State legislator wants William Ayers fired from UIC

[leekohler]

Oh lord. Here we go with the right wing loonies. If you thought Rush was foaming at the mouth...

Unless I'm mistaken, Ayers was never convicted of anything.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bill-ayers-legislation05feb05,0,278546.story

A Republican in the Democratic-dominated Illinois Senate wants to fire university professor William Ayers, whose history as a 1960s radical became a national campaign issue because of his association with President Barack Obama.

Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground group blamed for setting off bombs in government buildings to protest the Vietnam War, became a flashpoint in the presidential campaign. Before he was a state senator, Obama worked on school reform issues with Ayers, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

State Sen. Larry Bomke, a Springfield-area Republican, wants Ayers removed from his university post under a proposal that says anyone who has committed an act of violence against the governments of the United States or Illinois cannot work at a public university.

Ayers could not be reached for comment. But his wife and former Weather Underground member, Bernardine Dohrn, called the bill "obviously, patently insane."

[iJohnHenry]

Guilt by association. Charming.

Next week, Teh French System™, guilty until proven innocent.

[leekohler]

Guilt by association. Charming.

Next week, Teh French System™, guilty until proven innocent.

I'm trying to think of how this would work. If you're merely suspected of doing something, you lose your job? Or does it have to be proven first?

[jonbravo77]

Well, they couldn't derail Obama, so now they will derail anyone that Obama even looked at.

[NT1440]

In other news, I have introduced a bill that gets wingnuts removed from office as they are clearly not capable of doing their job without letting petty partisanship get int the way.

Any backers?

Honestly this kind of thing makes me sick.

[jonbravo77]

In other news, I have introduced a bill that gets wingnuts removed from office as they are clearly not capable of doing their job without letting petty partisanship get int the way.

Any backers?

Honestly this kind of thing makes me sick.

I'm there. I really wish there was a way to enact our Constitutional right to dissolve the government and make a new one. I really can't stand how this one we have works.

[leekohler]

In other news, I have introduced a bill that gets wingnuts removed from office as they are clearly not capable of doing their job without letting petty partisanship get int the way.

Any backers?

Honestly this kind of thing makes me sick.

This is just the beginning. Get ready for lots more stupidity. This has always been the right's MO- they can't win on issues, so they go for character assassination. One of these days, maybe they'll finally figure it out and get some ideas. Until then, we'll be stuck with more of this petty foolishness.

[iJohnHenry]

Yes, they are all lawyers. Kick the bums out for consorting with undesirables.

[creator2456]

I don't see this going anywhere. Out of all the professors, assistants, etc. etc. at public universities how many would this apply to? I'm guessing a fraction of 1%.

Just shows politicians love fighting for inane issues.

[leekohler]

I don't see this going anywhere. Out of all the professors, assistants, etc. etc. at public universities how many would this apply to? I'm guessing a fraction of 1%.

Just shows politicians love fighting for inane issues.

Of course. It distracts people from the fact that they aren't doing their jobs.

[Thomas Veil]

One of these days, maybe they'll finally figure it out and get some ideas.Boy are you optimistic.

[mgguy]

Unless I'm mistaken, Ayers was never convicted of anything.


If I'm not mistaken, he admitted to setting bombs and committing other terrorist acts and said he would do so again and wish he had done even more.

[.Andy]

If I'm not mistaken, he admitted to setting bombs and committing other terrorist acts and said he would do so again and wish he had done even more.
You are mistaken. It's worth reading what Ayer's quotes to see how different they are before going through the right wing propaganda filter.

[Peterkro]

If I'm not mistaken, he admitted to setting bombs and committing other terrorist acts and said he would do so again and wish he had done even more.

Yes you are mistaken.

[leekohler]

If I'm not mistaken, he admitted to setting bombs and committing other terrorist acts and said he would do so again and wish he had done even more.

You're completely wrong. Stop listening to Limbaugh and Hannity, man. Go find out for yourself. Find out what the guy really said before you listen to those liars.

[Juventuz]

According to the NY Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all), Ayers said

I don't regret setting bombs,
I feel we didn't do enough.
Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,

again, that's from a NY Time article from 2001.

In a New Yorker article published this past November (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/11/mr-ayerss-neighborhood.html?yrail), it says the following about Ayers:

Ayers said that he had never meant to imply, in an interview with the Times, published coincidentally on 9/11, that he somehow wished he and the Weathermen had committed further acts of violence in the old days. Instead, he said, “I wish I had done more, but it doesn’t mean I wish we’d bombed more ****.” Ayers said that he had never been responsible for violence against other people and was acting to end a war in Vietnam in which “thousands of people were being killed every week.”

So he's pretty much admitting he said it, and then says that he's never been responsible for violence against other people, but in the 2001 interview said that he bombed the Pentagon. I wouldn't believe a thing he says.

[leekohler]

According to the NY Times article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all), Ayers said





again, that's from a NY Time article from 2001.

In a New Yorker article published this past November (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/11/mr-ayerss-neighborhood.html?yrail), it says the following about Ayers:



So he's pretty much admitting he said it, and then says that he's never been responsible for violence against other people, but in the 2001 interview said that he bombed the Pentagon. I wouldn't believe a thing he says.

Once again, you take things out of context, as did the NYT. He was talking about the fact that he wished he'd done more to protest the war, but you may choose to believe what you want. And the quote you post in no way has him "admitting it". Quite the opposite. Fact is, the guy is a damn good professor, has done a lot for the city, wasn't convicted of anything, and obviously has not been involved in any "terrorist" activity since then.

[Juventuz]

Once again, you take things out of context, as did the NYT. He was talking about the fact that he wished he'd done more to protest the war, but you may choose to believe what you want. And the quote you post in no way has him "admitting it". Quite the opposite. Fact is, the guy is a damn good professor, he wasn't convicted of anything, and obviously has not been involved in any "terrorist" activity since then.

Out of context? Did he not say "I don't regret setting bombs"? or "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon"?

The "we didn't do enough" could be interpreted a number of ways, but "I don't regret setting bombs" is pretty clear cut. There's really no taking that out of context.

I never said he was/wasn't convicted or is/isn't a terrorist. I'm merely talking about him saying one thing, and then another.

[leekohler]

Out of context? Did he not say "I don't regret setting bombs"? or "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon"?

The "we didn't do enough" could be interpreted a number of ways, but "I don't regret setting bombs" is pretty clear cut. There's really no taking that out of context.

I never said he was/wasn't convicted or is/isn't a terrorist. I'm merely talking about him saying one thing, and then another.

Christ- for the last time:

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[26] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[24] Ayers protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[27] In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[28] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[28][29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

Again- you can believe what you want. I'm choosing to believe the guy because of how he's conducted his life for the last 40 years. If you don't think that's proof enough, that's your problem.

[kavika411]

I cared less about the guy and thought the Republicans needed to cool it on this issue. Then I heard Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview of him. While I still think the Republicans went way too far for what they were trying to accomplish (and failed at miserably), this guy - by his own words - absolutely disgusts me. I hope he loses his job.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97112600

[leekohler]

I cared less about the guy and thought the Republicans needed to cool it on this issue. Then I heard Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview of him. While I still think the Republicans went way too far for what they were trying to accomplish (and failed at miserably), this guy - by his own words - absolutely disgusts me. I hope he loses his job.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97112600

He won't. Nor should he. If we're going to start firing people for things for which they haven't been convicted, we're in big trouble.

Can you find transcript for that link? Some of us are at work and can't listen to audio.

[kavika411]

He won't. Nor should he. If we're going to start firing people for things for which they haven't been convicted, we're in big trouble.

Can you find transcript for that link? Some of us are at work and can't listen to audio.

I don't know how to find the transcript. Sorry. I recommend, if you can find the time, to actually listen to it over the weekend. Perhaps the transcript would do it justice, perhaps not.

As for people losing their job sans a conviction, happens every day, most recently with your governor.

[leekohler]

I don't know how to find the transcript. Sorry. I recommend, if you can find the time, to actually listen to it over the weekend. Perhaps the transcript would do it justice, perhaps not.

As for people losing their job sans a conviction, happens every day, most recently with your governor.

It's a bit different when you're an elected official and you're caught on tape already. Blago is not going to be acquitted.

[Juventuz]

Christ- for the last time:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

So he's protesting something that made him look bad, shocker. Why hasn't he countered with what was actually said if the NYT article was misquoting him?

Again- you can believe what you want. I'm choosing to believe the guy because of how he's conducted his life for the last 40 years. If you don't think that's proof enough, that's your problem.

You can believe what you want, that's fine. In the past 40 years he's admitted to bombing places, if that's cool by you then fine. I don't sympathize with many bombers though.

[leekohler]

So he's protesting something that made him look bad, shocker. Why hasn't he countered with what was actually said if the NYT article was misquoting him?

He did. Did you read the wiki article at all?



You can believe what you want, that's fine. In the past 40 years he's admitted to bombing places, if that's cool by you then fine. I don't sympathize with many bombers though.

Lots of people did awful things in the 60's, including our own government. Have all those people been fired from all their jobs? Because if you're going to do this to this guy, you have to do it to them all.

[kavika411]

It's a bit different when you're an elected official and you're caught on tape already. Blago is not going to be acquitted.

Agreed, but I'm not the one who drew the termination-requires-conviction line.

[leekohler]

Agreed, but I'm not the one who drew the termination-requires-conviction line.

You don't think there's a difference between an elected official and a college professor? Especially when one has been acquitted?

[kavika411]

You don't think there's a difference between an elected official and a college professor? Especially when one has been acquitted?

I do think there is a difference but again, I'm not the one who drew the termination-requires-conviction line.

And to return to the original premise, if Ayer's tenure agreement with his school allows for his termination for non-conviction matters - as I am confident it does - whether he was convicted or not is irrelevant.

[obeygiant]

Ayers and his co-authors of his book Prairie Fire freely brag about their bombings and other violent and illegal acts, and even provide a detailed list, most likely typed up by Ayers himself, of the crimes they had committed up to that point. He may have escaped conviction due to a legal technicality (the prosecutors failed to get a warrant during some of their surveillance of the Weather Underground), but this in no way means that Ayers was factually innocent of the crimes. As has been widely reported, after the case against him was dropped, Ayers decribed himself as "guilty as hell, free as a bird."

Just because Ayers tries to appear respectable now doesn't mean that he wasn't a violent revolutionary in the past. In fact, as the text of his manifesto Prairie Fire shows, Ayers was one of the most extreme extremists in American political history. Ayers is just as politically radical now as he was back then. He has never renounced the political views he professed in the 1960s and 1970s. The only difference is that now he no longer commits violence to achieve his goals. After his stint as the leader of the Weather Underground, he shifted to a different tactic: to spread his ideology under the aegis of academia. But the goal remains the same: to turn America into a communist nation. Ayers' contemporary writings contain many of the same ideas (and even the same phrases) found in Prairie Fire, just toned down to make them more palatable in polite society.

[mgguy]

Lots of people did awful things in the 60's, including our own government. Have all those people been fired from all their jobs? Because if you're going to do this to this guy, you have to do it to them all.

So does this logic support the notion that none of the Bush personnel who allegedly violated law and supported alleged illegal bombing of Iraq should be held accountable?

[leekohler]

Ayers and his co-authors of his book Prairie Fire freely brag about their bombings and other violent and illegal acts, and even provide a detailed list, most likely typed up by Ayers himself, of the crimes they had committed up to that point. He may have escaped conviction due to a legal technicality (the prosecutors failed to get a warrant during some of their surveillance of the Weather Underground), but this in no way means that Ayers was factually innocent of the crimes. As has been widely reported, after the case against him was dropped, Ayers decribed himself as "guilty as hell, free as a bird."

Just because Ayers tries to appear respectable now doesn't mean that he wasn't a violent revolutionary in the past. In fact, as the text of his manifesto Prairie Fire shows, Ayers was one of the most extreme extremists in American political history. Ayers is just as politically radical now as he was back then. He has never renounced the political views he professed in the 1960s and 1970s. The only difference is that now he no longer commits violence to achieve his goals. After his stint as the leader of the Weather Underground, he shifted to a different tactic: to spread his ideology under the aegis of academia. But the goal remains the same: to turn America into a communist nation. Ayers' contemporary writings contain many of the same ideas (and even the same phrases) found in Prairie Fire, just toned down to make them more palatable in polite society.

Excuse me?

In an op-ed piece in 2008, Ayers gave this assessment of his actions:

The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated.[35]

He also reiterated his rebuttal to the charge of terrorism:

The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices.... We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.[35]



I see nothing regarding communism there. And do PLEASE read the article folks.

So does this logic support the notion that none of the Bush personnel who allegedly violated law and supported alleged illegal bombing of Iraq should be held accountable?

No- Ayers was tried and acquitted. I have yet to see these Bush personnel put on trial or investigated. When they are, we can talk after the verdict.

[mgguy]

No- Ayers was tried and acquitted. I have yet to see these Bush personnel put on trial or investigated. When they are, we can talk after the verdict.

Are you sure he was tried and acquited? I thought the case was thrown out over a technicality before other evidence was presented and judged.

[kavika411]

Can we agree, leekohler, that being found not guilty by a jury, or having the prosecution drop its case because of wrongly acquired evidence, or having a conviction reversed on appeal because of an evidentiary issue, does not inherently mean that the accused didn't engage in the illegal conduct?

[leekohler]

Can we agree, leekohler, that being found not guilty by a jury, or having the prosecution drop its case because of wrongly acquired evidence, or having a conviction reversed on appeal because of an evidentiary issue, does not inherently mean that the accused didn't engage in the illegal conduct?

We can. And I still don't see how it's relevant after 40 years that the guy needs to lose his job. Especially since said illegal conduct has not continued. It's ridiculous.

[atszyman]

Can we agree, leekohler, that being found not guilty by a jury, or having the prosecution drop its case because of wrongly acquired evidence, or having a conviction reversed on appeal because of an evidentiary issue, does not inherently mean that the accused didn't engage in the illegal conduct?

If you hire on to a job and they know all the details of your past, and have done your job well for a number of years living a model life. Do you think it should be fair that someone should be able to get you fired over something you did 40 years ago that your employer knew about when they hired you?

[kavika411]

If you hire on to a job and they know all the details of your past, and have done your job well for a number of years living a model life. Do you think it should be fair that someone should be able to get you fired over something you did 40 years ago that your employer knew about when they hired you?

Good question. Answer: Yes. Absolutely.

[atszyman]

Good question. Answer: Yes. Absolutely.

So if I admitted to my boss that I smoked pot once over a decade ago*, and haven't touched it since, that should be grounds for firing me from a job that I did not get until 3+ years after the incident? Even if I have been doing my job well? What if they already know about it and someone starts making a stink about anyone who's ever tried any illegal substance? Should they just bow to the pressure and fire me?

Should we be able to impeach Obama right away since he's admitted to drug use in the past? Should we have done the same to Bush?

*I make no claims as to the validity of this statement, for all intensive purposes it is a hypothetical statement.

[hulugu]

Kavika411, would you require the same thing for someone like G. Gordon Liddy?

Also, I'm very wary of a State Legislator's involvement in the hiring and firing of a tenured professor. This expands the scope of the legislative body, giving it a new power to determine which professors can continue their work and who cannot based on political scene-making. Is this really what we want?

I don't.

[leekohler]

Good question. Answer: Yes. Absolutely.

Then I'd say you'd have a lawsuit on your hands.

[kavika411]

So if I admitted to my boss that I smoked pot once over a decade ago*, and haven't touched it since, that should be grounds for firing me from a job that I did not get until 3+ years after the incident? Even if I have been doing my job well? What if they already know about it and someone starts making a stink about anyone who's ever tried any illegal substance? Should they just bow to the pressure and fire me?

Should we be able to impeach Obama right away since he's admitted to drug use in the past? Should we have done the same to Bush?

*I make no claims as to the validity of this statement, for all intensive purposes it is a hypothetical statement.

The question I answered yes to was whether it is fair that someone be fired for something they did over 40 years ago. Whether you "should" be fired under your hypothetical is separate and apart from what you first asked. Allow me to expand on my answer this way.

It may not come as a shock to you that here in Birmingham, Alabama, your all white, all male juries often found lynchers of blacks "not guilty" in the early 1900s. Many of the accused (innocent, shall we say, since they were found not guilty) went on to employment with bosses possessing knowledge of the new recruit's past, perhaps even with actual awe and excitement. Enter the 60s. Same employee. Same hard-working employee.

So I go back to your original question upon which your later hypothetical was tied:

If you hire on to a job and they know all the details of your past, and have done your job well for a number of years living a model life. Do you think it should be fair that someone should be able to get you fired over something you did 40 years ago that your employer knew about when they hired you?

Would I fire that racist, inbred, lynching - although "innocent" - f'er with a 40-year tenure? Yes. Absolutely. Happily.

[kavika411]

Then I'd say you'd have a lawsuit on your hands.

I'd say your wrong.

[leekohler]

The question I answered yes to was whether it is fair that someone be fired for something they did over 40 years ago. Whether you "should" be fired under your hypothetical is separate and apart from what you first asked. Allow me to expand on my answer this way.

It may not come as a shock to you that here in Birmingham, Alabama, your all white, all male juries often found lynchers of blacks "not guilty" in the early 1900s. Many of the accused (innocent, shall we say, since they were found not guilty) went on to employment with bosses possessing knowledge of the new recruit's past, perhaps even with actual awe and excitement. Enter the 60s. Same employee. Same hard-working employee.

So I go back to your original question upon which your later hypothetical was tied:



Would I fire that racist, inbred, lynching - although "innocent" - f'er? Yes. Absolutely. Happily.

I wouldn't. Not without a conviction and proof that this person still engaged in the behavior. BTW- bad comparison. Ayers never killed or injured anyone.

I'd say your wrong.

Prove it. Good luck with that.

[kavika411]

Kavika411, would you require the same thing for someone like G. Gordon Liddy?

Yes. Absolutely.

[kavika411]

Prove it. Good luck with that.

To be clear, you are asking me to prove a negative. Witty.

[leekohler]

To be clear, you are asking me to prove a negative.

How about answering my very simple, objective question I posed to you higher on this page?

I already did several posts ago. Perhaps you missed it.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. A person could most certainly bring a wrongful termination suit against you for that reason.

[atszyman]

Would I fire that racist, inbred, lynching - although "innocent" - f'er with a 40-year tenure? Yes. Absolutely. Happily.

So you'd fire a good worker, who has led an upstanding life for 40 years, had no issues with his/her coworkers because of outside pressure from someone else who has an issue with something he was never convicted for 40 years ago? Why didn't you fire him 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, or 39 years ago?

[kavika411]

I already did several posts ago. Perhaps you missed it.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. A person could most certainly bring a wrongful termination suit against you for that reason.

My apologies. I did indeed miss where you answered it. That is why I edited my response a moment ago to remove that.

I agree that a person can bring that suit. At the risk of sounding sarcastic - which I do not intend to be - anyone can sue anybody for anything. The heart of the question is whether someone can bring a successful suit and I believe, as I said above, that the answer is no.

Again, my apologies for initially missing your answer to my question.

[kavika411]

So you'd fire a good worker, who has led an upstanding life for 40 years, had no issues with his/her coworkers because of outside pressure from someone else who has an issue with something he was never convicted for 40 years ago? Why didn't you fire him 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, or 39 years ago?

Any number of reasons, namely that the person who hired him and/or supervised him for most of that time period may not be the same person who fired him.

Employment-at-will is a bitch for employees. No doubt. But it is the law of most of the states, such as Alabama. No, you can't be fired for being in a protected class, but yes you can be fired for wearing a red shirt, like it or not, as long as the termination wasn't actually related to you being in a protected class. As an under-40 white male, my employer can fire me right now for being on MacRumors, because I brushed my hair the wrong way, or because he heard I got drunk last Friday. I can be fired because my grandfater was friends with Bull Connor, or because I hung out with George Wallace when I was younger.

Back to the OP, the question is actually what kind of tenure agreement Ayers has.

EDIT: So as not to be terminated today, I may have to now return to work for a bit...

[leekohler]

My apologies. I did indeed miss where you answered it. That is why I edited my response a moment ago to remove that.

I agree that a person can bring that suit. At the risk of sounding sarcastic - which I do not intend to be - anyone can sue anybody for anything. The heart of the question is whether someone can bring a successful suit and I believe, as I said above, that the answer is no.

Something tells me that they most definitely could win, given that they have a decent lawyer.

[atszyman]

Any number of reasons, namely that the person who hired him and/or supervised him for most of that time period may not be the same person who fired him.

This isn't a situation of new management culling the herd. I don't have issues with that.

This is outside pressure from someone who has no say in the hiring of firing of employees trying to pressure an employer to terminate someone for something that was known about when the employee started working, and the employee has done nothing in their employment history to warrant being fired.

It would be like me going into Wal-Mart and demanding that they fire all the Jane because she was mean to me in HS. Do you think they should give any sort of validity to my complaint?

UIC is free to terminate Ayers whenever they want for whatever grounds they deem valid. But the issue is a high profile person complaining about him needing to be fired, even though the person in question has no say in Ayers employment at UIC.

[Juventuz]

He did. Did you read the wiki article at all?

He said, "I said _____"? Really? Where, all I read was "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

I can't link to blogspot posts from work so I can't read the rest of what he said. But from the wiki article, that's all he said. How about clarifying what was deliberately distorted.

Lots of people did awful things in the 60's, including our own government. Have all those people been fired from all their jobs? Because if you're going to do this to this guy, you have to do it to them all.

Did I say it should be done. Nowhere have I commented about the proposal from the legislator. I'm merely commenting on comments made by Ayers.

[mgguy]

This is outside pressure from someone who has no say in the hiring of firing of employees trying to pressure an employer to terminate someone for something that was known about when the employee started working, and the employee has done nothing in their employment history to warrant being fired.


A case could be made to fire him based on his lack of contrition and more recent comments he has made suggesting that he would do the same thing again. I don't personally believe he should be fired (though in all honesty it wouldn't bother me a bit if he were), but the effort by others to achieve this are legal and should be considered.

[leekohler]

He said, "I said _____"? Really? Where, all I read was "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

I can't link to blogspot posts from work so I can't read the rest of what he said. But from the wiki article, that's all he said. How about clarifying what was deliberately distorted.

This is the last part of the article I post for you. Read it when you get home. He NEVER said "We didn't bomb enough". That was my point the first time.

Ayers was asked in a January 2004 interview, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" He replied:[32] "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." On September 9, 2008, journalist Jake Tapper reported on the comic strip in Ayers' blog explaining the soundbite: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough ****."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"[33][34]

[atszyman]

A case could be made to fire him based on his lack of contrition and more recent comments he has made suggesting that he would do the same thing again. I don't personally believe he should be fired (though in all honesty it wouldn't bother me a bit if he were), but the effort by others to achieve this are legal and should be considered.

I'm fine if UIC wants to fire him. The pressure from a politician bothers me. If it should be considered based on someone speaking to the media or proposing legislation, then anyone who doesn't like me calling my boss telling them to fire me because I might have been mean once should be considered.

UIC, I'm sure, is well aware of what Ayers has and has not said, and they have not fired him (yet). Why does this particular politician get to try to pressure them into making a different decision just because he thinks differently than UIC? Seems like unnecessary government intervention to me.

[mgguy]

Why does this particular politician get to try to pressure them into making a different decision just because he thinks differently than UIC?

I don't know of any politician who does not try to wield their influence, even on matters such as these. It is their right to do so. UIC should not yield to this pressure if they do not agree that the case against Ayers has merit. If they do, then they are accountable for the termination, not the one doing the pressuring.

[atszyman]

I don't know of any politician who does not try to wield their influence, even on matters such as these. It is their right to do so. UIC should not yield to this pressure if they do not agree that the case against Ayers has merit. If they do, then they are accountable for the termination, not the one doing the pressuring.

But the University is free to ignore the pressure and continue onward, and I can get on the forum and accuse the politician of political posturing and wasting time and taxpayers money on this while there are more important issues our government needs to be addressing.

Of course I guess if he manages to get Ayers fired he's created 1 job. :D

Edit: Wouldn't his legislation not apply to Ayers anyway due to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, about Ex Post Facto Laws?

[hulugu]

But the University is free to ignore the pressure and continue onward, and I can get on the forum and accuse the politician of political posturing and wasting time and taxpayers money on this while there are more important issues our government needs to be addressing.

Of course I guess if he manages to get Ayers fired he's created 1 job. :D

Of course, that also means there's someone who can start collecting Unemployment.

I agree with you about politicians using their influence to affect changes in the university system. This is a dangerous road, wherein political posturing and hysterics will overrule the valuable tenured system. College professors shouldn't have to worry about becoming tomorrow's political hay.

[mactastic]

I'm all for firing professors who have engaged in terrorism or espouse radical ideologies that are counter to American values. We can fire Ayers, but that should also mean that Condoleeza Rice gets fired from Stanford, and John Yoo gets fired from Cal, under the same theory.

Surely the writings of Yoo, in particular, are just as antithetical to American values as those of Ayers.

If we're going to fire professors over their radical views or engagement in illegal activity, we really ought to apply that standard fairly now, shouldn't we?

I'm trying to think of how this would work. If you're merely suspected of doing something, you lose your job? Or does it have to be proven first?
Depends. Are we talking about William Ayers, or Scooter Libby?

Ayers' contemporary writings contain many of the same ideas (and even the same phrases) found in Prairie Fire, just toned down to make them more palatable in polite society.
Just like PNAC... Interesting.

Can we agree, leekohler, that being found not guilty by a jury, or having the prosecution drop its case because of wrongly acquired evidence, or having a conviction reversed on appeal because of an evidentiary issue, does not inherently mean that the accused didn't engage in the illegal conduct?
Sure. As long as the same standard applies to everyone. Which would mean that George Bush should have been fired for his DUI, Rove should have been fired to his hand in the USA scandal, Cheney for admitting that he legitimized torture. Addington and Rumsfeld for going along with it. Oh and bunches of US soldier who've been let off the hook for murdering civilians.

Surely we can agree, kavika411, that just because no convictions were had in these instances, it doesn't mean that the accused didn't engage in the illegal conduct?

And further, surely we can agree that the failure to obtain any conviction for any of these folks means we can treat them as if they have been convicted, just because one of us really really believes that they are guilty?

[mgguy]

I'm all for firing professors who have engaged in terrorism or espouse radical ideologies that are counter to American values. We can fire Ayers, but that should also mean that Condoleeza Rice gets fired from Stanford

Please provide evidence of alleged Rice terrorist activities. Bizarre.

[mactastic]

Please provide evidence of alleged Rice terrorist activities. Bizarre.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00357.htm
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has admitted for the first time that she led high-level discussions beginning in 2002 with other senior Bush administration officials about subjecting suspected al-Qaeda terrorists detained at military prisons to the harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding, according to documents released late Wednesday by Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee.
ZOMFG!!! She admitted it! She must be guilty!

Bizarre.

[kavika411]

Sure. As long as the same standard applies to everyone. Which would mean that George Bush should have been fired for his DUI, Rove should have been fired to his hand in the USA scandal, Cheney for admitting that he legitimized torture. Addington and Rumsfeld for going along with it. Oh and bunches of US soldier who've been let off the hook for murdering civilians.

Surely we can agree, kavika411, that just because no convictions were had in these instances, it doesn't mean that the accused didn't engage in the illegal conduct?

Assuming you are asking a question, as opposed to playing seven-degrees-of-George-Bush with a rhetorical question, then the answer is yes.

[mactastic]

Assuming you are asking a question, as opposed to playing seven-degrees-of-George-Bush with a rhetorical question, then the answer is yes.
You'll have to excuse the cynicism, but where were you when any of those folks were doing the wrong that they did? You'll come in here at this point (far too late) and say "yeah, sure... what those guys did was at least likely to be criminal". Do you realize what the difference between them and Ayers is? The difference between legitimizing torture and a has-been radical (that no one besides the far right cares about, BTW.)

But you can sure make time to criticize Ayers in the harshest of terms?

I'm continually impressed by all the new standards conservatives discovered on January 20th.

[leekohler]

You'll have to excuse the cynicism, but where were you when any of those folks were doing the wrong that they did? You'll come in here at this point (far too late) and say "yeah, sure... what those guys did was at least likely to be criminal". Do you realize what the difference between them and Ayers is? The difference between legitimizing torture and a has-been radical (that no one besides the far right cares about, BTW.)

But you can sure make time to criticize Ayers in the harshest of terms?

I'm continually impressed by all the new standards conservatives discovered on January 20th.

Yep- they discovered standards almost immediately, didn't they?

[mgguy]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0809/S00357.htm

ZOMFG!!! She admitted it! She must be guilty!


Rice didn't approve or carry out waterboarding or any other form of alleged torture. The article you cited establishes that Rice discussed this practice with the intent to prepare U.S. soldiers for such interrogation techniques in the event they are captured. The article also claims that Rice asked Attorney General Ashcroft to review the legality of various interrogation techniques including waterboarding. I believe the opinion was that waterboarding and other forms of interrogation they discussed was not torture and complied fully with U.S. legal obligations.

I find it odd and laughable that you equate Rice's discussing interrogation techniques to be used against terrorists in her official duties as SOS with Ayers' having personally making and exploding bombs to terrorize U.S. citizens. I guess you also feel that members of Obama's staff, and even Obama himself, is guilty of terrorism because they have discussed these enhanced interrogation techniques and have not ruled them all out for use in rare situations with high-value suspected terrorist detainees. Obama has also indicated that he would continue the practice of rendition, in which captives are sent to other countries for interrogation, which was used by the Clinton and Bush administrations.

[leekohler]

Rice didn't approve or carry out waterboarding or any other form of alleged torture. The article you cited establishes that Rice discussed this practice with the intent to prepare U.S. soldiers for such interrogation techniques in the event they are captured. The article also claims that Rice asked Attorney General Ashcroft to review the legality of various interrogation techniques including waterboarding. I believe the opinion was that waterboarding and other forms of interrogation they discussed was not torture and was not illegal.

I find it odd and laughable that you equate Rice's discussing interrogation techniques to be used against terrorists in her official duties as SOS with Ayers' having personally making and exploding bombs to terrorize U.S. citizens. I guess you also feel that members of Obama's staff, and even Obama himself, is guilty of terrorism because they have discussed these enhanced interrogation techniques and have not ruled them all out for use in rare situations with high-value suspected terrorist detainees. Obama has also indicated that he would continue the practice of rendition, in which captives are sent to other countries for interrogation, which was used by the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Ayers never hurt one single human being. The Weathermen went out of their way not to hurt anyone.

[mgguy]

Ayers never hurt one single human being. The Weathermen went out of their way not to hurt anyone.

I believe 2 or 3 people were killed while making bombs to carry out Ayers' terrorism campaign. If you don't want to count them, fine. However, you can't say that no one was hurt. Ayers' terrorist activities inflicted a great deal of mental anguish against many U.S. citizens and policy-makers. That's what terrorism is primarily meant to do in order to manipulate those who are being terrorized. I am surprised that you, as someone who has taken a strong stand against torture, would suggest that Ayers' bombing regimen didn't do harm and was therefore OK.

[leekohler]

I believe 2 or 3 people were killed while making bombs to carry out Ayers' terrorism campaign. If you don't want to count them, fine. However, you can't say that no one was hurt. Ayers' terrorist activities inflicted a great deal of mental anguish against many U.S. citizens and policy-makers. That's what terrorism is primarily meant to do in order to manipulate those who are being terrorized. I am surprised that you, as someone who has taken a strong stand against torture, would suggest that Ayers' bombing regimen didn't do harm and was therefore OK.

I never said it was OK. Christ, where did I say that? Can we stay in the real world here? But to compare Ayers activities to what the Bush administration and indeed a lot of our government has done is disingenuous at best. Read what they were about. And no- I don't think it was OK, but at least their activities had some respect for human life.

[mactastic]

Rice didn't approve or carry out waterboarding or any other form of alleged torture. The article you cited establishes that Rice discussed this practice with the intent to prepare U.S. soldiers for such interrogation techniques in the event they are captured. The article also claims that Rice asked Attorney General Ashcroft to review the legality of various interrogation techniques including waterboarding. I believe the opinion was that waterboarding and other forms of interrogation they discussed was not torture and complied fully with U.S. legal obligations.
Now you're just splitting hairs. If a professor can be summarily dismissed for un-American activities, it should be an across-the-board kind of thing, not something implemented depending on their partisan leanings.

Rice admitted to activities that are clearly against US obligations under the Geneva Convention, and all her protestations to the contrary aside, she conspired to break the law, and instill terror into others; the same accusations you make against Ayers.

I find it odd and laughable that you equate Rice's discussing interrogation techniques to be used against terrorists in her official duties as SOS with Ayers' having personally making and exploding bombs to terrorize U.S. citizens. I guess you also feel that members of Obama's staff, and even Obama himself, is guilty of terrorism because they have discussed these enhanced interrogation techniques and have not ruled them all out for use in rare situations with high-value suspected terrorist detainees. Obama has also indicated that he would continue the practice of rendition, in which captives are sent to other countries for interrogation, which was used by the Clinton and Bush administrations.
I find it odd and laughable that you can't get beyond your partisan bias on this. If a professor can be fired for suspicion of illegal activities, then Rice should go as well.

And I assume you agree that Yoo should certainly be fired as well? Or is this another case of IOKIYAR?

[mgguy]

Now you're just splitting hairs. If a professor can be summarily dismissed for un-American activities, it should be an across-the-board kind of thing, not something implemented depending on their partisan leanings.

Rice admitted to activities that are clearly against US obligations under the Geneva Convention, and all her protestations to the contrary aside, she conspired to break the law, and instill terror into others; the same accusations you make against Ayers.


I find it odd and laughable that you can't get beyond your partisan bias on this. If a professor can be fired for suspicion of illegal activities, then Rice should go as well.

And I assume you agree that Yoo should certainly be fired as well? Or is this another case of IOKIYAR?

Do you really not see the difference between what Rice did as SOS in discussing interrogation techniques with other officials of our government and what Ayers did in personally planning and carrying out a bombing campaign to terrorize U.S. citizens, which he has admitted to?

A similar argument could be made in defense of John Yoo, who in the course of his legally-authorized duties as a lawyer wrote a legal opinion that use of waterboarding is not illegal. Many people agree with him and many people disagree. If you think providing legal council on the legality of certain interrogation techniques is on par with personally conducting a bombing campaign, then I would suggest that you are the one who is blinded by your partisan leanings.

If you want me to respond to your last question, you will have to rewrite it using complete words so that I can understand you.

[mactastic]

Do you really not see the difference between what Rice did as SOS in discussing interrogation techniques with other officials of our government and what Ayers did in personally planning and carrying out a bombing campaign to terrorize U.S. citizens, which he has admitted to?
I see two lawbreakers from different political ideologies. And I see you defending one of them, based on nothing more than ideology. The other differences that you are seeking to use to deflect from the issue are trivial.

A similar argument could be made in defense of John Yoo, who in the course of his legally-authorized duties as a lawyer wrote a legal opinion that use of waterboarding is not illegal. Many people agree with him and many people disagree. If you think providing legal council on the legality of certain interrogation techniques is on par with personally conducting a bombing campaign, then I would suggest that you are the one who is blinded by your partisan leanings.
Again, you are willing to look the other way when lawbreakers and terror-mongers are conservative. It's a shame, really, that you just can't ever put politics aside.

If you want me to respond to your last question, you will have to rewrite it using complete words so that I can understand you.
Oh, you already answered it. Apparently, with you, IOKIYAR.

[kavika411]

You'll have to excuse the cynicism, but where were you when any of those folks were doing the wrong that they did? You'll come in here at this point (far too late) and say "yeah, sure... what those guys did was at least likely to be criminal". Do you realize what the difference between them and Ayers is? The difference between legitimizing torture and a has-been radical (that no one besides the far right cares about, BTW.)

But you can sure make time to criticize Ayers in the harshest of terms?

I'm continually impressed by all the new standards conservatives discovered on January 20th.

At least let me know ahead of time when you are going to hijack a thread by playing seven-degrees-of-George-Bush, so that I can bring the party dip.

[kavika411]

The Weathermen went out of their way not to hurt anyone.

I guess Ayers' girlfriend is under the mistaken impression that she is still alive.

[skunk]

I guess Ayers' girlfriend is under the mistaken impression that she is still alive.If you get killed assembling a bomb, that's your own problem. Tough cookies. I'm sure you realise that it's completely different from killing or injuring someone else. Disrupting the hologram of power without killing or injuring people is an honourable, if dangerous, expression of dissent.

[Cleverboy]

You can believe what you want, that's fine. In the past 40 years he's admitted to bombing places, if that's cool by you then fine. I don't sympathize with many bombers though. Here's the part that you don't quite get. We're talking about a senator's proposal, so, I'll say that your conclusions have gotten more than a bit off track. Let me connect the "dots" for you.
State Sen. Larry Bomke, a Springfield-area Republican, wants Ayers removed from his university post under a proposal that says anyone who has committed an act of violence against the governments of the United States or Illinois cannot work at a public university.
Here's what the New York Times article says: ''Is this, then, the truth?,'' he writes. ''Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me.'' But why would someone want to read a memoir parts of which are admittedly not true? Mr. Ayers was asked. ''Obviously, the point is it's a reflection on memory,'' he answered. ''It's true as I remember it.'' Mr. Ayers is probably safe from prosecution anyway. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said there was a five-year statute of limitations on Federal crimes except in cases of murder or when a person has been indicted. Here's what you subsequently said: I wouldn't believe a thing he says.
So... going back to the initial proposal, how can you confirm that someone has committed an act of violence against "governments of the United States"? A memoir? Hearsay. Testimonies? One eye witness? Two? Three? Here in America, we have a legal system to determine whether someone is officially guilty or innocent of something in the eyes of our government. If a proposal bars someone from teaching in an institution, what evidence should it use, and is THAT the language currently being proposed?

Now that we're headed in the right direction... here is the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=96&DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=41&GAID=10&SessionID=76&LegID=40147
Creates the Prohibition on University Employment Act. Prohibits a public university or a private university that receives State funds from employing a person who has committed an act of violence against the government of the United States of America or the State of Illinois.
What you should be asking are these:
HOW do you define an "ACT OF VIOLENCE against the GOVERNMENTS of the US". Once you answer that satisfactorily, make sure this definition is in the bill and you're on the right path. Otherwise, if you continue arguing for the "concept" of William Ayers being fired for allegations, you might as well be talking about unicorns and rainbows, as far as this topic is concerned.

That's my feeling on this. I think its MORE than reasonable to prevent convicted terrorists and ex-criminals from teaching in our public institutions. However, if we're going to work outside of legal definitions of guilt and judgement, there is a precipice waiting that has flimsy laws like this repurposed for unintended consequences. The legal system isn't a moral compass. It's a means of setting clear standards for us to live by. You can pressure the University to fire Ayers, but if you can't really pump up any public outrage, you can't try to go through the backdoor and legalize your outrage into an official prohibition. It's simply stupid. Due process.

~ CB

[mgguy]

Disrupting the hologram of power without killing or injuring people is an honourable, if dangerous, expression of dissent.

Wow. So if someone strongly disagrees with Obama/democrat policies (e.g., increasing military troop levels in Afganistan), they are free to start bombing U.S. cities as long as no one is killed or physically injured?

[skunk]

Wow. So if someone strongly disagrees with Obama/democrat policies (e.g., increasing military troop levels in Afganistan), they are free to start bombing U.S. cities as long as no one is killed or physically injured?That is not really what I said, is it?

[mgguy]

Actually, yes it is. It follows directly from what you said. The question I raised exactly parallels the statement you made defending Ayers, that "disrupting the hologram of power" using means without killing people is honorable. The Obama administration has enough power to do things like increase troop levels in Afganistan, and there will be people who would want to disrupt that power and decision by using bombs like Ayers did. So by your reasoning that would be OK as long as the bombs did not kill or injure anyone (though mental anguish and fear would apparently be acceptable).

[skunk]

You would be taking an enormous risk in doing so, but I agree that disruption without violence to the person is a valid menu item when protesting against overweening power and its symbols.

[Cleverboy]

Disrupting the hologram of power without killing or injuring people is an honourable, if dangerous, expression of dissent.Wow. So if someone strongly disagrees with Obama/democrat policies (e.g., increasing military troop levels in Afganistan), they are free to start bombing U.S. cities as long as no one is killed or physically injured?That is not really what I said, is it?Actually, yes it is. It follows directly from what you said. The question I raised exactly parallels the statement you made defending Ayers, that "disrupting the hologram of power" using means without killing people is honorable. The Obama administration has enough power to do things like increase troop levels in Afganistan, and there will be people who would want to disrupt that power and decision by using bombs like Ayers did. So by your reasoning that would be OK as long as the bombs did not kill or injure anyone (though mental anguish and fear would apparently be acceptable). Stop talking about excusing Ayers, mgguy. Maybe its intentional, but this thread is about whether anyone should control public institutions through flimsy moral proclamations ungrounded in the legal system.

Moreover, re-read what skunk said without your own moral screen. He said it is an honorable, if dangerous expression of dissent. No one said it was "legal" or even "wonderful".

It's an attempt to voice dissent without blood on ones hands. You can disagree with someone strongly, and still feel they have some sense of honor. Maybe you disagree with the Boston Tea Party, and its destruction of property, but I personally think those who would harm lives innocent or guilty are dishonorable, evil men. You can pretend you don't know the difference, but if all the world's terrorists chose to inconvenience and disrupt power structures vs. killing people... I'd think we'd all be better off by far. --Just saying.

~ CB

[mgguy]

You would be taking an enormous risk in doing so, but I agree that disruption without violence to the person is a valid menu item when protesting against overweening power and its symbols.

How can you not consider bombing public buildings and creating fear an act of violence? Even if no one is actually ever killed or injured (again, forgetting the mental anguish it would create), the act itself puts peoples lives at risk because you can never be sure that there isn't a janitor or some other person in the building that you intend to bomb. The act would be the same whether on not a person is injured, and yet it seems to me based on what you have said that you would judge the acceptability of the act based on the outcome that is really beyond the absolute control of the doer. That would be like forgiving a drunk driver who slams into a tree instead of a pedestrian--the act is the same but you forgive in the former instance because the drunk was lucky enough to crash into a tree instead of a person.

If I have mischaracterized your position on the use of bombing to achieve political ends, I didn't do so purposely. It just that my interpretation seems to follow logically from what you have said.

[mactastic]

At least let me know ahead of time when you are going to hijack a thread by playing seven-degrees-of-George-Bush, so that I can bring the party dip.
This isn't about Bush, it's about new-found principles by conservatives. And judging from your reaction, you wish to talk about just about anything but that.

You'd have a lot more credibility if you applied your standards equally.

How can you not consider bombing public buildings and creating fear an act of violence?
When the bombers are US or Israeli, it happens with frightening regularity.

Again we see a staunch conservative apply one set of standards to one side of the political aisle, and a completely different set to the other side.

And of course you'll come back with some crap about how I just don't see the techinicalities that allow you to justify your double standard, but make no mistake... it's still a double standard.

[Cleverboy]

How can you not consider bombing public buildings and creating fear an act of violence?If I have mischaracterized your position on the use of bombing to achieve political ends, I didn't do so purposely. It just that my interpretation seems to follow logically from what you have said. He said it wasn't an "act of violence against the person". If you are not intentionally mischaracterizing the statements, you're doing a heck of a great job. You keep mashing everything together in one big sloppy ball of moral outrage. You're pushing for a benign vision of the world that will NEVER exist. Suicide bombers, and Oklahoma bombings are absolutely contemptible expressions of dissent. If you want to widen the net, feel free... but some people actually want to focus on these lethal and more specific threats to civilization, and not insist that we make problems much bigger than can reasonably be mitigated.

~ CB

[skunk]

How can you not consider bombing public buildings and creating fear an act of violence?Despite your protestations, it seems that you are doing your best to misconstrue my meaning. I specifically said "violence to the person", did I not? Blowing up a statue or causing minor damage to the Pentagon with a 2lb bomb are unlikely to cause a great deal of mental anguish, but are actions sufficient to make a forceful political point.

The act would be the same whether on not a person is injured, and yet it seems to me based on what you have said that you would judge the acceptability of the act based on the outcome that is really beyond the absolute control of the doer. That would be like forgiving a drunk driver who slams into a tree instead of a pedestrian--the act is the same but you forgive in the former instance because the drunk was lucky enough to crash into a tree instead of a person.
What absolute nonsense! If the act is planned and perpetrated in such a way as to avoid loss of life, it is completely different from one which either targets people or is random enough to carry a significant risk of doing so. If you want a driving analogy, the equivalent would be a cyclist who has just been cut up on the road bringing his or her fist down on the roof of the offending driver's car at the next set of lights. The intention is to disrupt the aura of inviolability which car drivers so often are cocooned in, not to cause injury or death.

If I have mischaracterized your position on the use of bombing to achieve political ends, I didn't do so purposely.See above.

[mgguy]

Despite your protestations, it seems that you are doing your best to misconstrue my meaning. I specifically said "violence to the person", did I not? Blowing up a statue or causing minor damage to the Pentagon with a 2lb bomb are unlikely to cause a great deal of mental anguish, but are actions sufficient to make a forceful political point.


You don't think that the people who work in the Pentagon would not suffer sufficient mental anguish if the place they work in were bombed? Would you feel safe going back to work if you were in that situation? Even if the bombings just destroyed property, it should not be condoned in my opinion. Why not blow up bridges too. After awhile that starts to cost real money. You have also not answered whether those who disapprove of Obama's decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan would be judged to be honorable if they bombed public buildings if the act was planned and perpetuated in such a way as to avoid loss of life.


If you want a driving analogy, the equivalent would be a cyclist who has just been cut up on the road bringing his or her fist down on the roof of the offending driver's car at the next set of lights. The intention is to disrupt the aura of inviolability which car drivers so often are cocooned in, not to cause injury or death.

I do not disagree with this example, though I don't think it applies here. If that cyclist later were to go out and start blowing up parked cars without anyone inside without the intent to harm in order to awaken car drivers to the cyclists cause, I would not condone that and I don't believe you would either. But at this point I will work on not speculating about your meaning and motivations and just tell you what I think about what you have to say. Fair enough?

[mactastic]

You don't think that the people who work in the Pentagon would not suffer sufficient mental anguish if the place they work in were bombed? Would you feel safe going back to work if you were in that situation? Even if the bombings just destroyed property, it should not be condoned in my opinion.
Your crocodile tears would be much more believable if your standards were applied fairly across the board.

Do you not think the people living and working in Gaza or Fallujah feel mental anguish as well? Do you worry whether they feel safe going back to work "in that situation"?

[skunk]

You don't think that the people who work in the Pentagon would not suffer sufficient mental anguish if the place they work in were bombed? Would you feel safe going back to work if you were in that situation? This reminds me of that great line from Dr Strangelove: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room".


I do not disagree with this example, though I don't think it applies here. If that cyclist later were to go out and start blowing up parked cars without anyone inside without the intent to harm in order to awaken car drivers to the cyclists cause,But that would be entirely disproportionate and inappropriate.

[mgguy]

But that would be entirely disproportionate and inappropriate.

True. But so is exploding bombs in public areas and terrorizing innocent people who had nothing to do with starting or executing the Vietnam war. Keep in mind that there were a lot of civilians who worked in the buildings that Ayers bombed who may have even been against the war themselves. They were innocent victims of his, which made his acts inappropriate. As I said earlier, I don't think he should lose his job now for what he did decades ago, but I am also no willing over the passage of time to change my opinion that terrorizing innocent people to accomplish political objectives is wrong and certainly not honorable.

[Gelfin]

but I am also no willing over the passage of time to change my opinion that terrorizing innocent people to accomplish political objectives is wrong and certainly not honorable.

Without in any way excusing or sympathizing with Ayers' activities with the Weathermen, I remind you that our own nation was founded on the back of a conspiracy to treason against a lawful and legitimate government authority. Men whose names you speak with reverence took up arms against their own government because they didn't want to pay taxes on their tea, for God's sake.

In historical context, your blanket assertion about the use of violence to influence politics is quite hard to support.

The Weathermen were idealistic idiots. They fancied themselves historical actors they weren't at a period of history it wasn't, but they were, in however misguided intent, more spiritually akin to Ben Franklin than Bin Laden. They believed their government had ceased to operate in the interests, or with the consent, of its people, and they resolved to take action against that government. No matter how many rhetorical hoops you are willing to jump through to argue that they "terrorized the public," they specifically avoided doing so, even if not always completely successfully, because it was not their aim.

[mgguy]

In historical context, your blanket assertion about the use of violence to influence politics is quite hard to support.

...

The Weathermen were idealistic idiots. They fancied themselves historical actors they weren't at a period of history it wasn't, but they were, in however misguided intent, more spiritually akin to Ben Franklin than Bin Laden. They believed their government had ceased to operate in the interests, or with the consent, of its people, and they resolved to take action against that government. No matter how many rhetorical hoops you are willing to jump through to argue that they "terrorized the public," they specifically avoided doing so, even if not always completely successfully, because it was not their aim.

OK. But let me see how far you are willing to go with this line of reasoning. Would you similarly then not support making a blanket assertion that it is always wrong to use enhanced interrogation techniques (e.g., waterboarding) to get information from captive terrorists to secure the safety of innocent people against further terror attacks by members of the same organization? Does the greater public good justify those acts?

I disagree with you that the Weathermen did not want to terrorize the public. It was the nature of their acts of bombing to instill fear. Surely they did not believe that merely destroying property would be enough to achieve their goals. They must have know that innocent people would be traumatized by their bombing campaign and yet they put their own objectives first and did it anyway.

[rdowns]

enhanced interrogation techniques (e.g., waterboarding)

I love the labels we put on things.

[skunk]

Would you similarly then not support making a blanket assertion that it is always wrong to use enhanced interrogation techniques (e.g., waterboarding) to get information from captive terrorists to secure the safety of innocent people against further terror attacks by members of the same organization? Does the greater public good justify those acts?Firstly, torture (let's not use facile euphemisms here) is unquestionably and always wrong. It degrades the supposed civilisation which allows its use and has never been shown to be effective anyway. You are talking of violence against the person used on an unproven pretext by the State in contravention of treaties of which the State is a signatory. No excuses, no exceptions.

I disagree with you that the Weathermen did not want to terrorize the public. It was the nature of their acts of bombing to instill fear. Surely they did not believe that merely destroying property would be enough to achieve their goals. They must have know that innocent people would be traumatized by their bombing campaign and yet they put their own objectives first and did it anyway.Please provide a link to show how many people were "traumatised" - is that your mot du jour? - or stop making unfounded assertions. The nature of their acts of bombing was to demonstrate that the symbols of the State and the military-industrial complex were not immune, any more than the Vietnamese villagers being bombed and burned. It was not designed to cause "trauma" or to terrorise the public at large, it was to land a pie in the face of The Man. If this is "trauma", then we do not have nearly enough of it.

[mgguy]

Firstly, torture (let's not use facile euphemisms here) is unquestionably and always wrong. It degrades the supposed civilisation which allows its use and has never been shown to be effective anyway. You are talking of violence against the person used on an unproven pretext by the State in contravention of treaties of which the State is a signatory. No excuses, no exceptions.


I think this is largely a matter of opinion so I won't argue with you on this, though I disagree that techniques like waterboarding are always wrong and never effective.


Please provide a link to show how
many people were "traumatised" - is that your mot du jour? - or stop making unfounded assertions. The nature of their acts of bombing was to demonstrate that the symbols of the State and the military-industrial complex were not immune, any more than the Vietnamese villagers being bombed and burned. It was not designed to cause "trauma" or to terrorise the public at large, it was to land a pie in the face of The Man. If this is "trauma", then we do not have nearly enough of it.

I will investigate how Ayers' use of bombing may have traumatized people and report what I find. While I am doing that, will you look for and provide a link evidencing your claim that they had no intent to instill fear and force a change in the thinking and behavior of people by their bombing?

Even if do you find evidence that establishes that their only intent in bombing was only meant to stick it to The Man--and I don't believe you will--I would still disagree with your statement that we don't have enough of it (if "it" includes bombing). If people start bombing to stick it to Obama and The Man in response to Obama's escalation of military force in Afganistan, to show that they are not immune any more than are citizens of Afganistan and Pakistan, I will be against that as well.

[CalBoy]

I disagree that techniques like waterboarding is always wrong

Circumstantial ethics is not ethics at all.

Either the act is wrong, or it's not. The individual subjected to it doesn't change the act itself.

[mgguy]

Circumstantial ethics is not ethics at all.

Either the act is wrong, or it's not. The individual subjected to it doesn't change the act itself.

Ethics by their nature are relative, change over time, are subject to interpretation, and are not agreed to by all.

[CalBoy]

Ethics by their nature are relative, change over time, are subject to interpretation, and are not agreed to by all.

Aggregate ethics, yes, but this is the ethics of a particular action which you can't settle for yourself. The position that waterboarding can be ethical depending on the individual subjected to it is ethically and logically inconsistent.

[Gelfin]

OK. But let me see how far you are willing to go with this line of reasoning. Would you (…)

Would I support changing the subject? Not really.

I disagree with you that the Weathermen did not want to terrorize the public. It was the nature of their acts of bombing to instill fear.

You are welcome to disagree. Produce some evidence to stand against the repeated public statements by members such as Ayers that they went out of their way not to injure innocent people, or for that matter, any people.

I know I said they were stupid, but if their aim was to cause public terror and their strategy was not hurting people, then I understated the case.

Surely they did not believe that merely destroying property would be enough to achieve their goals.

On what do you base your certainty here? What do you think their goals were?

They must have know that innocent people would be traumatized by their bombing campaign and yet they put their own objectives first and did it anyway.

I cannot believe you are not fully aware of how hard you're stretching definitions to rationalize your point, and you're really just repeating the same thing you said before, so I'm fairly sure anything I could say here would just cause you to repeat it again.

[mgguy]

Aggregate ethics, yes, but this is the ethics of a particular action which you can't settle for yourself. The position that waterboarding can be ethical depending on the individual subjected to it is ethically and logically inconsistent.

Who gets to determine what is ethical here? You? Me? Ethics are not absolute or physical and are not invariant. They are created through thinking and therefore are subject to change over time, different human populations, and even within the same individual. So how is it accurate to say that waterboarding or anything else is always unethical?

[CalBoy]

Who gets to determine what is ethical here? You? Me? Ethics are not absolute or physical and are not invariant. They are created through thinking and therefore are subject to change over time, different human populations, and even within the same individual. So how is it accurate to say that waterboarding or anything else is always unethical?

You're missing the point.

My question isn't whether or not waterboarding is unethical or not, it's how you can state that waterboarding's ethics is determined by the individual that is being subjected to it.

If you think waterboarding is ethical, then say so. If you don't, then say so. Don't try to qualify your position with who or what is involved, because those things are immaterial to the central question of whether or not waterboarding is ethical or not.

[skunk]

I think this is largely a matter of opinion so I won't argue with you on this, though I disagree that techniques like waterboarding are always wrong and never effective.If you seek to justify torture and to thereby abrogate the Geneva Conventions - which is undeniably what you are doing - you should really come up with some more persuasive and cogent reasoning. Your mere "opinion" is entirely inadequate to the task. The Geneva Conventions do not say "You may not usually torture, but it's a matter of opinion".

I will investigate how Ayers' use of bombing may have traumatized people and report what I find.Grasping at straws and straining the credulity at one and the same time.

While I am doing that, will you look for and provide a link evidencing your claim that they had no intent to instill fear and force a change in the thinking and behavior of people by their bombing?Plenty of evidence as to their intent has been provided by their statements and indeed by the actions themselves. Their aim was certainly to force a change in thinking, but they were not dealing in the currency of fear, which seems to be the only coinage in your pocket.

Even if do you find evidence that establishes that their only intent in bombing was only meant to stick it to The Man--and I don't believe you will--I would still disagree with your statement that we don't have enough of it (if "it" includes bombing). If people start bombing to stick it to Obama and The Man in response to Obama's escalation of military force in Afganistan, to show that they are not immune any more than are citizens of Afganistan and Pakistan, I will be against that as well.You are stretching parallels to the limits of elasticity in order to make a very weak point. If the Obama Administration is ever responsible for the kind of wholesale slaughter and indiscriminate use of armed force in pursuit of political hegemony for which the US Administrations were at the time of Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq, then I would be entirely in favour of disrupting their plans and their equanimity by whatever means necessary - except by violence to the person, of course. I wouldn't want to cause any "trauma".

[mactastic]

It was the nature of their acts of bombing to instill fear. Surely they did not believe that merely destroying property would be enough to achieve their goals. They must have know that innocent people would be traumatized by their bombing campaign and yet they put their own objectives first and did it anyway.
What do you think the purpose of "shock and awe" was? Surely the Bush administration "must have known that innocent people would be traumatized by their bombing campaign, and yet they put their own objectives first and did it anyway"?

Or is this more of your "situational ethics", where it's OK for certain people to do certain things that you would condemn if someone else did them?

[obeygiant]

Plenty of evidence as to their intent has been provided by their statements and indeed by the actions themselves. Their aim was certainly to force a change in thinking, but they were not dealing in the currency of fear, which seems to be the only coinage in your pocket.


Im sure those gasoline-filled molotov cocktails and nail bombs really instilled a feeling of glee and love to whom they were thrown at. No amount of word smithing will ever gloss over the FACT that the Weather Underground Organization was a terrorist group. Their intent is irrelevant and does not justify the means to get their point across. The peaceful protests of the vietnam war ultimately did more for that cause than any explosion by the WUO.

[skunk]

Im sure those gasoline-filled molotov cocktails and nail bombs really instilled a feeling of glee and love to whom they were thrown at.Please give one instance where the Weathermen threw a Molotov cocktail at a person. Thanks.

[obeygiant]

Please give one instance where the Weathermen threw a Molotov cocktail at a person. Thanks.

The New York City Arson Attacks where the "gifts" were thrown at the home of New York State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh. However it could be claimed the lunacy from where the weathermen were operating, they could have conceived that the house itself was responsible for the oppression of the "panther 21".

[skunk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
On February 21, 1970, gasoline-filled molotov cocktails were thrown at the home of New York State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh, who was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party over a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. One bottle full of gasoline had broken against the front steps, and flames scorched the overhanging wooden frame until its contents burnt out. In addition windows were broken, and another molotov cocktail caused paint charring on a car. Painted in red on the sidewalk in front of his house was "FREE THE PANTHER 21", "THE VIET CONG HAVE WON", and "KILL THE PIGS" [14]. The same night, molotov cocktails were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn.[15] The son of Justice Murtagh claims that the Weatherman were responsible for the attempted arson,[14] based on a letter promising more bombings sent by Bernadine Dohrn to the Associated Press in late November, 1970,[16] although that letter is generally assumed to refer to an October bombing of a Queens courthouse.Not a very convincing case, m'lud. You might have to do better.

[mgguy]

My question isn't whether or not waterboarding is unethical or not, it's how you can state that waterboarding's ethics is determined by the individual that is being subjected to it.

You have misunderstood what I said. I suggest you reread it.

If you seek to justify torture and to thereby abrogate the Geneva Conventions - which is undeniably what you are doing - you should really come up with some more persuasive and cogent reasoning. Your mere "opinion" is entirely inadequate to the task. The Geneva Conventions do not say "You may not usually torture, but it's a matter of opinion".

Some legal scholars have argued that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists who are interrogated by non-military personnel (e.g., FBI) outside the USA territories. This legal position has not yet been tried and ruled upon by a judicial body vis a vis the interrogation of terrorists linked to 9/11. Whether or not it was "wrong" is a separate question
from whether or not it was legal. Whether it was effective is also a matter of opinion and is still being debated.

Grasping at straws and straining the credulity at one and the same time.

I'm sorry, but you are the one who asked for evidence that Ayers' bombing traumatized people. I'm sort of glad that you were not serious and I now don't have to waste my time finding examples for you, as I believe it should be self-evident that people would have been fearful if bombs had exploded anywhere near their homes or other places they normally frequented. If they or anyone they knew lived anywhere near the vicinities that the WUO bombed, they would naturally be fearful. I doubt that Ayers informed these people of his harmless intentions, and even if he had I'm not sure they would have believed him.


Plenty of evidence as to their intent has been provided by their statements and indeed by the actions themselves. Their aim was certainly to force a change in thinking, but they were not dealing in the currency of fear, which seems to be the only coinage in your pocket.

Their statements of harmless intent were not made to the general public before their acts were committed, so their victims would not have known not to be afraid. I also question whether you can trust their statements now about what they did then. The FBI agent who infiltrated the WUO accused Ayers and his organization of having a violent intent, but you may prefer to take Ayers' word over his.

If the Obama Administration is ever responsible for the kind of wholesale slaughter and indiscriminate use of armed force in pursuit of political hegemony for which the US Administrations were at the time of Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq, then I would be entirely in favour of disrupting their plans and their equanimity by whatever means necessary - except by violence to the person, of course. I wouldn't want to cause any "trauma".

But we are still in Iraq and Obama is not going to end the conflict any time soon and may stay there much longer than 16 months depending upon how events unfold. People are dying at the hands of US soldiers now. Does this justify US citizens engaging in the kind of bombing that Ayers did to get us out earlier? Would you be in favor of that? Or does the fact that the number of people being killed over there is much smaller than the number killed during the early months of the invasion make such action unjustifiable or dishonorable? PS - Obama also apparently has not ruled out the use of extraordinary rendition that has been used by the Bush and Clinton administrations and which is not condoned by the UN. Does that practice justify bombing to try to have it stopped?

[CalBoy]

You have misunderstood what I said. I suggest you reread it.

I disagree that techniques like waterboarding are always wrong

If waterboarding is not always wrong, is it always acceptable?

When/how do you determine if it is right or wrong?

[mgguy]

If waterboarding is not always wrong, is it always acceptable?

When/how do you determine if it is right or wrong?

What is "wrong" or "acceptable" cannot be determined in an absolute sense. You'll have to decide on a benchmark to measure this against. I certainly won't attempt to impose my standard of ethics on you and I hope you show me the same consideration. If this is a question of what is lawful (not what is necessarily right or moral), then it may be more easy to settle.

[skunk]

Some legal scholars have argued that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists who are interrogated by non-military personnel (e.g., FBI) outside the USA territories.Some legal scholars are paid a great deal to use weasel words in defence of the indefensible actions of their employers.

I'm sort of glad that you were not serious and I now don't have to waste my time finding examples for you, as I believe it should be self-evident that people would have been fearful if bombs had exploded anywhere near their homes or other places they normally frequented.I'm sorry, but your argument is laughable. The subject was "terror", not "mild disquiet".

But we are still in Iraq and Obama is not going to end the conflict any time soon and may stay there much longer than 16 months depending upon how events unfold. People are dying at the hands of US soldiers now. Does this justify US citizens engaging in the kind of bombing that Ayers did to get us out earlier? Would you be in favor of that? Or does the fact that the number of people being killed over there is much smaller than the number killed during the early months of the invasion make such action unjustifiable or dishonorable? PS - Obama also apparently has not ruled out the use of extraordinary rendition that has been used by the Bush and Clinton administrations and which is not condoned by the UN. Does that practice justify bombing to try to have it stopped?Either you are being entirely disingenuous or your sense of proportion is terminally damaged.

[mactastic]

Some legal scholars have argued that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists who are interrogated by non-military personnel (e.g., FBI) outside the USA territories. This legal position has not yet been tried and ruled upon by a judicial body vis a vis the interrogation of terrorists linked to 9/11. Whether or not it was "wrong" is a separate question
from whether or not it was legal. Whether it was effective is also a matter of opinion and is still being debated.
Some historians have argued that the Holocaust never happened. Does that mean the subject is still open for debate?

I'm sorry, but you are the one who asked for evidence that Ayers' bombing traumatized people. I'm sort of glad that you were not serious and I now don't have to waste my time finding examples for you, as I believe it should be self-evident that people would have been fearful if bombs had exploded anywhere near their homes or other places they normally frequented. If they or anyone they knew lived anywhere near the vicinities that the WUO bombed, they would naturally be fearful. I doubt that Ayers informed these people of his harmless intentions, and even if he had I'm not sure they would have believed him.
Again with the crocodile tears... You'd be much more believable if you shed these kinds of tears for the residents of Fallujah and Gaza. But you don't give a **** if innocent arabs or muslims are terrorized. If innocent arabs or muslims knew anyone who lived anywhere near the vicinities where the US or IDF bombed, surely they would be just as fearful as the people you are now so concerned about? I doubt that the US or IDF informed these people of their precision targeting strategy, do you? And if they had told them, I'm not sure they would have believed them anyway... right?

Your double standards are so obvious.

[CalBoy]

What is "wrong" or "acceptable" cannot be determined in an absolute sense.

Yes, it can; that is what the entire branch of philosophy called "ethics" is about.


You'll have to decide on a benchmark to measure this against.

I already have. Now I want to know your benchmark, because it seems to be amorphous. It seems that it can change depending upon whether or not the individual is suspected of one type of crime over another.


I certainly won't attempt to impose my standard of ethics on you and I hope you show me the same consideration.

I'm not trying to impose anything on you. If anything, I'd like you to explain your position better.

[mactastic]

Yes, it can; that is what the entire branch of philosophy called "ethics" is about.
It's funny... we get so-called Christians in here saying that only atheists have situational ethics, and that the ethics of Christians are immutable.

And then we get folks like this (who are strangely quiet during the debate over whether Christian ethics are immutable) who claim ethics can change literally from moment to moment.

Quite the range of thought from the conservative perspective...

[skunk]

It's funny... we get so-called Christians in here saying that only atheists have situational ethics, and that the ethics of Christians are immutable.

And then we get folks like this (who are strangely quiet during the debate over whether Christian ethics are immutable) who claim ethics can change literally from moment to moment.I suspect these ethical standards are on a sliding scale dependent on the profile of the victim. Customisation is everything these days.

[hulugu]

Im sure those gasoline-filled molotov cocktails and nail bombs really instilled a feeling of glee and love to whom they were thrown at. No amount of word smithing will ever gloss over the FACT that the Weather Underground Organization was a terrorist group. Their intent is irrelevant and does not justify the means to get their point across. The peaceful protests of the vietnam war ultimately did more for that cause than any explosion by the WUO.

I'd agree that the WUO was a "terrorist" group, but both their aims and their methods should separate them from groups who detonate car bombs in the middle of a market.

...
Some legal scholars have argued that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists who are interrogated by non-military personnel (e.g., FBI) outside the USA territories. This legal position has not yet been tried and ruled upon by a judicial body vis a vis the interrogation of terrorists linked to 9/11. Whether or not it was "wrong" is a separate question
from whether or not it was legal. Whether it was effective is also a matter of opinion and is still being debated....

If everything is a matter of opinion, then by what standard can we hold any action including Ayers? Also, there's a wide body of legal precedence on the subject of water-boarding, including the decisions handed down by the International Military Tribunal (or Tokyo War Crimes Trial) in 1945, which incorporated testimony by US soldiers on the Japanese use of the "water cure."



Their statements of harmless intent were not made to the general public before their acts were committed, so their victims would not have known not to be afraid. I also question whether you can trust their statements now about what they did then. The FBI agent who infiltrated the WUO accused Ayers and his organization of having a violent intent, but you may prefer to take Ayers' word over his.

Infiltrating FBI agents' statements about a group's intentions are often unreliable, however, it's clear from their actions that the WUO was radical, but also took steps to keep from killing people, a notable and important distinction.

Obama also apparently has not ruled out the use of extraordinary rendition that has been used by the Bush and Clinton administrations and which is not condoned by the UN. Does that practice justify bombing to try to have it stopped?

The use of extraordinary by the Clinton administration was very different from Bush II. During the Clinton administration, subjects were arrested and taken to other countries, but there were rules that protected the subjects from beatings and torture by Syrian and Egyptian authorities. This changed under the Bush administration, which allowed the kinds of torture that under Saddam Hussein was reprehensible, but in Syria is de rigueur.

Yes, it can; that is what the entire branch of philosophy called "ethics" is about.

Thank you, I was beginning to think my definition of ethics had become unfashionable.

[mgguy]

I'm sorry, but your argument is laughable. The subject was "terror", not "mild disquiet".

I said fear, not "mild disquiet." Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary defines fear as "an agitated feeling aroused by awareness of actual or threatening danger or trouble; terror; an uneasy feeling that something may happen contrary to one's desires." It also lists fear as a synonym for terror. So I think my comment that Ayers' bombing caused people to have fear is accurate, and could even be considered to have caused people to feel terror. It then is not too far of a stretch to consider his bombing to be terrorism and him to be a terrorist.

Either you are being entirely disingenuous or your sense of proportion is terminally damaged.

Ouch!

[hulugu]

...So I think my comment that Ayers' bombing caused people to have fear is accurate, and could even be considered to have caused people to feel terror. It then is not too far of a stretch to consider his bombing to be terrorism and him to be a terrorist....

However, using this definition we could lump dozen of crimes, even vandalism as forms of terrorism. The definition is too broad to be useful.

Terrorism is about using violence, specifically anonymous and/or random violence, against a civilian population in order to enact political aims. I'd argue that the WUO was a terrorist group, but far less of a danger than the other various criminal groups that operated throughout the United States during the 20th Century. People who blow up statues and offices are completely different from those who ignited a car bomb on Wall Street or those who attacked the LA Times building.

To round back to the primary subject, I'm still against the creation of a law that has been aimed at a specific person. That it's being done by a politician, who obviously trying to score points with some of his constituents, makes it even more disingenuous.

[mgguy]

Yes, it can; that is what the entire branch of philosophy called "ethics" is about.

Even in the field of Ethics there is no agreed upon definition of right and wrong. Schools of ethics in Western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity, and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person possessing them and that person's society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number. I think this demonstrates that there is not one absolute, unchanging definition of what constitutes ethical (right or wrong) behavior. And we haven't even gotten into ethics within Eastern philosophy. Since ethics don't exist in the real (physical) world, it is false and somewhat lazy to think that you can always know what is right behavior.

IIf everything is a matter of opinion, then by what standard can we hold any action including Ayers?

One good standard to judge his actions is the legal one. We could have tried him in a court of law and applied appropriate punishment within the law if he were convicted. Of course, his case was thrown out because evidence against him was obtained inappropriately, but this still demonstrates my point.


The use of extraordinary by the Clinton administration was very different from Bush II. During the Clinton administration, subjects were arrested and taken to other countries, but there were rules that protected the subjects from beatings and torture by Syrian and Egyptian authorities. This changed under the Bush administration, which allowed the kinds of torture that under Saddam Hussein was reprehensible, but in Syria is de rigueur.

The ACLU does not agree with you. They have charged and offered evidence that Clinton's extraordinary rendition program used enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and hanging prisoners upside down for long periods. It was Bill Clinton who turned rendition into a full fledged program and in fact authorized over 70 renditions prior to Sept. 11, 2001. And from what I have heard (though I could be wrong), Obama has not taken rendition off the table as an option that could be used by his administration.

[mgguy]

However, using this definition we could lump dozen of crimes, even vandalism as forms of terrorism. The definition is too broad to be useful.

Terrorism is about using violence, specifically anonymous and/or random violence, against a civilian population in order to enact political aims. I'd argue that the WUO was a terrorist group, but far less of a danger than the other various criminal groups that operated throughout the United States during the 20th Century. People who blow up statues and offices are completely different from those who ignited a car bomb on Wall Street or those who attacked the LA Times building.

To round back to the primary subject, I'm still against the creation of a law that has been aimed at a specific person. That it's being done by a politician, who obviously trying to score points with some of his constituents, makes it even more disingenuous.

You have made some good points here and I agree with much of what you have said, especially the last paragraph.

[hulugu]

....The ACLU does not agree with you. They have charged and offered evidence that Clinton's extraordinary rendition program included enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and hanging prisoners upside down for long periods. It was Bill Clinton who turned rendition into a full fledged program and in fact authorized over 70 renditions prior to Sept. 11, 2001. And from what I have heard (though I could be wrong), Obama has not taken rendition off the table as an option that could be used by his administration.

Yes, I know the ACLU has charged that Clinton's program included such techniques. Others, including those close to the program, bring this into doubt.

Nonetheless, a program that includes extraordinary rendition and abuse should be halted. I have no problem with grabbing someone and taking them to another location, especially with some agreement by local authorities, but I have a serious problem with either allowing those prisoners to be abused or doing it ourselves.

[mactastic]

The ACLU does not agree with you. They have charged and offered evidence that Clinton's extraordinary rendition program used enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and hanging prisoners upside down for long periods.
Oh! Here's one I've wanted to know for a while too -- when do we believe the ACLU, and when don't we? Like, when they say Limbaughs have rights too, we believe them, right? And when they criticize Clinton, we believe them too, right? But when they criticize Bush, we don't believe them anymore?

Did I get it right? :p

[hulugu]

Oh! Here's one I've wanted to know for a while too -- when do we believe the ACLU, and when don't we? Like, when the say Limbaughs have rights too, we believe them, right? And when they criticize Clinton, we believe them too, right? But when they criticize Bush, we don't believe them anymore?

Did I get it right? :p

Ironically, in this case they might have it wrong. Generally, I agree with the ACLU, but they don't seem to understand that the Clinton program had some limits and controls, and by conflating it with the Bush program, they're hurting the argument that what the Bushies did was wrong and stupid.

[mactastic]

Ironically, in this case they might have it wrong. Generally, I agree with the ACLU, but they don't seem to understand that the Clinton program had some limits and controls, and by conflating it with the Bush program, they're hurting the argument that what the Bushies did was wrong and stupid.
That's my understanding as well. From what I've seen, the programs were run quite differently under Clinton versus under Bush. The ACLU would do well to make this distinction.

But some of us make these decisions on the merits of each case...

[CalBoy]

Even in the field of Ethics there is no agreed upon definition of right and wrong. Schools of ethics in Western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity, and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person possessing them and that person's society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number. I think this demonstrates that there is not one absolute, unchanging definition of what constitutes ethical (right or wrong) behavior. And we haven't even gotten into ethics within Eastern philosophy. Since ethics don't exist in the real (physical) world, it is false and somewhat lazy to think that you can always know what is right behavior.

Once again, you've dodged what I've been trying to get from you.

Whatever your ethical system (and I know you have one as you've expressed it in other threads before), use it to explain whether or not you think waterboarding is right or wrong.

There, that's it. Very simple and direct. We don't need to sit here and go through Philosophy 101 in order to get your opinion on the matter.

[mgguy]

Whatever your ethical system (and I know you have one as you've expressed it in other threads before), use it to explain whether or not you think waterboarding is right or wrong.


I don't think waterboarding (or any other interrogation technique for that matter) should be ruled out as an option in cases where the information being sought is critical to know to save lives and the technique used has a high likelihood of eliciting the desired information from the particular person being interrogated. However, I do not support its use as a general practice. You may not agree with me on this, but please don't tell me that I am wrong just because it does not meet your or someone else's "ethical" standards. If you want to argue that it is illegal, then please make your case and I will consider it.

[branjosef]

I go to UIC . Bill Ayers is a D-bag, but at the same time, there is no way he will get fired. Not now, not ever unless he does something really stupid -which he won't. They have to face the fact that they screwed up and he got off on a technicality. They need to just leave him alone...he's harmless now

[CalBoy]

I don't think waterboarding (or any other interrogation technique for that matter) should be ruled out as an option in cases where the information being sought is critical to know to save lives and the technique used has a high likelihood of eliciting the desired information from the particular person being interrogated. However, I do not support its use as a general practice.

If it's okay for someone you think has sensitive information, why isn't it okay against the murder or rape suspect in any police station in America? They have information too don't they?

And why is the likelihood of success important? Does it become less painful/traumatic if the government gets what it needs?

Is it torture in some cases and not in others? How do we know this?

[mgguy]

If it's okay for someone you think has sensitive information, why isn't it okay against the murder or rape suspect in any police station in America? They have information too don't they?


You may be onto something here.

[CalBoy]

You may be onto something here.

What about my other questions?

And why is the likelihood of success important? Does it become less painful/traumatic if the government gets what it needs?

Is it torture in some cases and not in others? How do we know this?

[mgguy]

And why is the likelihood of success important

Does it become less painful/traumatic if the government gets what it needs?

Is it torture in some cases and not in others? How do we know this?

It would not make sense to use an interrogation technique that is not likely to work for that particular individual.

I would imagine that those who continue to withhold information may be subjected to longer interrogation and hence more pain.

I believe that you would call it torture under any circumstances. Different laws may define it differently.

[CalBoy]

It would not make sense to use an interrogation technique that is not likely to work for that particular individual.

How would you know this ahead of time? Wouldn't you have to try it first to know how susceptible someone is to a particular method of torture?

Moreover, does it matter if it works? I mean hypothetically you can simulate the sensation of dying any number of ways. Are they all acceptable as long as they work?

I would imagine that those who continue to withhold information may be subjected to longer interrogation and hence more pain.

So logically someone who knows nothing could be among the most tortured. Is that acceptable?

I believe that you would call it torture under any circumstances. Different laws may define it differently.

If someone thinks they are going to die, that is torture in my book. I think that anytime you simulate death for the purposes of coercion, you've crossed a line.

My greater troubles with torture and waterboarding in particular, however, deal with the fact that in order to sustain such an activity, one must violate due process, because no lawyer would ever allow his/her client to ever stick around for such an interview.

[mactastic]

I don't think waterboarding (or any other interrogation technique for that matter) should be ruled out as an option in cases where the information being sought is critical to know to save lives and the technique used has a high likelihood of eliciting the desired information from the particular person being interrogated. However, I do not support its use as a general practice. You may not agree with me on this, but please don't tell me that I am wrong just because it does not meet your or someone else's "ethical" standards. If you want to argue that it is illegal, then please make your case and I will consider it.
And I suppose you would feel the same way if American soldiers were being waterboarded in Tehran? You'd be on these boards calming everyone who's out for blood down and saying that it's acceptable because the Iranians probably felt that there was a high likelihood that the Americans had information critical to saving Iranian lives, and the technique had a high likelihood of eliciting the desired information?

[mgguy]

My greater troubles with torture and waterboarding in particular, however, deal with the fact that in order to sustain such an activity, one must violate due process, because no lawyer would ever allow his/her client to ever stick around for such an interview.

This form of interrogation has been used sparingly and almost exclusively on terrorists who are not soldiers of another recognized state, are not US citizens, and are incarcerated outside of US territories. I don't believe the due process laws that protect US citizens are applied in these cases. Wasn't this topic a subject of strong debate a few weeks ago when Obama said he wanted all foreign detainees to receive the same legal due-process protections afforded to US citizens?

Sorry, but I don't have answers to you other posted questions.

[CalBoy]

This form of interrogation has been used sparingly and almost exclusively on terrorists who are not soldiers of another recognized state, are not US citizens, and are incarcerated outside of US territories.

The problem is, we don't know this to be true. Most of the people that have subjected to waterboarding have never been before a judge; we're taking the torturer's word that they are terrorists.

Besides that, should it matter if someone is a soldier or not? Can't we say that torture is wrong because it hurts a fellow human?

I don't believe the due process laws that protect US citizens are applied in these cases.
Why not? Due process is protected for non-citizens in most other cases so why not this?

Sorry, but I don't have answers to you other posted questions.

Then maybe you should think more about this. Condoning or passively supporting the torture of others is something that would weigh on my conscience.

[mgguy]

The problem is, we don't know this to be true. Most of the people that have subjected to waterboarding have never been before a judge; we're taking the torturer's word that they are terrorists.

Besides that, should it matter if someone is a soldier or not? Can't we say that torture is wrong because it hurts a fellow human?

If they are military soldiers of another state they would be covered by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War which has been widely interpreted to not allow waterboarding. Terrorist act on their own behalf and are not protected by the GC ruling according to some legal experts.


Why not? Due process is protected for non-citizens in most other cases so why not this?

Then maybe you should think more about this. Condoning or passively supporting the torture of others is something that would weigh on my conscience.

Good questions. Hard to answer. One point of view against giving due process in extreme cases when there are a lot of lives at stake (for example when a terrorist is thought to have knowledge of another impending attack like 9/11) is that the information being sought is needed immediately and that the normal judicial process would not be as likely to extract the information from high-value detainees like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

It is only natural that condoning of waterboarding would weigh on one's conscience. It is not something that should be chosen lightly.

[Gelfin]

You may be onto something here.

The fact that you have even for a moment considered allowing American police officers to torture confessions out of domestic criminal suspects undermines any pretense of credibility you have.

You need to rethink that, but quick.

[mgguy]

The fact that you have even for a moment considered allowing American police officers to torture confessions out of domestic criminal suspects undermines any pretense of credibility you have.

You need to rethink that, but quick.

I guess you are tone-deaf to sarcasm.

[Gelfin]

I guess you are tone-deaf to sarcasm.

Not really. You've taken the up "pro" position in regard to torturing people, and you've demonstrated a penchant for taking up absurd positions if you think they'll help you win an argument. I'm not sure how you expect people to know what you're not serious about.

[mgguy]

Not really. You've taken the up "pro" position in regard to torturing people, and you've demonstrated a penchant for taking up absurd positions if you think they'll help you win an argument. I'm not sure how you expect people to know what you're not serious about.

I guess I will have to revert to using emoticons. How's this: :rolleyes:

[CalBoy]

If they are military soldiers of another state they would be covered by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War which has been widely interpreted to not allow waterboarding. Terrorist act on their own behalf and are not protected by the GC ruling according to some legal experts.

Problem is, we don't know who is who. Some of the people who were tortured were picked up on the street by bounty hunters that needed to get their quota filled.

And even if we leave that aside, it doesn't imply that just because some people are protected from torture that others can't be. Torture is torture, no matter who the victim is.


Good questions. Hard to answer. One point of view against giving due process in extreme cases when there are a lot of lives at stake (for example when a terrorist is thought to have knowledge of another impending attack like 9/11) is that the information being sought is needed immediately and that the normal judicial process would not be as likely to extract the information from high-value detainees like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Does that mean that the ends justifies the means? That's not a trait most of us want in a justice system is it?

It is only natural that condoning of waterboarding would weigh on one's conscience. It is not something that should be chosen lightly.

And yet as Americans we allowed it to happen for years.