What bothers me most about the Ayers line of attack

[elfs]

What bothers me most about the Ayers line of attack is that it's an attack on American jurisprudence at its most fundamental. We're not talking about upper-court Constitutional shennanigans; this is the bedrock law-of-the-land kind of thing.

Ayers got off on a technicality. The prosecutors were so go-hung to get him they apparently broke the rules, and he got off with little more than a slap on the wrist. I hate to say this but, that is as it should be. Ayers committed crimes, but pursuit of justice cannot be done with injustice. Michael Kinsley is mostly right that Ayers seems to be an unrepentent jerk whose redemption seems completely insincere. I'm sure his getting off on a technicality only served to make him more of a jerk.

Yet when Sarah Palin goes after Bill Ayers, what she's really telling is what the Republican right has been saying for years: when in your heart you know you're right, you can do no wrong. The prosecutors should not have been prevented from bringing the case forward. There is no "injustice" committed when you have "good intentions." It is this attitude that condones the torture of prisoners and the invasion of countries that are not a clear and present danger to the United States.

The McCain campaign, with all good intentions, holds out its hands and invites us to walk further down the road toward Hell.

Comments

[tagryn]

"...It is this attitude that condones the torture of prisoners and the invasion of countries that are not a clear and present danger to the United States."

I recall that back in June you stated that al-Qaeda was not an existential danger to the U.S. How do you reconcile calling for "finishing the job in Afghanistan" with your position above?

Also, McCain's position against torture has been consistent, according to Politifact. There's a lot to legitimately criticize him for, but this isn't one of them.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

It's interesting to note that politifact states that McCain did not stand in the way of exempting the CIA from the use of "enhanced terrogation techniques." That sort of Orwellian language deserves to be excoriated, as does the the CIA's policy.

And I never said that "existential threats" were the only justification for a "just war." It's quite clear that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan presented a clear and present danger. I don't believe any nation right now, except possibly Russia and China, present "existential threats" to the US. That doesn't mean the US wasn't justified in its invasion of Afghanistan to go after the terrorists who killed 3,000 people.

Iraq, on the other hand, neither presented a criminal case or an existential threat. Statescraft, including warfare, is when your objectives and your means are in agreement: in Iraq, the objectives were murky and our means far short of necessity.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm damned sure Elf wasn't talking about Afghanistan. You hit your head and forget about that little incident in Iraq?

[tagryn]

Given that our involvement in Iraq is winding down, albeit gradually, while we're increasing our troop deployment in Afghanistan, I'd say its an even *more* relevant question going forward.

[fallenpegasus]

Ayers (and all of his cronys) deserves death, and I would throw the switch.

My knowledge of Ayers is also highly colored with how I learned about him, in a series of discussions on rasfw that ended with the local communist-beloved of the community there defiantly posting that Ayers is a hero.

Feh. And feh on everyone with any sympathy or fellow-traveller-ness with him.

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html

[(Anonymous)]

Is it really worth becoming a murderer to end the life of an evil man?

Somehow, I think Ayers would find a perverse amusement in someone taking their vengeance out upon them.

Let him live, so that he may suffer. Death is not a release to be given to such people. Let him live, and let him live long so he may see the world progress in ways that offend his ideals. Let him live, so that his body and mind rot, and he is ravaged by the ages.

[fallenpegasus]

Execution is not Murder.

Saying that all killing == murder is a perversely stupid statement. I could draw links to the stances of the vocal anti-abortion crowd, but it probably wouldnt be useful.

And why are you being anonymous? I speak with my face attached to it. Why don't you?

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

I think the costs - social, psychological, cultural, and spiritual - of killing someone who isn't posing an immediate threat that can't be effectively countered any other way outweigh whatever benefits might accrue.

I don't think it matters whether you call it killing or murder or execution... that sort of semantic fan-dancing doesn't change the fact that you are taking a person's life because you choose to, and not because you have to to protect your own life or that of someone else.

And there's one of the costs I spoke of right there: the rationalization of ending a person's life.

[(Anonymous)]

Also excellent points, articulated better then could ever manage.

[(Anonymous)]

No particular reason, mostly because I'm more a lurker then part of your social circle. Does my face give me credibility? Or do my words and my logic give me credibility?

Murder means To kill with premediated malice; to kill (a human being)willfully, deliberately, and unlawfully.

An execution, is little more then lawfully killing with premeditated malice. It is willful, and it is deliberate.

At this point, The only way to "throw the switch" on ayers would be an act of murder, and I think he would find a wonderful irony in that. I also think that if I handed you my Mossberg, a slug round, and put you in a room alone with Ayers, you would not pull the trigger, as you know the consequences of your own actions.

You're using the same logic as the McCain campaign with your desire to "throw the switch". Do you plan to be voting for him in the next election?

Finally, I never said all killing is murder. I'm saying your desire to "execute" Ayers, would be an act of murder.

You're smarter then this. Stop listening to your emotions and use your logic.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree that execution is performed with malice. In the U.S., it's meant to be done systematically, and, in theory at least, with due process of law. There are procedures to follow, some of which might result in a sentence of execution. The laws are codified and fairly rigid, and the opportunities for review by impartial parties many.

(The reality is another matter, which is why I oppose the death penalty in practice, though not necessarily in principle).

Neither is execution unlawful, which also disqualifies it from your own definition of murder.

Anonymous Blog Reader #127

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not here to debate nuances of words like malice, murder, killing or execution. I'm not here to debate the merits of death penalty. I'm not even debating if certain people deserve to die. I have opinions on all these things, and I find them irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I'm saying, that we had the chance to execute Ayers. The prosecution fucked it up, and he is now free, in accordance to the rule of law that keeps every single one of us safe.

To say that after being given his freedom by the courts, that he should be killed, murdered, executed, forced to dance the mortal coil shuffle, WHATEVER you call it. Is to abandon the principle of rule of law. To abandon the rule of law is to BECOME Ayers.

He was found not guilty. Until he does something else that's against the law, he is untouchable. The best way to make sure he suffers for his crimes now, is to prove that his views on government, racism, and radicalism, are fundamentally the wrong way to conduct yourself. We can only do that by taking the high road. If you REALLY want to be Radical and "stick it to him" Shoplift his book.

[tagryn]

Traditionally, posting anonymously doesn't ipso facto invalidate an argument, but it does lose some of its weight. It goes back to the old BBS and USENET principle of "you own your own words"; if you're willing to say something, you should stand behind and take responsibility for them as well.

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

The validity of an argument rests upon the quantity and quality of the evidence which supports it, and the quality of the reason which knits it into a coherent whole.

Arguments do not become valid (or invalid) based upon the identity or authority of those who make them.

[tagryn]

Ideally, yes, but its also part of human nature to be suspicious of statements made by people hiding behind a curtain. Certainly when one person is willing to stand behind their statements while another is anonymous, the gravity of the former tends to outweigh that of the latter. It goes to the principles behind the Confrontation Clause in law as well, since an anonymous person has certain protections from the consequences of their actions that a "real" person does not, hence the right to face one's accusers.

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

True, but an online discussion blog isn't a court of law, and just because something is "human nature" (it has been my experience that most characteristics thus labeled are much more a matter of culture than biology) doesn't mean it is therefore correct or legitimate.

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

You post with a "name", but in all practicality you're anonymous to me. All I know of you is that you're someone who posts in Elf's blog. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't.

I have a bit of a liking for you however. This has developed because of your words and the way you use them. Not because I know your name.

[doodlesthegreat.livejournal.com]

when in your heart you know you're right, you can do no wrong.

I think the past eight years have proven the folly of that line of reasoning...