« Current Senate Filibuster Rules: And How The Republicans Have Changed Them Since 2000 | Main | Remember the 9/11 hearings? »

Kevin Drum has outlined how Scarborough and Fox started the witch-hunt against Ward Churchill, feeding the fire until the New York Times picked it up and off it went.

I fear we will see more and more of this over the next four years. And O'Reilly was actually calling for Churchill's arrest for sedition! What is happening to our country when an individual can't speak his or her mind, no matter how inflammatory?

This is indeed scarey stuff...

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. " (Schenck v. US (1919)

Maybe Churchill isn't quite yelling fire, but he is added fuel to fire by suggesting that the working stiffs that died in the WTC were little Eichmanns. Is he entitled? He has the same first amendment rights as anyone.. he can have unpopular views, as long as his views do not result in actual harm to citizenry. In that case, the state would have the right to protect the public against such eventualities. However, Churchill did not directly say... "Go kill some more of those fascist office workers in their white shirts and sensible shoes, oh my brothers against oppression." Therefore I think he is marginally protected against a charge of sedition. However, we can infer support for violent acts against civilians from his remarks. And, since we can, we must address ourselves to the issue of competence and appropriateness for his position.

Is this a witchhunt? I don't think so. It would be foolish if being inflammatory gave Churchill EXTRA protection from scrutiny. The right to voice an opinion does not include the right to avoid public censure. Neither is the tenure of the incompetent protected by a firestorm. Rabidly intolerant views on either side of the political spectrum, and support for violent attack on civilian populations for whatever reason, should not be tolerated by a liberal society.

It is important to note that there is nothing wrong with speaking out against American foreign policy. It is an important hallmark of democracy and the best protection against oppression. However, Churchill is not an appropriate spokesman. His diatribes do nothing to advance dialogue or educate the public. He is a sloppy thinking self promoter. His remarks do not inform or encourage discourse on American foreign policy. Far as I can tell they don't do much more than promote the Churchill name for future venues.

Audrey,

You write: "We can infer support for violent acts against civilians from his remarks."

I have to disagree with that statement. Although his remarks are certainly intended to be inflammatory (his essay was written only days after 9/11, btw), I can't see where he's calling for violent acts against civilians. He was merely stating his interpretation of the reason the WTC towers were attacked. By referencing Nazi Germany, he is certainly pushing some buttons, but if you follow his reasoning (as articulated recently), you can't deny that the American Capitalist system and our government's foreign policy has effects on other parts of the world - just like Nazi Germany's policies had during the 30's and 40's. And just as there were good-hearted Germans who supported the Nazi Regime, there are good-hearted Americans who support our government's actions. Both citizens are responsible for their government's actions, by default.

The fact that one government is an elected democracy and the other was a fascist dictatorship says nothing about whether the citenry supports now or supported then the actions of the respective governments.

You also claim: "Churchill is not an appropriate spokesman." I'd be interested in hearing an example of an "appropriate spokesman" to you. In my opinion, all Americans are appropriate spokesman, in that all citizens are protected by the First Amendment to state their opinions. Again, this is not the equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater. It is only an opinion. We must continue to fight for our citizen's right to speak out.

Audrey,

It is obvious that you did not read the essay and it appears as though you are just regurgitating sentiments that have been so irresponsibly disseminated in the mass media. Nowhere did he write anything that could be construed as a "support for violent acts against civilians". The point of the essay was to illustrate that such an attack was not warranted, but rather INEVITABLE given the way the United States projects itself in the world. Furthermore, the luxurious and consumption-based lifestyle that most Americans enjoy is made possible by legions of people starving to death in exchange and this devaluing and dehuminizing treatment of people is the source of the hatred that spawned 9-11. If you read what he actually wrote I don't see how you could really dispute much of that as it is both clearly articulated and reasonably-based thinking.
If by "working stiffs" you mean janitors, service workers, firemen etc...he clearly eliminates them from the catagorization of "little eichmans" stipulating that the Eichman discription was reserved for "technitions of empire" You would need a pretty good imagination to classify someone who pushes a broom or caters a lunch as a technition of empire. However, if by "working stiffs" you mean those who directly participated in and profited from the the US global economic empire then you would have correctly interpreted what it was that he wrote, but I think you would again need a pretty fertile imagination to classify some person who earned $250,000 a year as a "working stiff" and an equally narrow viewpoint to not see how such a participant in and benefactor of the above discribed global policy is less than "innocent".
Lastly, I would be interested to hear what you consider "sloppy" about his thinking. Is it "sloppy" to reason that by the pentagons own wording that it applies to targets in Baghdad, the CIA offices that were located in the World Trade Centers were "offiical military targets" and therefore any cassulties would merely be considered collateral damage were the United States to invoke its own oficial military definition regarding civilian casualties. Is it "sloppy thinking" to deduce that Madaline Albright's assertion that the 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children as a result of sanctions, that were widely known to be weakening the Iraqi people and strengthening Saddam, was "worth the price" is a clear message to the world that the United States places economic and strategic interests above the lives of other peoples. Is it "sloppy thinking" to point out that every Palestinian youth shot in the head for throwing a rock at the Intifada is made possible by munitions and rifles supplied by the US. That 3.2 million Indo-chinese lives was the price the US chose to pay so that "dominoes" would be "prevented from tumbling". That there is something inherrently wrong with a nation that awarded 24 medals of honor for the massacre at Wonded Knee where Bigfoot' essentially defensless band was hunted down in the snow for up to 6 miles and slaughtered-women and children told that they would be safe if they came out of hiding only to have their heads bashed in with rifle butts. That the "conquest of the plains" in 1836 was made possible by the govermently sanctioned, widespread dissemination of small pox infested blankets under the direction of Jeffrey Amherest and Colonel Bouquette. That it is more than a little ironic that the site of none other than the world trade center itself was once home to a people called the Wappinger, who were tricked into selling there land to the Dutch and then subsequently butchered and beheaded-their heads used for the sport of kickball by an exuberent public. And ultimately that the horrific legacy of genocide in the name of profit, national interest and globalization goes all the way back to Coulmbus-himself funded by crown of Spain in a military capacity to pursue a buisness interest-who slaughtered upwards of 200,000 Tahano's in his craze to gain wealth. In fact, what is "sloppy" at all about reminding us that the history most of us choose to forget or never properly learned in the first place only seeks to show us the way in which the projection of US power has served and currently serves to harness the industrial mechanism that drives this society and that nowhere was the opposition to this policy of genocide more clearly and unambigously stated than in the attack on the World Trade Center September 11, 2001. That is not "sloppy", but rather "critical" thinking and I suggest that you read the man's work before you paint him as unqualified to "educate the public". If you are interested in evaluating his writings for yourself, two of his books that I highly recommend are "A Little Matter of Genocide" and "Perversions of Justice-Indigenous Peoples and Anglo-American Law" Either of the two will give you a clear idea of his perspective and points of view.

Lee Metcalf

Name (required)
Email
Website
Remember personal info? Yes   No
Comments

home | music | democracy | earth | money | projects | about | contact

Site design by Matthew Fries | © 2003-23 Consilience Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Consilience Productions, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
All contributions are fully tax deductible.