
Tell that to Senator Jim Webb, Local.
Brian, I think the underlying assumption in the “kill him if you can” permission is that the man is not likely to surrender voluntarily. If, however, they find him in a hole in the desert some place (like they did Hussein) no one is suggesting he be shot in the head rather than captured (including the President). Really this is quite a stretch on your part.
i’ll tell it to anyone who does that. this isn’t partisan, stop trying to make it partisan. further, was jim webb a sitting senator at the time? no. was he the governor using tax payers materials and time to make official commonwealth proclamations honoring the confederacy? no. he made a comment in a book that stated his opinion of why the civil war happened, not honoring one side or the other. i do not agree that it had anything to do with states rights, i think it had to do with slavery because if there was no slavery there would have been no civil war. i think states rights was a scape goat so the south could martyr itself on the altar of ‘northern aggression.’ that’s my opinion, and webb has his own that i disagree with. but he didnt go to the level that mcdonnell did, not by a long shot.
In an attempt to temporarily hijack this thread, I wonder, Brian what you think of this organization – Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/Group/Armed_Forces_Tea_Party_Patriots
That is members of the military apparently threatening armed insurrection to “…stand up on the very soil we defended to preserve common sense conservatism and defend our Constitution that is threatened by a tyrannical government.”
Well, given the topic of (the Confederacy), maybe its not such a thread hijack…
Eric, if the guy doesn’t violate regulations by engaging in improper political activities on post or run afoul of the rules in some other way he has the right to speak his mind on political issues just as any other American does.
.
Back in the 1970s a soldier stationed on the same post as me was a member of the American Nazi Party. I was livid that someone in my Army could go prancing around wearing goddamned swastikas. That they would let a Nazi be in the Army just infuriated me. You can ask my wife and she will tell you, I wanted to kill the bastard.
.
But unless he stepped over the line and violated regulations with regard to his activity there was nothing to be done. He had the right.
.
Same here. The tea people may be an interesting lot, but soldiers and marines can participate. And they should be able to do so.
Eric, what exactly do you think “lethal CIA operations” are? Those are planned missions to take out the subject – not capture him. If they were just snatch and grab operations, no need for the “lethal.” I can understand why you’re having a hard time wrapping your brain around the concept that the same man who doesn’t think he has the authority to hold U.S. citizens without trial thinks he has the power to authorize their execution without trial. But that’s pretty much the bottom line.
.
Local, Webb has gone much farther than McDonnell did. Yet I don’t see the left calling Webb a racist for doing so.
.
I don’t know enough about the group to have an opinion, Eric, but I can see the cause for concern. I don’t read that as threatening armed insurrection, but it definitely goes a little too far when it comes to the rhetoric.
On a side note, according to a poll of military personnel (I believe it was of enlisted only) conducted by the Military Times the number self identifying as Republicans has dropped by one third.
.
Not sure if that has any particular significance, but it is interesting.
The only thing that i know webb did was in his book, other than that, i have not heard of anything. if there is more than please explain.
Anyone who has read Born Fighting, by Jim Webb wouldn’t compare Webb’s opinion to McDonnell’s blunder.
.
Brian, have you read it?
“Nazi be in the Army”
*
You Army dogs will let anyone in.
You guys need to click on the links I include in the articles!
.
Here’s a politico story about Webb http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10994.html
AFF, nope.
I am not having any problem with this concept, Brian. I am not the one trying to equate prisoner of war treatment (the operative word being “prisoner”) to combat operations. Are you seriously suggesting that because the CIC supports humane treatment of prisoners (i.e. by either treating them as prisoners under the Geneva Convention or processing them via our Justice System) then to be consistent he needs to capture all enemy combatants and not kill any?
Eric, I’m saying that when it comes to AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, regardless of their crimes, they are entitled to their Constitutional rights.
There was a very thoughtful article on NRO a few months ago about torture. It talked about how there may come a (very very rare) time when such a measure may prove necessary. (Should that nuclear weapon be ready to drop on LA, for instance.) In a case like that, we should do what we have to do. But we should also expect to pay a price for having done so. The person doing the action should expect to be prosecuted or at least brutally condemned by public opinion. This is the sort of action that should ALWAYS be fought against, even on the very very rare times it may prove necessary.
I think a similar perspective can be applied to assassinations. There may come a time in a very very rare circumstance where it is done. But it should always be something the public abhors and the people doing are willing to pay the price for having done so, and the government held accountable.
Believe me, if someone were to come after one of my own, I would take you down, limb from limb if necessary. I get it. I’d do it. I would feel that I had no choice. But I do so knowing I may pay a price. And I can live with that.
Brian, Not on the battlefield when they have taken up arms against the US. That is what the President is saying and he is correct. Prisoners are different than those on the battlefield. The CIA is active on the front of this war. If this were Navy Seals doing the same thing, we would not be having this discussion but because it is the CIA, an extra level of approval is necessary due to past legislation circa the Cold War (heck, it may be required for the Seals for all I know). I have no problem with killing the enemy in this war whenever necessary by whatever means necessary but IF we pick up people and “detain” them, we need to treat them consistent with our American values. This does not make me a hypocrit nor does it make the President one.
Eric, again, you are ignoring the fact that this guy is an American citizen. No matter how guilty we think he is, that does not justify the government killing him without due process unless he’s actively fighting against our forces. I don’t see this guy picking up an AK-47 and shooting at Marines. He’s a planner and a propagandist. Not a trigger puller.
.
I don’t see how you can argue anyone can argue that American citizens like Jose Padilla or Umar Abdulmutallab – Umar was captured in the middle of attempting to blow up an airrline – deserve their Constitutional rights, but this cleric doesn’t deserve his simply because he hasn’t been caught yet.
.
Either you have constitutional rights or you don’t. And the only way you lose them is by being convicted in a court of law.
Dan, I saw that article on Fark too. Very interesting.
Brian, he is planner and a propagandist IN THE ARENA and in this war that means he is actively fighting against our forces. If an air marshal had shot Umar while he was trying to blow up the plane, no one would have claimed his “rights” had been violated. Your status changes when you are captured in war and that is a fact as old as the US.
hmmmmmm…..anyone else see this? Tom Davis for Fairfax County Board Chair?
http://rednova8.com/2010/04/13/tom-davis-for-fairfax-county-board-chairman/
“he is planner and a propagandist IN THE ARENA ”
.
.
“The pen is mightier than the sword,” eh, Troll?
.
So, should we have assassinated Hanoi Jane?
nope.
.
Yea. It shows dude, and it’s pretty weak.
.
You probably shouldn’t familiarize yourself with the material you use when trying to make a point. Instead, use Cliff Notes (or in this case, Politico)
.
Born Fighting is a good read which might teach you a thing or two about the history of the United States and the many contributions of the Scot-Irish. (who generally didn’t own slaves and fought on both sides of the war) Had you actually read the material you’d never have referred to it in this post.
Local, I’ve heard that but it hasn’t been confirmed so I’m waiting to see more before I talk about it.
.
AFF, I don’t need to read Webb’s book to understand the Scots-Irish. I am Scots-Irish (don’t let the German last name fool you. Multiple sides of my family have been in Virginia since the 1640s, English and Irish.) I wasn’t talking about Webb’s book. I was talking about his speech on Jefferson Davis’ birthday, and the article in the Politico that I referenced.
“Brian, he is planner and a propagandist IN THE ARENA and in this war that means he is actively fighting against our forces. If an air marshal had shot Umar while he was trying to blow up the plane, no one would have claimed his “rights” had been violated. Your status changes when you are captured in war and that is a fact as old as the US.”
*
Show me in the constitution where due process is revoked during wartime for a US citizen.
*
An air marshall shooting a guy about to blow up a plane is an immediate threat. It is called self defense. A CIA agent deliberately taking out a co-conspirator while they are sipping tea is NOT self defense in any way shape or form.
*
Personally I think that it would be easier to just take him out. But I don’t like having to trapple the constituion to do it.
“Brian, I think the underlying assumption in the “kill him if you can” permission is that the man is not likely to surrender voluntarily. If, however, they find him in a hole in the desert some place (like they did Hussein) no one is suggesting he be shot in the head rather than captured (including the President). Really this is quite a stretch on your part.”
*
Um no. The order is to shoot, not apprehend. A CIA agent already has permission to defend themselves under the ROE if they believe their life is in danger. The CIA kill list is for assinations. Otherwise the person would not need to be on a kill list to begin with. They use drones to do it. Kinda hard to apprehend someone with a drone.
“AFF, I don’t need to read Webb’s book to understand the Scots-Irish.”
.
But you do need to read it to understands Webb’s points. No?
.
Brian, my question was not about the Rs and the Ds roles in “Confederate Heritage Month”. My question was about the things that fall outside of the racial items. There must be something, right? If you could name me one or two that would be appreciated.
Ed, I’ve read at least one of his speeches and I’ve had a few conversations with Webb in person. I don’t dislike him – actually, we got along well, both being history geeks. But his comments regarding the Confederacy are similar to what was expressed in the original Confederate History Month proclamation, and some of the same folks who have spent inordinate amounts of time bashing McDonnell seem to have forgotten Webb’s comments.
.
There are libraries full of books on the Civil War – and while plenty of them are on slavery and its effects, there are plenty about other issues as well. The bravery of the soldiers on both sides – the 26th North Carolina comes to mind immediately – the leaders on both sides, the way the war was fought. The impact it had on Virginia, etc. – all of these things are issues relating to the Confederacy that don’t have to be about bigotry or slavery. Yes, fundamentally, the war would not have happened without slavery but I don’t think anyone is debating that. I simply wish that those who are attacking McDonnell as a closet racist or some kind of bigot would recognize that politicians on both sides of the aisle, even in Virginia, think the Confederacy had some qualities that could be admired, even if its soul was corrupted by the stain of slavery.
Jack,
If she were actively planning and leading attacks on our forces, yes.
unfortunately the stain of slavery is so bad it overshadows any thing good that the confederacy may have stood for. just sayin’.
The Confederacy was made up of people, and the stories of those people are important and can be both “good” and “bad.” Slavery does not overshadowing everything that happened in the war. And it shouldn’t, unless we want to miss the other lessons the war taught us.
Pgreer,
I will reiterate, if this were the navy seals or some other elite arm of the armed forces doing the deed, this would not be an issue. Only the fact that it is the CIA doing it raises the controversy. Not the citizenship of the target.
AFF, I don’t need to read Webb’s book to understand the Scots-Irish. I am Scots-Irish (don’t let the German last name fool you. Multiple sides of my family have been in Virginia since the 1640s, English and Irish.)
.
I don’t need to read historical narratives to understand Virginians’ contributions to our country. You see, my family has been in Virginia since, um, they started calling it Virginia. Great Great Great Great…. Granddaddy signed the Declaration of Independence and gave most of his fortune to the Continental Army (and wasn’t reimbursed like that bad toothed Washington). *snark*
.
Again, you might learn something about your heritage if you read Webb’s book. I did, and I guaran-goddam-tee you would too. (unlike the English, the Scot-Irish haven’t exactly entered academia and documented their history) You certainly wouldn’t have tried to draw the comparison.
.
“You guys need to click on the links I include in the articles!”
.
I did before I commented. The article was light on substance, hence the Cliff Notes reference. I kind of doubt the author read Webb’s book either as he spoke more to political perception than content. But there was this-
“Webb expanded on his sentiments in his well-received 2004 book, “Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America,” which portrays the Southern cause as at least understandable, if not wholly laudable.”
.
Note that Webb has so far avoided stepping in the divisive doo doo, unlike McDonnell. Then again, Webb is not going to pander to the same voters as McDonnell, and McDonnell didn’t write a book which clearly demonstrating his points.
.
Well, I’m just not convinced that “Confederate Heritage” = “Civil War Heritage”. Brian, it seems you do equate them.
.
“Confederate Heritage” = someone pushing a button.
TROLL> If she were actively planning and leading attacks on our forces, yes.
.
Well, Troll, there’s the rub, eh? Where’s the proof?
.
Please read this:
“No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
.
Has a Grand Jury presented an indictment? Have we had “due process of law”?
I must say that I love the picture at the top of this thread. Who is that gentleman? I see a lot of guns in the picture. Is he one of the leaders of the Tea Party? Or perhaps the Hutaree militia?
.
Anyway, he certainly looks unhinged. If the Republicans make the terrible mistake of letting Michael Steele go you might want to consider this guy as his replacement.
I have no idea who it is – it’s a meme photo that shows up on Fark.com all the time. I like that site a lot – great place for news, although the commenters are rabidly liberal. I think it’s from some kind of Palestinian protest rally.
Eric, the citizenship of the target IS a problem for me, no matter who is to be doing the shooting.
I never bought this whole “at war with terrorists” thing. Terrorists are criminals. We aren’t “at war” with any nation. We aren’t “at war” with terror.
This man who is a US citizen should be captured, charged, and tried. If convicted of a crime that deserves execution under law, he should be executed. Only if he resists capture with deadly force should he be subjected to deadly force.
I never thought I would see a day when so many of us in the US would sit by and let our government do so many things (imprisonment without charges, torture, now assassination of its own citizens) that are usually attributed to totalitarian regimes.
It’s wrong whether it is a Democrat, Republican, or a Girl Scout ordering it done.
I’ve been travelling a lot lately and missed the Confederate History Month dust-up. So I’ll stick my oar in here (although the post had nothing directly to do with it and Brian makes a valid and interesting point about our own government targetting US Citizens for assassination). The stupidity of Confederate History Month is that the same legitimate goals could have just as easily been served by declaring Civil War History Month. Both armies fought, bled and died in this state. We were right at the epicenter of the military conflict. Virginians served in both armies from general officers (Scott, Thomas, for example) on down the ranks. Virginians today are descended from those who fought on both sides, and many Virginians are descended from persons who were enslaved by Virginians and later liberated by the war. The War is a critical element of what Virginia is and was and needs to be understood and never forgotten. Why the Governor got conned into taking a fragment of so vast and formative a conflict for recognition and not seizing the opportunity to put it in a more correct and meaningful perspective is beyond me. Will it matter in a year? Probably not. But let’s not do this again.
I have to agree with the sentiment that Civil War Heritage Month versus Confederate History Month is a big difference, and one that the governor should have thought about.
.
Brian,
With respect to the ‘good’ things that the confederacy did or people in the south did, it will always be overshadowed by slavery. you might not like it, but we both know that it just is.
plus, i didnt say that it overshadowed the war, but that it overshadowed “any thing good that the confederacy may have stood for”
“I simply wish that those who are attacking McDonnell as a closet racist or some kind of bigot would recognize that politicians on both sides of the aisle, even in Virginia, think the Confederacy had some qualities that could be admired, even if its soul was corrupted by the stain of slavery.”
.
Not trying to be annoying here, but give me one good thing — or “admirable quality” — about the Confederacy, Brian.
.
Just looking for one.
Ed, just look at the quality of the men who fought for the Confederacy. Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, Johnston (both of them), and down to the foot soldiers. It takes a special kind of person to charge across three miles of flat ground into the oncoming fire of the enemies artillery. The courage alone is just amazing to me. The way all of the people came together to fight – you had the poorest whites fighting alongside the gentry, sons of immigrants fighting alongside sons of Presidents. You had every strata of society working together for their goal of gaining independence. Everyone pitched in, everyone dealt with privation and want, literally starving themselves so the soldiers in the field would have a little extra, even though they themselves were starving. It’s rare to see a people come together like that, but it happened in the South. It never happened in the North.
.
It’s a shame that all of that is overshadowed because of slavery, and while I fully recognize that slavery was the primary cause of the war, if we focus only on slavery, we ignore the other lessons that the war teaches – like the importance of taking the fight beyond the battlefield (this was the first ‘total war’), the death of nullification and secession, and the failures of reconstruction.
“give me one good thing — or “admirable quality” — about the Confederacy”
.
Well, this isn’t about the confederacy per say, but more about some of the confederate soldiers….
.
Despite being outmanned, under-armed and poorly equipped they still held their own, often barefoot. Many of the common soldiers were direct descendants of the folks who refused to take a knee to Rome and managed to hold the Romans off (remember Hadrian’s Wall?) They weren’t fighting over slavery- many of these guys were practically slaves themselves who were only allowed to live free in the mountain land no one wanted because they kept the Indians at bay. Quite successfully too. These guys were warriors whose people have fought and had major contributions in every war this country has contested, especially the Revolutionary War (the end anyway)
.
Have you ever heard a recreation of the Rebel Yell? It will make the hair stand up on your neck and apparently was terrifying to be on the receiving end of.
.
On a side note, I’m sure you remember Asa Moore Janney of Lincoln. As a boy he witnessed John Mosby getting a haircut. I gave me pause when I realized the direct link I had to those times.
.
McDonnell did miss a pretty major opportunity. Civil War Month would have been a home run.
“while I fully recognize that slavery was the primary cause of the war”
.
I would contend that the Civil War, like most wars (perhaps all?) was a rich man’s war fought over money and power. Slavery, or the abolishment of slavery, equalled money to those who began the war.
I agree with you, AFF. It was, fundamentally, all about money. Slavery = money.
I was lucky enough to hear quite a few Asa Moore stories first hand, but I never heard that one.
“I would contend that the Civil War, like most wars (perhaps all?) was a rich man’s war fought over money and power.”
*
Bingo.
When you are targeting a terrorist organization, the planners and propagandists are on the same general target list as the trigger pullers and the bomb tossers — especially the planners. They are all fair game for the Halls of Justice. The difference now is that CIA officers did not have the right before 9/11 to kill terrorists unless they were in the act of hitting a target and the action would save lives immediately. In most cases, arrests were usually made by a co-operating foreign counterterrorist service or police organization which had as big a stake in the case as we did and whose rules of engagement were often different.
Until 9/11, the CIA mission was to locate the terrorists either unilaterally or in liaison with friendly services and find the evidence to convict them —often made difficult because you were dealing with foreign courts and foreign law. If you could capture wanted terrorists in international waters, lure them onto American territory, or convince the country of capture to extradite them to face American justice, the DOJ stood by to take the case. The DOJ standards for evidence were, of course, very high. Most terrorists wound up facing justice in their own national courts because that was the only viable capture and trial option. Extradition was almost impossible because of the existence of the death penalty in the U.S. plus the fact that foreign citizens often took umbrage at sending one of their own to a foreign court, no matter how much of a killer bastard the guy was. It could become a political issue very easily. That’s the way it generally stood until 9/11.
As for the al-Aulaqi case, it is nigh impossible under current law to withdraw citizenship from an American, born or naturalized, unless that person shows some voluntarily action to seek such. Fighting for a foreign army against the US has sometimes been pointed to as a possibility; but, as I recall, almost nothing like that has managed thus far to slip under the judicial rug. I cannot find where the issue of being in an American citizen terrorist engaged in aiding or abetting attacks on the U.S. has ever been settled in the courts, although there were a couple of recent cases. Maybe Brian S. can provide more detail on that. The case of al-Aulaqi is, however, currently under discussion in various government circles, particularly as to whether a military court could make such a determination or some other legal system would have to be implemented. So, as far as I can see after just a cursory contemporary look, the President may, indeed, be violating current law by targeting an American citizen for assassination. One part of me — the constitutionalist — says no, no, no. That other part of me says : “Get the murdering bastard and answer questions later.” Just don’t parse out for me the bit about being only a planner or a propagandist. They all have blood on their hands — some of it belonging to friends and colleagues of mine.
later.”