The Arbitrary Murder of Civilians: Still Wrong
Since I’m mentioned by name in the Greenwald post referenced by Paul below, I thought I should respond:
But the angriest reactions came from progressive bloggers, who widely denounced Reynolds as “contemptible” for suggesting this; one progressive writer, Lindsay Beyerstein, was horrified that one could even suggest such a thing, explaining that she ”despair[s] for our society when it’s necessary to supply a rigorous analytical exposition of why our government shouldn’t have scientists and religious leaders whacked.” Scott Lemieux railed against what he called Reynolds’ “kooky scheme for illegal death squads” as “crackpot,” “dumb” and “nuttier than a Planters factory.”
[...]
I have no doubt that Professors Campos and Heller would apply the same legal rationale now that it’s actually being done, but what about the progressives who so stridently denounced Reynolds? Does Lemieux still believe that whoever is responsible — Israel, the U.S., or some combination — is guilty of dispatching “illegal death squads”?
The answer, quite simply, is yes. If the United States was involved in the killings — and we should stress the “if” here — the Obama administration’s actions were both illegal and immoral, for the same reasons stated in my earlier posts. I don’t know if the assassination of civilians violates Israeli law, but if the state of Israel was involved its actions were certainly wrong.
UPDATE: Hardee-har-har.
Greenwald knows that “the answer, quite simply, is yes.” He lies about having doubt because being holier-than-thou is his primary calling in life.
Don’t you mean assholier-than-thou?
That too.
Is Greenwald on a quest to embarrass himself as often as possible in 2012? Was this his New Year’s resolution?
The answer, quite simply, is yes.
I say no. He just can’t help it. He’s constructed this little world where he’s Jesus and everyone else are sinners who can only be redeemed by coming to Him, and he’s incapable of thinking or writing outside of that frame of reference.
Yes, it was so embarrassing what he did, calling on liberal bloggers to be consistent by denouncing the murder of scientists, that Scott promptly responded by writing a post denouncing the murder of scientists.
He’s such an embarrassment, GG is, that he’s been the focus of about nineteen blog posts here and about a million comments.
You’d think unembarrassing bloggers like you would be able to ignore the embarrassing GG, yet he virtually rules your world. Weird that.
So has Dick Cheney.
Do you have a point other than defending the guy in the poster above your bed?
Take two: so has Ann Althouse.
Making fun of self-righteous idiots is just fun.
Did Scott ever bang out a blog post in response to an Ann Althouse request that he write just such a blogpost?
You can certainly criticize Greenwald — I often do, contrary to your silliness — but to call him an embarrassment doesn’t jibe with what just went down.
1. GG says: Scott should do this.
2. Scott does this.
There’s not shame in what Scott did. At GG request, Scott took a stand. Kudos, I say. But that’s not how you respond to an embarrassment.
You’re got your timeline wrong there, david.
1. Scott does this – years ago.
2. Greenwald says: Scott won’t do this again.
3. Scott does it again.
It rather changes your jumping-to-Greenwald’s-tune thesis when you include all of the facts.
?
You’re actually arguing that Scott’s post wasn’t a direct response to the “embarrassment’s” post?
No.
I’m afraid we’re at a lead-a-horse-to-water moment here. I don’t think it’s possible for me to express what I’m saying any clearer than I already have.
No, I get it. You’re objecting to GG’s charge that Scott wouldn’t take a stand on this because Obama is now in the White House. Perhaps that’s unfair, because Scott’s shown himself not to be in the tank, but it’s impossible to deny the underlying point, the many of the liberals who screamed over Bush’s transgressions are silent when Obama does same. I wish people would just admit this with a perfectly defensible partisan argument: Because Obama is a Democrat whom we generally support. What’s wrong with partisanship?
I think this part of Greenwald’s post was stupid and silly and reflects very badly on him.
If Scott or Lindsey had come out pro-killing or pro-excusing-killing then it would be laudable to call them out. Calling them out because of what he thinks they won’t do (but he does think Paul would do? Wha?) is pure jackassery.
And really, it’s a bullshit manipulative double binding move on his part. Supposed Scott doesn’t write anything (because, after all, at the moment we don’t have a concrete accusation against the administration, and one doesn’t have to respond to everything all the time; if Obama is responsible for such murders I will be bitter; it will feel more personal as I’m of Iranian descent; it will feel more hurtful because I was really quite moved by Obama acknowledging Noruz and was hoping it signaled a change in policy) then Greenwald’s insinuations are bolstered; Scott writes what anyone who paid the slightest attention knows he would write, and Greenwald has a “win”: He’s “keeping Scott honest” or whatever.
This is really annoying and reminds me of that other right wing trope wherein if some liberal fails to denounce some specific thing in the right way at the right time, then they are pro that awful think, or “soft” on it.
Sometimes silence is wrong, which makes these cheap moves worse.
And, really, the “underlying point” should be that this is wrong and horrible, not that some liberals may or may not be hypocritical in a partian way.
Since Obama is most certainly NOT “doing the same,” it is indeed quite easy to deny that specious point.
Obama is not doing the same indeed. He’s doing worse. Who was it that killed an American citizen first? Huh? O-B-A-M-A.
There’s no “perfectly” defensible argument for partisan hypocrisy, but at the same time, exhibiting some tendency toward more muted criticism of a figure with whom you associate yourself is just simply unremarkable. What makes Greenwald so tedious is that he tries to make so much of this banal triviality, and to suggest that displaying this common tendency renders views that people do express presumptively insincere.
What is important is to note what it is that partisans and non-partisans alike criticize political figures for, and to consider the criticism on the merits of the arguments used to advance it, in light of the facts available at the time it is advanced. The rest is nothing more than profitless venting of spleen.
GG never said he wouldn’t be consistent; he asked if he would still be consistent. I’m glad to see he still is.
Speaking of, did you see Ta-Nehisi Coates embarrass himself with this post praising Paul’s stance on Iran?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-radical-imagination/250915/
Mmm, because agreeing with Ron Paul on individual issues is precisely the complaint.
That’s all that GG does, contrary to the claims here.
And as you know, rec’d diaries at Kos argue that liberals shouldn’t do what Coates does here.
Utter horse shit.
What he does that is the actual subject of criticism is repeatedly, histrionically insult the morality and intellectual respectability of those who disagree with him (or who he thinks disagree with him). What do you think all of that “Ron Paul holds up a mirror to progressives” horse shit was about? Explicating details of Paul’s position?
Well, shit, david, even your nonsense gets rec’d at Kos.
true.
Today we have David “Theodore” Mizner and Joe F. Lowell, Esquire, who have traveled to us all the way from 2004 to present a discussion of Kos diaries.
Generally, I would go with joe is the asshole but in comparison to mizner it is a tough call.
Here is my vision of the future: a boot stomping on a laptop, +1-ing this comment forever.
That’s all that GG does, contrary to the claims here.
This just isn’t true. If all he said is that Paul is right about some things, nobody would have criticized him.
The implication Greenwald was making was that Scott wouldn’t do it, despite the fact that it was very obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with Scott, that he would.
Greenwald knowingly made an obviously false, veiled accusation against Scott and Lindsay Beyerstein. Someone capable of being so would be ashamed.
knowingly?
I don’t know about that.
We seem to be at a “stupid or evil” question.
I take the third position – neither a lie nor a mistake, but bullshit. Greenwald didn’t really care whether his accusations against Scott were true.
It’s both bullshit and a lie. Just because Greenwald doesn’t care whether what he says is true or not doesn’t mean he doesn’t know that his words are false. In this case it’s far and away most likely that both hold true.
While it pays to distinguish between bullshit and lies, its also important to remember that there’s overlap between the two.
He clearly said that he did not know how progressive bloggers would respond. That he referenced Lemieux in the article but did not include him among the list of people that he was “convinced” would remain intellectually consistent, is not the same as accusing him of intellectual dishonesty. It is merely stating the truth, namely that liberal bloggers have generally avoided critizing Obama as aggressively (if at all) for the same crimes committed by Bush for which were their singular focus just 4 short years ago. If Glenn had outright accused the writer that would be one thing, he simply stated that he was not aware. I commend Lemieux for responding as he did. Clearly he understood the necessity of displaying his consistency.
No, the (correct) charge was not that he wouldn’t but that he hadn’t. But now he has, thanks to the embarrassment.
Embarrassment? Really? You buy that Greenwald did something useful here?
That’s embarrassing for you.
Even if contrary to all evidence Scott would have praised this action if it were done by the Obama administration what value would there be in this forced denunciation? I’m fine with forcing denunciation from people who matter (e.g., Obama! I’d love it if he felt compelled to denounce it; better yet if he could stop it). But WTF is the point of “compelling” some blogger to this avoid “embarrassment”?
It was a nasty insinuation.
BTW, you know what Greenwald could have done? He could have written Scott and Lindsey and asked for a comment on the record. But, it seems that Greenwald sucks, so that wasn’t an option.
I don’t think what Greenwald did here was useful. I think it was a distraction.
But the comparisons to the Ol’ Perfesser and the Lesser Perfesser upthread are ludicrous.
GG is on the same side of an important issue as Scott, Lindsay, and most of the people who blog here. His grandstanding about what Scott and Lindsay might say was silly, unfair, and, at best, an enormous waste of time of everyone’s time. But he’s still working the opposite side of the street from Althouse and Reynolds.
Is he? How long before he becomes, “Even the liberal Glen Greenwald…”?
Distraction from what? Is the joint Israel-U.S. covert war on Iran not as important as… what? the republican primary?
Yes, I do. I’m with Campos on this.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/01/the-function-of-a-gadfly
I’ll reply over there.
Perhaps Glenn can help us clarify where various liberal bloggers stand on kitten strangling, slavery and nuclear war for fun and profit. Now that Obama is president, we can’t be sure anymore, right? Maybe he can embarrass them into doing the right thing.
Why? Has there been an uptick in kitten strangling since Obama took office and evidence points to veiled U.S. support for the policy?
Here Here!
How embarrassing indeed!
I believe ‘targeted killings’ are legal under Israeli law. They have used them extensively in the past against Palestinian leaders. Assassinations are of course illegal under current US law.
And that would be either a mistaken belief or total fiction. Usual bullshit on your part Otto.
Do you have a citation to the section of Israeli law which permits it?
Assassinations although illegal by every nation under the sun (except for maybe North Korea), are still carried out for international political reasons. They just don’t talk about it openly or try to make excuses for it. I think its the whole trying to morally and legally justify such actions which rankles feathers here
The Israelis didn’t even reveal its plot to kill off the Black September members until forced to by Norwegian police officials after they accidentally killed an innocent waiter by accident. After that it was one part bragging after the fact, the other part moralizing hand-wringing in public.
The Israeli Supreme Court certainly believes that some targeted killings are legal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6178641.stm
Please do not feed the Zionist trolls. He knows that the Israeli supreme court upheld targeted killings as legal just as he knew that 92% of land in Israel behind the Green line is reserved for Jews only. He only pretends not to know to annoy people. There is tough competition between the Zionists and the Stalinists to be the most annoying people on the Internet. Spud’s job is to make sure the Zionists do not lose their current crown.
Some targeted killings are legal under Israeli law and some are not. Whether the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists is legal under Israeli law is something I don’t believe anyone on this list is qualified to opine on (unless we have some lawyers fluent in Hebrew who have read the relevant Israeli statutes and case law).
All I said that was targeted killings were legal under Israeli law not that all such killing were. But, given the defacto policy of widespread Israeli assassinations I do not think what the court thinks is terribly relevant.
You said that targeted killings were legal under Israeli law. The clear implication of that statement is that all targeted killings are legal. Thats wrong. Some targeted killings (Bin Laden for example) are legal under US law. The killing of Iranian scientists would not be. The question here is not whether Israeli law makes some targeted killings legal; the question is whether the killing of Iranian scientists is legal under Israeli and neither you nor I have the answer to that.
And I think the answer to that question is highly relevant (even if it is the case that the Mossad has conducted some killings that are illegal under Israeli law). Just like it is a relevant inquiry as to whether the targeted killing of a foreign civilian is legal under US law even if it is the case that the CIA has committed an illegal killing in the past.
I said I believde that targeted killing were legal under Israel law on the basis of the fact that it is their official policy regardless of what their court rules. Look you can defend any and all the crimes of Israel you want. But, whether they violate their own laws are not is not really a concern of mine. I just threw it out on the basis that I did remember something about the Israeli supreme court ruling that assassination was kosher. Apparently it is in some cases. I fail to see that it makes a lot of difference. Stalin violated the 1936 constitution a lot too.
When did Greenwald begin to formulate the theory that the entire ‘liberal blogosphere’ (outside of himself, of course) is cool with whatever as long as Obama does it?
When we didn’t riot in the streets after Obama failed to undo the previous eight years in his first 100 days.
In fairness, it’s only being an Obama apologist that makes me a strong critic of Ron Paul. I was a big fan of the Articles of Confederation before 2008.
And pointing out that very few, if any, stragegies exist to turn the Dems left makes one logically a crazed masochist and an advocate of a Kucinich/Mumia ticket. After all, trying to explain why the Dem leadership is complicit in the fake (not actually enacted)filibusters hindering progressive reform might reveal how centrist concerns with comity trump the charade of a liberal majority. Or it may involve positing a type of powerlessness upon the DNC and party bosses that is rarely seen outside the realm of presidents and domestic policy.
Is there any reason to think the US government was involved in all this? This looks very much like a Mossad operation, and I don’t see any particular reason to think the US is involved in this.
Greenwald is very careful about implying “some combination of US and Israeli involvement,” but is there any reason to think there’s US involvement? The fact that the US has been recruiting Iranian nuclear scientists as intelligence assets is certainly not evidence that they’re also carrying a separate campaign of assassination.
Unless some sort of evidence of US involvement surfaces, I don’t see any reason not to think this is an Israeli solo operation. Now, the US doesn’t seem to be doing much of anything to urge Israel against this, what with the winking and smiling and all, but that’s not the same thing – and I’m not sure we really have any leverage to stop Israel from doing this, even if we wanted to.
Of course we have leverage. We could stop giving them billions of dollars each year.
Whether that leverage would work isn’t clear, but given the money, all the diplomatic cover the US gives Israel at the UN (via Security Council vetoes), the US’s relationship with the IAEA, etc, etc, it’s hard to argue that the US isn’t at least partly complicit.
Based on what?
Supposition and a bit of Israel’s own past PR?
If Israel was involved, the US was probably involved too. US involvement as the more likely candidate simply by virtue of having a sizable enough Iranian expat population which despises the Islamic Republican government.
Its not the easiest thing to run a covert operation in a dictatorship. [Ex every failed operation to land US and allied spies into Nazi Germany and the USSR]
Especially one that already has its internal security forces a little jumpy from homegrown dissent. These things are usually more successful in less hostile territory
The executive branch of the US government could not credibly threaten to stop giving Israel billions of dollars each year.
There are of course things that, in theory, the US government could do to rein in Israel. Given that basically 520 or so of the 435 members of congress are wholly owned subsidiaries of AIPAC, there’s no chance of any of them being done in the real world.
Neither you nor Greenwald has any idea whether it was a Mossad operation or not.
Depends what you mean by “idea.”
We can assign a subjective probability, a la Bayesian statistics.
Even with as little information as we have, it seems the claim “Israel involved” is highly likely to be true, even if we don’t have lawyerly evidence one way or another.
You don’t have ANY information. Claiming anyone is highly likely to be true is pulling a supposition out of your behind.
Plus there is the nagging bit of reality seeping in. Both the US and Israel are not as good at this sort of thing as their public image suggests. [If the Israelis could pull this off, why is the leadership of Hamas still doing drawing breath?]
Most of their intelligence efforts done in the middle of a hostile nation end in miserable failure. We tend to hear more about the successes because people like to brag about what they did right.
Not having information specific to this incident is far different from not having any information at all. But of course you know that and you are choosing to ignore it and troll instead.
When you say “lawyerly evidence,” you mean “any evidence at all that would take my accusations beyond the realm of rank speculation,” right?
I agree. The CIA has been killing al Qaeda leaders for years, and the motorcycle bombing has yet to make an appearance. Mossad, on the other hand, has conducted similar operations against Palestinian targets over the years. Not to mention, while the US covert community is very much focused on al Qaeda, Israel is not. (Al Qaeda pretty much stays out of Israel).
Now, the cyber-attacks, on the other hand…
Also, I don’t think the post-Porter Goss CIA’s human side has the capability to pull off a campaign like this anymore. That’s one big reason why we’ve been relying on Predator drones and Special Forces instead of quiet individuals with suitcase bombs or pistols.
This another reason why we need Ron Paul to stay in the race: clearly, such assassinations should be contracted out to private mercenaries bearing letters of marque and reprisal.
Indeed. Operations like the Awlaki and bin Laden killings are way too professional, with far too few civilian casualties. What we need is to unleash 100 guys armed with M-14s and an afternoon on the Blackwater camp on a couple of square blocks in some ancient Middle Eastern city.
Let’s roll, in a very free-market manner.
I sense mockery in your response, jfL, but you must admit that the scenario you describe would be much more likely to abide by law and concern for civil liberties. Just like turning sole authority in the drug war over to people like Joe Arpaio.
Damn. You’re good.
Put this on pay-per-view, followed by a DVD with blooper scenes, and I think we have a winner. Have your people call my people. Let’s run this up the flagpole and see if the money salutes.
I now have an image of Bob Saget taking a moment to honor our troops before we get back to the bloopers.
Not Bob Saget. Richard Dawson’s character from Running Man. Dawson’s not dead yet…
What about Greenwald’s other question?
If your answer to this is yes as well, do you think whoever carried out these acts should be prosecuted, including Obama if he is responsible?
‘
Targeted assassinations aren’t generally considered terrorism.
If we define “terrorism” to mean everything, then it means nothing.
There are a lot of bad things in the world besides terrorism.
Also, none of the countries included on the list of state sponsors of terrorism has been included for supporting another state.
And finally, even if we were to define this assassination as terrorism, we’d have to show quite a bit more complicity in the activities of those conducting the “terrorism” than the aid we provide to the Israeli government. Lebanon isn’t on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, despite the support its government gives to Hezbollah, because it doesn’t support Hezbollah in its terrorist activities.
Speaking as a scientist who works for the miitary, I find the killings to be heinous. If my country is doing this, I’m fair game. I don’t like the idea of being fair game. I don’t want to be considered “game” at all.
The killings aren’t really terrorism, though. Terrorism is used to pressure a government or a people to change a policy. There’s no pressure here. The goal of the killings is to make a policy more difficult to carry out. The people of Iran won’t demand that their government change policy. The government of Iran won’t see the killings as a reason to change policy.
That being said, “state-sponsor-of-targetted-murders” isn’t morally superior to, “state-sponsor-of-terrorism”, though our foreign policy probably reflect that.
Should be “foreign policy probably does not reflect that”.
Are abortion clinic bombers and animal-right activists who commit violence against animal researchers not terrorists if their goal is to use fear to discourage people from certain types of work rather than to change policy?
Depe3nds on your definition of terrorism, a term that is often used to describe anything we disagree with that involves violence. I would reserve the use of terrorism to only include killing of innocents (the Twin Tower workers for example or the people in the Oklahoma City federal building or the bus passengers in Israel) and to not include targeted assasiantions even of animal researchers or abortion doctors or Iranian nuclear scientists. But other people may disagree. As currently used, I think its a fairly meaningless term because it covers too much.
The goals of the groups you mention are to change public/institutional policy, not merely to discourage people from working on these projects. Calling them terrorists is more clear cut, but I agree that the targeted assassinations are in the gray zone and could easily be included under a reasonable definition of terrorism (personally I am not sure if I do).
Well, I get that you don’t want to be fair game, but if you’re working with the military, then you almost certainly are. Sucks to be you.
Sucks to be me too, actually. While I’ve been assured that we don’t do any defense work here, I doubt very much that any potential enemies would just take our word for it.
You might be game, but you’re not fair game. Being in the military only makes you fair game in your country is legally engaged in hostilities with another country.
Yes, of course. But Israel and Iran are still technically in a state of war with each other.
My point is that a scientist working on weapons projects is just as legitimate a target as some schlep wearing a uniform and carrying a rifle.
What do you mean “technically”? I don’t think Iran and Israel have ever been in a war per se (i.e., in a declared war). Iran supports groups who have been, in some sense, at war with Israel, Israel plausible has some covert ops going against Iran, but I don’t think a state of war exists between them. Pointer?
It is a violation of the Geneva convention to target workers because of the skills they have. A munitions factory or a weapons lab would be legitimate military targets, but the factory workers or the scientists would not. If the workers are killed in an attack on their facilities, then thye would be legally defined as collateral casualties, but they could not be targetted directly.
If Obama has a secret Hitler poster in his lair, and if he salutes it daily, wouldn’t that make him a Nazi? And if he’s a Nazi, shouldn’t he be impeached?
Yes, though that seems implausible. That the US or its closest ally is responsible for the attacks on Iran does not seem so implausible.
Why are you and Greenwald conflating the idea that Israel is responsible (likely) with the idea that the US is responsible (less likely)?
Glenn believes that US aid to Israel makes the US responsible for everything Israel does.
Are you talking about Canada or England? Either way, extremely implausible.
I’m reading your question as sincere, rather than a Greenwaldian “have you stopped beating your kids” question.
Drum thinks so.
With the stipulation that, regardless of whether its specifically terrorism, it’s definitely very bad, I would guess that it would turn on whether it is aimed at operational disruption or intimidation. Drum:
If the goal isn’t to frighten other scientists but to eliminate strategic players, then it seems more “normal” military, with the obvious proviso that these are civilians, thus their targeting would be illegal.
I think war crimes should be prosecuted, but that strategic and political considerations tend to play a large role in whether they are (as with most prosecutions).
[...] if it were directed at me, especially to the extent I believed the implication was false. (Scott responded promptly and straightforwardly to that potential implication). Still, what Greenwald is doing in [...]
Why “stress” the if? Extra-judicial assassination of anyone in the world is standard US policy at this point, and the CIA has historically used car bombs for assassinations.
I suspect you didn’t bother to “stress the if” quite as often either a) when a Republican was calling the shots or b) in the case of alleged actions attributed to designated enemies (like Iran).
[...] III: Lemieux responds by saying: “If the United States was involved in the killings — and we should stress the [...]
[...] III: Lemieux responds by saying: “If the United States was involved in the killings — and we should stress the [...]
[...] III: Lemieux responds by saying: “If the United States was involved in the killings — and we should stress the [...]
Just for enterntainment value:
I really love the self pimping about Drum’s post. It’s really smooth (he’s just giving information! those are the possibilities, yes?).
[...] [...]
[...] III: Lemieux responds by saying: “If the United States was involved in the killings — and we should stress the [...]
[...] III: Lemieux responds by saying: “If a United States was concerned in a killings — and we should highlight a [...]