Campos Beclowns Himself Round 2

My, my, Glenn Greenwald certainly has been a busy little boy. You'd think that between him and Campos they could post something honest and accurate. Strike that, you might not think that at all ... and you wouldn't be wrong.

This morning, Professor Campos e-mailed me and asked if he could post his response to Reynolds on this blog, and I happily agreed. Following is Professor Campos' reply:

Glenn Reynolds' response to my column suggesting that it might strike some people as odd that a law professor is using lies to advocate murder is a classic genre: the genre in question being the unhinged polemic disguised as pseudo-academic discourse (It was Reynolds' proclivity for this sort of thing that led me to point out the extent to which Reynolds and his ilk are right-wing versions of the infamous Ward Churchill -- the difference being that you'll never find Churchill within a thousand miles of any mainstream liberal or Democratic party figure, while Reynolds somehow remains the soul of Republican respectability.

First, to the best of my knowledge, Reynolds is not a Republican, he's a Libertarian - though his wife Dr. Helen may now wear the scarlet R. The respectability I've observed Glenn receive has mostly been from media figures and networks ... you know, like CNN, who like to have him on, or cite him as a source.

As for rubbing elbows with pols, I suspect there's little of that beyond his pod-casts, which are media opportunities for them. Why wouldn't a politician want that exposure given the respect Reynolds receives from the mainstream media? Perhaps Campos is simply upset as no significant politicians appear to be beating feet for his A-frame in CO.

One could linger over such symptomatic features as the pompous neologism ("beclowned") deployed as a substitute for argument; the assumption that scholarly expertise can be acquired by a ten-minute Google search; the subsequent citation of "authorities" of whose existence the author was unaware ten minutes earlier; or the inevitable if rather surreal violation of Godwin's Law (we bombed the Nazis so what's wrong with assassinating Iranian civilians?). But let's stick to Reynolds' substantive claims, such as they are.

Scratch one for the scholar, beclowned is not a neologism. Obviously, less time in the library and more time spent reading blogs would have told Campos that. Campos doesn't appear to be someone who should preach on scholarly expertise and the Internet, particularly as he misses the entire point of the information revolution that's been going on around him for decades now.

Having some experience with knowledge management systems for corporations, one does not usually want to "acquire" expertise via technology - let's call it these tubes we all surf around in, for Campos' sake. The amazing thing about tech and the Internet is how it empowers one to take advantage of another's expertise so quickly, without the investment of time and resources it once consumed to acquire it - capisce? (Note to Campos: That's a Doh! in tube-speak, which, for some reason, I'd bet you understand pretty well.)

First, Reynolds argues there are circumstances under which government-sponsored assassination is both legal and morally defensible. Yet whatever merits that general claim might have, it has nothing to do with the legality and mortality of Reynolds' specific recommendation that the United States government should be "quietly" assassinating Iranian mullahs and atomic scientists, today if not sooner. Obviously there is a world of difference between speculating on whether it would have made sense to assassinate, say, Saddam Hussein, or the Iranian head of state (presumably at some time when we weren't funneling arms to them), and advocating the assassination of civilian research scientists.

As for Reynolds' claim that killing scientists wouldn't be murder because it's only against the law until the law is changed, what can one say? Lawyers' claims to find a statement shocking often sound a lot like Capt. Renault claiming to be shocked to discover there's gambling in Casablanca, but I'm not saying this rhetorically: It's shocking that a professor of law would dare make such a despicable argument in print. In fact assassinations are currently prohibited by law -- something Reynolds cannot of course dispute -- and the law would have to be changed before what Reynolds says our government should be doing at the present moment could even arguably begin to be considered legal.

I'm left scratching my head at the foolishness above. The first paragraph is meaningless and the second has no merit - and BTW, an executive order is not a law. Given the way his mind works, it's shocking that Campos manages to teach anything - of course, that he does is only an assumption on my part. Perhaps Campos wasn't able to comprehend Glenn's initial response - which addressed the civilian argument head on.

“Similarly, the September 1944 Allied bombing raids on the German rocket sites at Peenemunde regarded the death of scientists involved in research and development of that facility to have been as important as destruction of the missiles themselves. Attack of these individuals would not constitute assassination.”

Campos goes on ... and on ....

Sensing, perhaps, that he's saying something too ridiculous for his audience to swallow, Reynolds starts arguing in the alternative, by claiming that assassinating research scientists isn't really assassination. His basis for this is the argument that when research scientists are present at legitimate military targets, their deaths from lawful military attacks on those targets aren't assassinations. But this is about as relevant to his original argument as the claim that scientists who die from lung cancer because they smoked a lot haven't been assassinated. Remember, Reynolds argued originally that we should be "quietly" terminating research scientists with extreme prejudice*, and that this was preferable to, for example, bombing Iranian military installations. Yet the examples he gives of the legitimate killing of scientists all require precisely the course of action he claims his assassination scheme is designed to prevent.

*emphasis mine - did he really write that? ha ha ha ha

As to the point, as if he had one, read this below from Glenn's response - the one Campos obviously couldn't comprehend.

And as a 1989 memorandum by the Judge Advocate General of the Army notes, killing enemy leaders or weapons scientists isn’t even assassination: “Civilians who work within a military objective are at risk from attack during the times in which they are present within that objective, whether their injury or death is incidental to the attack of that military objective or results from their direct attack. ... Thus, more than 90 percent of the World War II Project Manhattan personnel were civilians, and their participation in the U.S. atomic weapons program was of such importance as to have made them liable to legitimate attack.

This below from Campos is false, as per the graph above. Reynolds did also cite Qaddafi, but Campos simply selected the one argument he felt he could counter and falsely claimed it was Reynold's only argument.

Reynolds' idea of a response to the fact that his scheme to "quietly" assassinate research scientists is an egregious violation of international law is to point out that a Reagan administration lawyer once said it was OK to try to drop a bomb on Moamar Quaddafi. If this is Reynolds' idea of persuasive legal reasoning, how does he justify ever giving one of his students a poor grade?

That war is sometimes necessary doesn't make it any less hideous. Yet it's made even more hideous when nations make no effort to comply with the laws of war. Assassinating a research scientist is no more permissible under the laws of war than shaking the hand of an off-duty out-of-uniform soldier having a meal in a restaurant, hundreds of miles from a battlefield, and then shooting him in the head.

As regards the above, the laws of war are not even what is being discussed here ... good luck to Campos if his sorry butt ever gets in front of a military tribunal ... just sayin', is all.

None of this has even touched on the fact that Reynolds' central claims, upon which his whole argument hinges, are false. The United States isn't at war with Iran, and the Iranian regime has never threatened to use nuclear weapons against our nation. My column emphasized these points, and in doing so essentially called Reynolds a liar. Yet he hasn't even bothered to try to refute that charge -- for the simple reason that he can't.

No, he doesn't need to. We were not at war with Lybia when we struck there. Declared war is not a pre-condition to a Nation's right to self defense. Reynolds doesn't address it as it isn't relevant.

And as for this below, Campos is insidiously disingenuous. He advocated for Ward Churchill's dismissal more than most.

Paul Campos--the Colorado law professor who went on the O'Reilly Factor to fan the flames for violating the academic freedom and First Amendment rights of a Colorado professor--is, not surprisingly, unhappy with my having called the profession's attention to his stunt.  (He has contacted me.) It is particularly embarrassing for him, in light of the fact that various outspoken conservatives, including some lawyers, have stated clearly, and correctly, that Churchill's statements about 9/11 are protected by the First Amendment and academic freedom principles.

If you want to read the rest of Campos and some Greenwald drivel - it's below. 

And, since others have already done so, I won't bother to elaborate on why Reynolds' scheme, even if a respectable argument for its supposed legality could be found, is as a purely practical matter pretty much insane.

A final note: My column suggested that, given the support of people like Reynolds and Hugh Hewitt for disciplinary action against Ward Churchill, it wouldn't be untoward to inquire if the University of Tennessee's employment policies require unlimited toleration of, for example, a law professor who uses lies to justify murder. Again, this isn't a rhetorical question: it genuinely interests me. Obviously, academic freedom isn't unlimited. No one, I presume, would defend a professor's "right" to, for instance, verbally abuse students with racial slurs, or to appropriate the work of others without proper citation, and so forth. And I certainly respect the views of people like Glenn Greenwald and Scott Lemieux, who if I understand them correctly go very far toward arguing that no expression of opinion per se should ever be a basis for the sanctioning of an academic. How far I myself would go in that direction is something on which, not being an administrator, I can afford to keep an open mind.

In the end, of course, it's up to the University of Tennessee to decide whether the spectacle of a law professor using lies to justify murder is something of which they should deign take notice. In any case, that spectacle serves as a cautionary tale to the rest of us -- of just how far it's possible to sink in the defense of the indefensible.

_________________________

Glenn Greenwald adds: I just want to underscore this paragraph of Professor Campos' reply:

None of this has even touched on the fact that Reynolds' central claims, upon which his whole argument hinges, are false. The United States isn't at war with Iran, and the Iranian regime has never threatened to use nuclear weapons against our nation. My column emphasized these points, and in doing so essentially called Reynolds a liar. Yet he hasn't even bothered to try to refute that charge -- for the simple reason that he can't.
As much as the extreme barbarism and amorality which lies at the heart of Reynolds' call for assassination of Iranian scientists and clerics, it was the sheer dishonesty of his subsequent self-defense that prompted so much commentary. When defending himself from objections to his post (from me and others, none of whom he linked to despite complaining about Campos' failure to link to his argument), Reynolds just asserted factually false claims, and -- despite how unusual it is to see among law professors -- Professor Campos expressly made clear what Reynolds was doing when defending himself: namely, "lying."

Yet in all of his insulting responses to Professor Campos, Reynolds never addressed those charges, because there simply is no response. Then again, that accusation has been made about Reynolds so many times in the past that he may just not even notice it anymore when someone accuses him of dishonesty.

One of the most pressing problems we face in this country is that what was previously considered to be so radical and un-American as to be unthinkable has become perfectly mainstream and acceptable. Identifying truly warped extremism is of the greatest importance. Kudos to Professor Campos for his efforts towards these ends.

Comments

[TheSpartan]

"let's call it these tubes we all surf around in"

At least if you're going to tease the guy be original or give credit to the "Internet tube" theory, Sen. Stevens (R)- Alaska/

[Hard Right]

Liberals never know when they're beaten. They never know when they're winning. They really don't know much of anything. Too bad they insist on using many more words than necessary to prove that fact.

[Zifnab]

So you're pro-"Shooting Scientists in the Head"?

Why does Renyold's position sound eeriely similiar to "Shoot an Abortionist, Save a Fetus" logic, I hear come out of the truly fringe right-wingers? Except, in this case, I guess its more like "Shoot a Stem Cell Researcher, Save an Embryo", because we're not advocating bombing the research facilities, just offing random Iranian nuclear experts.

Why does the entire right-wing begin and end the solution to their foreign policy problems with bullets and bombs?

[Hard Right]

So you're pro-"Shooting Scientists in the Head"?

No. We want them shot somewhere vital. Shooting a lib in the head won't hurt them and might even raise their IQ.

[seekeronos]

"Why does the entire right-wing begin and end the solution to their foreign policy problems with bullets and bombs?"

Because diplomacy with madmen seldom works.

[cd6]

"Declared war is not a pre-condition to a Nation's right to self defense. Reynolds doesn't address it as it isn't relevant."

I suspect he doesn't address it because his previous attempt to address it was "we've been at war with Iran since 1979" which was laughably stupid. Once that was shot down, maybe he was just out of ideas.

Dan's take on the issue of "you don't need to declare war to assassinate scientists and mullahs" is a whole new level of insanity that even Reynolds wasn't willing to attempt to justify.

That said, I would like this question answered by either Dan or his merry commenting crew:

Reynolds argues that we would be justified in assassinating civilians in Iran like the mullahs because they are advocating and pushing for war against Israel/the US. By this logic, wouldn't Iran be justified in assassinating US civilians advocating war (or other acts of war, such as assassinations) against Iran? US civilians like... Glenn Reynolds?

[Zifnab]

"Because diplomacy with madmen seldom works."

That's why Bush embraced the Clinton strategy of dealing with S.Korea? Cause, you know, Kim Jong Il isn't crazy but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is? You guys have absolutely no coherent foreign policy. You realize that, right? This is the height of disfunctional. Truly one of the saddest moments in our nation's history. I mean, its a sad day when liberals long for the days of Henry Kissenger, simply because he wasn't stupid.

"Shooting a lib in the head won't hurt them and might even raise their IQ."

Iranian nuclear liberal scientist who now? I'm sure that was just a Freudian slip.

[Rob Kaufman]

"Because diplomacy with madmen seldom works.

Posted by: seekeronos | Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 05:52 PM "

Thank you seek, I couldn't say it better why it is pointless to try and have any sort of discussion with radical right wing extremists.

[Dan Riehl]

"Dan's take on the issue of "you don't need to declare war to assassinate scientists and mullahs""

There was no declared war when Israel took out Osirak. There was no war when we went after Qaddafi. I haven't seen anyone hauled before an International court for actions many publicly denounced, while silently applauding. And them's the facts - you can't argue with that.

[templar knight]

If it is pointless, as you say, then why come here, Rob? Frankly, I get a kick out of watching you libs pat yourselves on the back, trying to convince I don't know who that you are God's most....whoops, I said God....that you are the most intelligent thing that ever had a monkey as a cousin. It seems to me that most of you libs are young, with little or no experience in the real world.

[Rob Kaufman]

Once again temp since you seem to have such a poor memory, it does not matter how much you beg me to knock you down again I will not do it. I do not pick on those that ride the short bus.

[templar knight]

Aw, go ahead, Rob, I've been knocked down by better men than you, and perhaps worse. Give it your best shot. I might even survive your brilliance.

[Phoenix]

Meanwhile, assassinations continue apace as they have since man first walked upright. Jaysus, this is nothing new. The Mossad has the Kidon just for this. I'm sure the CIA does, too, but I don't know the name. All countries engage in this.

The story is that it goes on constantly in the Middle East and no one pays attention. Putin does it and it makes news for a week. One guy just mentions it here and everyone is peeing their pants. We should be embarrassed for making a big deal out of this.

[LOL]

seemed like greenwald and campos came off more informed in the debate. Avoid using "glenn" as a reference when you've got 2 guys with that name in your topic Dan, this is one reason you are not a professional writer.

I see you've got the creationists like TK on your side on this one though, clearly they know what logic is.

You can't go around having a strong dependence on "faith" and then try to pretend you are very logical the next day. I wish you would just admit that you aren't logical and don't have a rational mind. Ah, but the jingoists will never give in. Their Television and Internet war is just too great, too great to actually serve in though

[Phoenix]

That was so lame, LOL. god.. You made me LOL.

[Hard Right]

I see, so scientists working to destroy Israel and the U.S. are the same as American civilians who want Iran stopped? You loony leftists and your equivalency.
I should expect as muich from those who are all for murdering unborn babies, but against executing mass murderers like Ted Bundy.

[Pablo]

"seemed like greenwald and campos came off more informed in the debate."

Yeah, because while Reynolds sourced the appropriate applicable law, GiGi and Campos said "Nuh uh!" in harmony. Which is an awful lot like being really informed. To an idiot.

Law professors, your mileage may vary.

[seekeronos]

Ziffy-poos said:

"That's why Bush embraced the Clinton strategy of dealing with S.Korea? Cause, you know, Kim Jong Il isn't crazy but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is? You guys have absolutely no coherent foreign policy. You realize that, right?"

Like I said, diplomacy with madmen seldom _works_. At best, Kim is a risky holding action, and the bigger worry is his selling nuke secret to AQ and other terror groups. Of course, there is no guarantee that the Russkies or the ChiComs haven't entertained similar thoughts, but I think that since the Russkies and ChiComs have their own Islamist crazies to contain, I'd bet that those thoughts didn't linger around for very long.

He may have *a bomb*, but certainly not much means to weaponize it (particularly on a missile) any time in the near future. That, and perhaps he isn't that crazy as to start a war w/ the ROK, and risk bringing the Japanese SDF and the US military on top of it with both feet.

And if he did actually pop (or make a serious attempt to) a nuke on Japan ... Pyongyang would begin to glow rather brightly in a very short amount of time. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are a few SSBNs lurking about the Korean coasts for that very reason.

Moreover, the Norks (DPRK) are not a threat to the Middle East (specifically: Israel) whereas you can hardly go a week w/o Manboob A-madnutjob, or some other crazed Caliphatist Kook threatening to destroy the Promised Land.

[bud]

zifnab says: "That's why Bush embraced the Clinton strategy of dealing with S.Korea?"

Sorry for the snark, but some people need a cluebat upside the head.

Bush has not embraced the Clinton strategy of dealing with NORTH (not 'S.") Korea, which was "give them what they want and maybe they'll go away." He has not agreed to bilateral talks, which is what Dear Leader desires, but instead the six party talks, which are diplomatic efforts aimed primarily at China, not NKor, and to the seconday goal of forcing the Japanese to the unwanted knowledge that they must be either deal with the situation now, or live with a nuclear madman 300 miles away.

IOW, we're not doing "diplomacy with madmen", were trying to convince China to deal with the Frankendictator they've enabled.