Posted on 03/26/2003 3:30:38 PM PST by SMEDLEYBUTLER
Commentary and Consequences
Do protesters have the right to assail the war during hostilities? Of course. Are they morally responsible for the consequences of their protest? You betcha.
by Hugh Hewitt
03/26/2003 3:25:00 PM
|
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky has been my colleague in the commentary business for a decade, and for the past three years a weekly guest, along with Chapman Law School Professor John Eastman, on my radio program. Together we try to make the issues of constitutional law entertaining and accessible. Erwin is hard left but brilliant, one of the intellectual architects of the Estrada filibuster, for example, and one of the self-appointed guardians of the rights of al Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
He crossed a line yesterday, and I called him on it on the air. He's not alone in crossing this line, but his column is recent and available on the web, so it is a perfect example. In yesterday's ] Los Angeles Times he wrote:
"On Sunday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly invoked international law in condemning Iraq's treatment of American prisoners of war . . . Rumsfeld's hypocrisy here is enormous. For two years, the Bush administration has ignored and violated international law and thus has undermined the very legitimacy of the treaties and principles that constitute the law of nations. Though we all hope, of course, for the quick and safe return of the American prisoners of war, the fact is that--unfortunately--Iraq and other nations may feel much freer today to violate international law in the way they treat war captives and the way they wage war. . . . The United States cannot expect other nations to treat our prisoners in accord with international law if we ignore it. If the United States wants other nations to live by the rule of law, it too must do so."
Not only is the argument wrong, but Erwin does not include even a routine denunciation of the idea that the Iraqis "may feel much freer today to violate international law." They ought not to so feel, and Erwin should have included that message. In fact, as Erwin put it, the article might well encourage the Iraqis to think such criminal thoughts, and to base their behavior towards our POWs on his twisted logic. If there is any restraint at all within this sadistic regime, it cannot be deep and we ought not to be encouraging its corrosion.
I pressed Erwin if he had considered that his writing could be read in Iraq and that it might have consequences. He avoided the question, and objected that I was questioning his loyalty. He avoided opining even on the morality of Jane Fonda's visit to North Vietnam so many years ago or of this sign carried in "peace" demonstrations over the weekend: "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers." In short, Erwin had no firm opinion except that the U.S. government is violating international law.
Though he did not intend it, Erwin's piece is an invitation to the Iraqi brutes to continue in their mistreatment of our prisoners and in their underhanded tactics on the battlefield. I asked Erwin how he would feel if our post-war investigations turned up his article in "The Ministry of Justice." He scoffed at the idea. This is willful blindness about the reach of modern media, and it is not Erwin's problem alone. The antiwar/anti-Bush crowd abandoned all self-restraint months ago, but they ought not to be allowed to pretend that their actions won't have consequences abroad.
The Iraqi propaganda machine is vast and effective, as are the propaganda networks of our enemies in the rest of the world. Erwin's piece and every other bit of commentary is available anywhere there's a computer and a modem line. I watched in disbelief as POW's family was interviewed on TV a night ago, and prayed that Iraqi captors did not see it and glean from it details with which to torment the prisoner. I watch embedded journalists broadcast details of troop conditions and am shocked at the casual way the desires of the audience have overwhelmed ordinary caution.
And I read screed after screed in major newspapers about the motives of the Bush administration or the collapse of public support. With each one, I shook my head at the left's inability to exercise self-discipline even for this relatively brief period of actual combat. It is at best soft racism to assume that the enemy lacks the skill to exploit American media for its own purposes. In most of these instances, however, it is merely self-interested posing.
Erwin already raised the threat of McCarthyism in response to my criticism--the first refuge of the irresponsible in search of cover--so let me also add the ritual incantation that it is the absolute right of the left to be irresponsible, dangerous, and unethical. But the public should be heard on this matter, and the Michael Moore caucus cannot expect to endanger the lives of troops and still enjoy the acclaim--or even the patience--of Americans who know better.
Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. |
Hugh, love your show.....
I heard your discussion with Erwin regarding his article in the LA Times. I was glad to hear you admonish him, and I could hear him bristle at the tone of your question. He should have been bristling. I don't think your assertions could be strong enough. As a former Marine and now a Naval Reservist, I too was deeply incensed by Erwin's continued assertions that there was nothing wrong with what he wrote if not being out and out immoral! Your analogy of Jane Fonda's treasonous acts, and they were nothing less than treasonous acts, when she went to Viet Nam, was right on. And as you know her actions lead to the beating of some of the prisoners. She should have been prosecuted for those acts.
In today's world when a publication is obtainable around the world, nearly instantaneously, Erwin's assertions most certainly will be used to beat prisoners of war in Iraq and could very well lead to summary executions, as the Iraqi's have demonstrated that they have no compunction to adhere to any semblance of international standard of conduct, Erwin's assertions regarding the US Government not withstanding.
It is beyond reproach if not complete naiveté' of the practices of warfare for Erwin to assert that he did nothing wrong. These are the very things that thugs like Sadam prey upon to use as a propaganda effort to continue to assert his ill gotten authority. Just like when the Iraqi's use women and children as shields because they have not the courage to face what they believe in when someone bigger than they appear to set the record straight. Erwin is wrong and God prey he is not dead wrong for the US prisoners of war now in Iraq. I don't think you can land on Erwin hard enough. This is the kind of stupidity, and it is stupidity Erwin, that when the opportunity presents itself one gets more than sorely tempted resort to fist-to-cuff for compromising the lives of valiant young fighting men and women of which Erwin has not the courage nor deserves to stand in the same room as these dedicated young warriors answering the call of a nation at a time of war. The time for dissention is over. Erwin, you disgust me, and shame on you and your silly nit witted arguments. Erwin, if you have an ounce of resolve, I challenge you to go to the theater and become an imbedded correspondent, get out of your clean sterile ivory tower and your sheltered life, for once in your life and go to the front and see how wrong, if not dead wrong you are, you self centered, self-serving silly little man.
I find it truly astonishing for liberals like Erwin, of whom I'm sure has never made even the simplest studies of warfare and what it takes to conduct warfare, can make all kinds of legal arguments and blather on and on regarding superfluous arguments. And yet he still understands nothing of the military, its purposes much less the uniqueness of the US military, nor military service, what it is to serve or sense of duty. He likely doesn't understand that the US military is unique in the world in that we swear an allegiance to a document, the Constitution, not the government or superior officers. I do not believe any other force in the world does this. Which is a little scary concerning what the Clinton Administration attempted to do regarding US military allegiance, but that is for another time. Just like that stupid inane sign in San Francisco, "soldiers shoot your officers."
These kinds of assertions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of a military force much less the reality of the US military and its uniqueness in the world. As a military member, we are obligated to dis-obey an illegal order from a superior officer or we are subject to the consequences of the illegal act. No one on the left gets that. Leftists still think it is just about power. And all you have to do is have the power and you can do what leftists want. As if soldiers were in charge we wouldn't be at war, so shoot the officers to solve the problem. This is why it is frightening for a leftist to be involved in international affairs, or be in charge of anything for that matter, they don't get it that there are people and governments in the world that would just as soon kills us as look at us. Liberals don't understand that you negotiate with your enemy with your knee in his chest and you knife at his throat. Leftists try to negotiate with these fanatical entities thinking all the time if you just talk you can assert the rightness of a leftist position, if you will, all potential conflict will be averted, i.e. Tom Daschle.
The real paradox is, it is leftist ideology, modern liberalism that the fanatical Islamics hate so much, and are willing to kill us for it. Women having rights, open sexuality particularly displayed by women, abortion on demand, alcohol consumption, elicit drug use, gambling, homosexuality, modern materialism, and tolerance of these things, etc. The very things that the fringe left so wants to embellish their rights to assert. Yet here we are going to war to in effect to end oppression and hatred of modern liberalism, and it is the left in American and around the world that is backing Sadam. If we back out now, Sadam wins and becomes stronger than ever. So the anti-war movement is nothing short of a pro Sadam movement. The left still does not get it.
I thank my lucky stars on a daily basis for George W, Don Rumsfeld, Condie Rice, Colin Powell, Gen Franks, Gen Meyers and the JACCS we now have. We live in extraordinary times and thankfully we have extraordinary individuals in key places in a time of need.
Tell Erwin to put his column where the sun don't shine. http://www.hughhewitt.com/Garvey_Erwin_Response.html
.POWs and the New Media:
Hugh Hewitt warns of danger to troops from Hollywood blathering
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, March 26, 2003 | Hugh Hewitt
Posted on 03/26/2003 4:42 AM PST by JohnHuang2
For the duration of the war, I suggest you change your home page to the POW-MIA and casualty page of Have You Forgotten. The presence of POWs changes everything about how Americans should speak publicly about the war. It is, of course, the right of every American to be a dishonorable and dishonest lout like Michael Moore, but the fact of American POWs and the instantaneous operation of modern media changes the ethics of commentary during the war.
It will not be a long war, though it will have and already has had an enormous cost attached to it for any family that loses a loved one. There will be no great sacrifice by the television and radio talking heads and the larger blathering class, if they collectively keep anti-American rants to themselves for the duration. But there could be enormous costs for POWs for those who shout screeds into open mikes while Americans are captive.
My friend Rich Botkin wrote about the effects of the useful idiots of the Vietnam generation in a recent WorldNetDaily column that I suggest you read. POWs are susceptible to enough abuse without providing fodder to their captors, which Michael Moore surely did on Monday night.
If Moore hasn't already considered it, he ought to be thinking about the reception he will receive if it turns out that his frothings were replayed for any of our captives. His website apparently shut down yesterday, and I doubt it was because of the congratulations he received. If any of our captives comes home and lets it be known that Moore's incoherence was part of their abuse, we can only hope that no one ever exhibits his silly pictures again.
These are the consequences of a wired world and dish networks. I cringe when I see any interview that could be used to harass prisoners, and there are many such interviews. Of course, the propaganda value of Moore and his like is already high for our enemies, but this is just a cost of freedom: Idiots can get amplification.
But since self-discipline is the only discipline that will ever be applied to the posers of the left, perhaps if they can see the faces of those that might suffer more because of their self-indulgence, they will display a little decency. The odds are not great that they will, but the website above is a good place to start...
CLICK HERE for the rest of the thread
(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)
Good article. Thanks Ron and John.
He didn't hammer that pissant little worm hard enough, you ask me. And don't kid yourself about Erwin. He's not merely just a blind deluded fool. He's a card-carrying member of the America-haters. Him and his band of fellow travelers.
No wonder people hate lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.