Paul Campos—a “progressive” University of Colorado law professor and semi-regular columnist for the Rocky Mountain News—has, as I’ve pointed out in the past, a disturbing tendency (particularly for an educator) to let his ideological blinders influence his public arguments. And nowhere is this more true that in his recent column taking Glenn Reynolds to task for Prof. Reynolds’ now “infamous” post floating the idea (which Reynolds himself would be the first to admit was hardly original) that one potential US strategy for combatting Iran’s nuclear weapons program might included targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists and radicalized mullahs.
I disagreed with Reynolds on the likely efficacy of such a strategy, but I didn’t pretend, as so many have since, to any kind of moral outrage over what is essentially a compromise strategy between tough sanctions (which are unlikely to work, given that the “international community” never seems to muster the will to enforce them) and a more invasive attempt to address the problem using a much heavier military footprint.1
In his post addressing the Campos column yesterday, Reynolds cited numerous examples wherein Democrats, back before they’d become foreign policy realists of the James Baker variety (or, if you prefer, back before they became Bush I Republicans), didn’t find suggestions like his quite so morally problematic—a fact Reynolds was not shy about noting in a forceful response to Campos printed in today’s Rocky Mountain News, and aptly titled, “Arguing from Ignorance”:
Paul Campos has beclowned himself. He did it in the usual way, by arguing loudly about things he does not understand.
Campos chose to devote an entire column […] to a blog entry […] in which I wondered why the Bush administration wasn’t acting covertly to kill radical mullahs and atomic scientists, rather than preparing a major attack on Iran. […] According to Campos, this suggestion was both morally wrong  suggesting that we kill people this way made me a “fascist†and an “extremist† and illegal.
A few notes, if I may. First, one should think that a law professor is able to choose his words precisely, so by employing loaded terms like “fascist” and “extremist,” Campos, we must conclude, is using them intentionally, meaning he is here operating less as a law professor than as an overzealous prosecutor trying to set a pitch for his “arguments,” such as they are.
And they aren’t much—which explains why Campos relies so heavily on crass hyperbole and argument by insinuation and emotional appeal to craft his calculated outrage. In fact, the entire piece is nothing but bully and bluster meant to shame his opponent and taint him, in the minds of readers, with the associated deeds of those who we have historically identified as either “fascists” or “extremists.” It is, if you will, practically Nifongesque.
None of which is surprising, of course—this is, after all, a rather standard tactic now for the “progressive” left’s more vocal advocates—but it is ironic, nevertheless, given that it is people like Campos who, in perfectly distilled moments of clinical-grade projection, are literally working to enact a form of intellectual fascism, even as they see all around them phantasmagorical attempts by “extremists” like Glenn Reynolds (!) to oppress them.
Which, unfortunately, is what happens once you begin locating in positions that differ from yours elements of “hate speech” in need of “policing”—or, in this case, even the need for some sort of professional intervention.
Perhaps a class on tolerance might do Reynolds some good. Lesson 1: ”Learning to Love the State-Sponsered Nuclear Scientists Whose Aim It Is To Build The Atomic Weapons They’re Leaders Openly Acknowledge Will Be Used Against You”—immediately followed by a trust-building exercise whereby all “extremists” like the libertarian Reynolds learn to “Hug Themselves a Real Live Radical Mullah!”
Continues Reynolds:
Indeed, not only was I suggesting something illegal, according to Campos, but the mere act of suggesting it made me some sort of “accessory to murder.†Campos, however, has both his law and history wrong.
History first: There’s nothing beyond the pale about suggesting assassination and covert action as an alternative to warfare. In 1998, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Joseph Biden, D-Del., asked the government to look into assassination as a means of dealing with terrorists; Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., suggested assassinating Saddam Hussein the same year. On Jan. 3, 2001, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., introduced legislation to facilitate the assassination of terrorists. And in 1997, George Stephanopoulos wrote: “A misreading of the law or misplaced moral squeamishness should not stop the president from talking about assassination. He should order up the options and see if it’s possible. If we can kill Saddam, we should.†If this be fascism, make the most of it.
Nor would such action be illegal. Assassination is forbidden by executive order. Nothing prevents the president from rescinding that order, or amending it. 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.
“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.â€Â
International law is unlikely to be a problem either. The bombing attack on Moammar Qaddafi was legally justified, according to the State Department’s legal adviser, as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter because of Qaddafi’s terrorist activities. […]
Other law professors have, of course, made similar arguments […]. Campos, himself a law professor, could have learned these things through a simple Google search, but apparently did not.
Instead, he authored an uninformed column, and then added a thuggish suggestion that my university should discipline me for daring to utter thoughts that, in his uninformed state, he found uncongenial. After he has educated himself sufficiently to have an informed opinion on the subject, Campos might still disagree. But if he does, I promise not to try to get him fired for not sharing my opinions. Perhaps one day, he’ll learn to return the favor.
[my emphases]
It used to be that public intellectuals took their positions seriously enough to engage in good faith arguments. But Campos—despite being given a high-profile forum from which to do so—is less interested with arguing points of fact than he is in placing his opponents on the defensive. That is, rather than argue against a position on the relative merits of that position, Campos seems entirely more interested in unfairly demonizing those who disagree with him, the hope being that such a rhetorical ploy will weary them into silence. Which, as a strategy, is both intellectually lazy and transparently self-serving.
Reynolds calls this attitude “thuggish,” which is far too kind a description, I think. Because what it is is precisely the kind of progressive totalitarian impulse that, drawing on the intellectual entitlement it feels it has earned by virtue of what it considers to be the moral and intellectual unassailability of its positions, is able to rationalize away anti-intellectual behavior as just another necessary evil in the service of constructing the perfect society, even if doing so dictates that virtually any means, however temporarily distasteful, are ultimately justified.
Or, to put it more simply: it is self-indulgence mapped onto public policy and law.
To the utopian mindset of many on the transnationalist left, this is the kind of ploy that passes for short-term pragmatism. Unfortunately, this, too, is but an undeniably bald rationalization—and an especially pernicious one, at that. Because what it really is is arrogance forged by the dim fires of ideological presumptuousness into the very kind of tinpot Machiavellianism that is anathema to the free exchange of ideas—and, in a broader sense, to our ability to defend individualism as a guiding social construct.
****
More, from Roger Fraley and Eugene Volokh, who, though he also disagrees with Reynolds, writes:
[…] only an unwise certitude  and a certitude that I think is unlikely to yield moral action, especially if you have even a modest amount of consequentialism in your moral reasoning  would simply cut off all this debate and fire those who endorse one side of it. That, unfortunately, is the error that Prof. Campos seems to have fallen into.
Well—you say “error,” I say “intentional gambit to chill speech and promote the kind of progressive totalitarianism that is already so rampant in many university departments, and which manifests itself in many administrative directives.”
Still, let’s call the whole thing off…
1Nor did I intentionally take something out of context and try to use it as a bludgeon to score some cheap rhetorical points, or so that I could post an “artist’s rendering” of my critics—which, were I to do so, would consist of a simple empty shirt with the legend, “BU$H SUX!1! OPEN THREAD!” But that’s a different post…
I think Campos and the other left leaning opinion writers in both of our newspapers are feeling quite emboldened at this point. Our huge California immigration and resulting plung in to a Demoractically controlled legislature/Governor/mayor combined with the Democratic convention is really letting those creative juices flow. Add to that, Mr. Campos is writing from the bluest echo chamber in the state from CU and you get commentary just like this. They are so giddy they just can’t help themselves.
Campos is apparently so caught up in this rapture he’s not smart enough to target someone who’s an intellectual light-weight but instead he singles out an off-hand comment from one of the sharpest Libitarian minds on the net. Not only did he not think things through on the topic in question, he didn’t think at all about the target in question. Bright minds up there in CU.
Good one, Jeff. I agree with you that Insty was too kind in calling Campos’ tactics as thuggish. But then again I get the impression that he’s always kind of held himself aloof from all the petty rantings that make up so much of political/cultural discourse; just kind of watching it all with an expression of bemusement. It’s when he puts forth with policy viewpoints, as he did above, that people who normally regard him as some kind of cipher get all hot and bothered, as Campos did. Of course, Reynolds has had St. Andi attack him as well, but then again Andi is hypersensitive even to barometric changes.
His wife is different. She definitely is far less tolerant of b.s. and criticism than Glenn is. Plus, she’s a babe.
At any rate, Reynolds’ measured rational response made Campos look like even more of a jackass than Campos’ own knee-jerk, shrill criticism did. Hoist on his retard, as Ace would put it.
Assume that the executive order is recinded:
If it’s okay to kill people who make suicide vests for Palestinian bombers, why not nuclear scientists who are creating bombs?
“Your modern world confuses me as I’m just a simple unfrozen cavemen law professor (with tenure) but I find this Campos trog to be somewhat of a dick…”
[Still stinging from the lambasting my generation got in earlier thread]
wingnuts: Death Squads! (as means to avoid all out war)
moonbats: moral equivalence! (if that’s OK, then so is …)
wingnuts: NO, that’s not equivalent because …
moonbats: and if that’s OK, then why did we …
Rhetorician from East Germany: style points – 10 to Reynolds; substance points – 10 to Reynolds
My bar friend (also an aging boomer): . . . (effing glass parking lot)
moonbats: equivalence! .. And, why was Churchill treated so badly?
Anyone get the feeling there is not much communication going on here? That even those who have something to say are talking right past those who are willing to listen? [Not that I am easily going to change my mind about the need for forceful resolution to certain long standing issues, continued conflicts, and future dangers.] But the comments thread on the Rocky Mountain News’ Reynolds article is full display of communication as farce.
Lynch:
Same letters, same words, same sounds, same dictionary…
Different language.
No wonder communication is so difficult.
“Paul Campos has beclowned himself.”
Absolutley brilliant…..
Well, maybe the “wiling to listen” assertion was a BIT strong. Just my view76.
“There are no dangerous weapons—only dangerous men.” —R.A.H.
“Paul Campos has beclowned himself.â€Â
At least he didn’t start out with “Paul, you ignorant slut.”
Reynold’s article is probably the best legal bitch-slapping I’ve seen in a long time.
You can’t. Your previous paragraph said it all.
Well, at least Campos implies that it’s not a good thing to be compared to Ward Churchill! Most “progressives” won’t even concede that!
I shudder for the CU law students that pay to have someone like this “teach” them. Considering I earned my own JD at “the Little Red Schoolhouse on the Prairie”, I feel their pain.
The damndest thing is that it is a state school that employs him. As a CO taxpayer, I’d be pissed.
Many of the law students at CU are pissed.
Hmmmm.
Funny how Campos hasn’t so much as squeaked when the various Tubers of the Left, i.e. Kos Kiddies, start talking about assassinating the President.
Last time I heard anything about the University of Colorado it was a story about some tenured fake Indian falsified-credentials kung-fu master in a black hat talking about how the 9/11 victims deserved it, or some such. Is that right? I think the University of Colorado can’t be entirely Clown College – didn’t they once have a great football team or something?
Larry J, that is exactly what I thought when I read the Campos column yesterday! “Jane, you ignorant slut!”
At least no-one said he was non Campos mentis…
Shorter Reynolds: “Oh, was this supposed to be a knife fight? My bad.”
Instapundit is a partisan hack. He is however, very skilled at bait and switch. He made a ridiculous foreign policy recommendation, but his blog is mostly moralizing. He is not an analyst he is a pundit, and a moralizing one at that. He is also a master of innuendo linkage. Campos’ piece addresses that and out come the false equivalences and intellectual back flips.
It’s not illegal if the President overturns the order. Isn’t that illegal now then?
Also, wtf does wwII h ave to do with our current situation with Iran? Covertly assasinating civilians is no the same as bombing a lab in a war. The sad thing is all of you will continue to ignore the fact that Insta did not even come close to defending his original off-the-cuff idiocy.
His tired old trope of Democrat’s said it too is pretty lame and I can’t believe any serious people could get behind it. Especially since it is not the same. Notice that they all mentioned actual people? Insta assigns extermination to anyone who meets some sort of anti-US conduct or speechifying. I am sure the heady thinkers at Pajamahadead can come up with some sort of quantification for the Hugh Hewitt death squads to reference as they go all ctujackbauer up in that piece. Or at least sit on their fat asses furiously typing trying to make it happen.
All this put aside, the reason this is so inflammatory is that Glenn got a lot of heat for actually trying to think out loud and displaying that he’s a petty unserious ego maniac who should stick to managing links. Someone who immediately hides behind the echo chamber din by throwing out distractions like this “beclowned” stupidity. He’s a jerk and was exposed and now all you guys are providing him cover because your little ice berg continues to shrink and be exposed for what it is.
Ciao!
Sam Riley
Did Alphie’s uncle just walk in here?
Geeze, and here I thought “by any means necessary” was the Left’s favorite rallying cry…
I wouldn’t mind if a few Iranian nuke boffins got whacked. Ditto for the crazier Mullahs. Or Dinnerjacket, for that matter.
I just doubt we have the assets to pull it off.
Tomato!
Tomahto!
Potato!
Nuclearannihalationofthemiddleseastcausingworldwideeconomicandcutluraldestabilization!
Let’s call the whole thing off….
Examples please?
You know, when you start out your screed with a completely unsupportable and utterly laughable assertion, it doesn’t help the rest of your case very much.
Sam, what on Earth are you talking about?
I mean, really. Making an actual argument, even if it’s a silly one, is okay. But that steaming pile of tendentiousness of yours ought to make you ashamed to show your face in public. Man, you ought to be walking around with a paper bag on your head right now hoping beyond h ope that someone takes you for a lesser fool like the Unknown Comic or an LA Raiders fan.
“But Camposâ€â€despite being given a high-profile forum from which to do soâ€â€is less interested with arguing points of fact than he is in placing his opponents on the defensive. … Which, as a strategy, is both intellectually lazy and transparently self-serving.”
Ultimately, I’m not sure I see how this is any different from Mark Kleiman’s attempt to see justification of genocide where there was none. These guys are just rabble-rousing – keeping the Anti-Bush fanatics in a constant state of acute BDS with hyperbole aimed at those they see as Bush’s supporters. The fact that these antics demonstrate their lack of credibility doesn’t seem to bother them one whit.
You should probably master English before you go switching languages on us.
With the addition37 of some reasoning.
Fuck! You mean we’re polar bears?
“I am sure the heady thinkers at Pajamahadead can come up with some sort of quantification for the Hugh Hewitt death squads to reference as they go all ctujackbauer up in that piece.”- (spittle free version)
I tell you, this week at PW has been Comedy. F**king. Gold. Someone needs to decide who gets the award between this and alphie’s “I don’t have a worldview” statement.
As for Hugh Hewitt’s death squads, don’t expect him to actually, you know, take part, since he’s a well-known chickenhawk. Just ask William Odom; he’s a general you know.
“… it doesn’t help the rest of your case very much.
Posted by TomB | permalink
on 02/21 at 01:19 PM”
He has a case?
Where?
Yea, those damn libertarians, always moralizing.
Probably a closet papist, just like Goldstein.
Sam, in a world of dim bulbs, you are a veritable black hole.
Sam Riley,
Your post was proto-typical wingnut trash talk. I read the entire thread, and until you posted your garbage, not a single profanity was used. To the left, the use of profanity shows how “cool” you are and how far above the common herd you are. As is typical of the left, you are unable to debate in an informed and polite manner. You resort to intellectual dishonesty, lies, and ad hominen attacks to refute those who you disagree with. Thinking occassionally works, you should try it!
Oh, now I get it. We cannot shoot them unless and until we can name them. Dang. That’ll prove a logistical nightmare, eh? Especially since they all LOOK the same, Sam. You know, all brown and towels and that crazy-anti-Amerikan guttural language they carry on.
And another thing. It’s Pajamahadeen. Clever ironic spelling twists are lost on us mouth-breathers.
NO PIE FOR YOU!
I think Glenn errs in citing the civilians and scientists of Peenemunde in support of his argument. That was an actual, hot, shooting, acknowledged, declared war. Although still controversial (in certain circles), defense-related industrial facilities were considered valid targets, notwithstanding the fact that they contained civilian workers.
Terrorists actively working against us (e.g. Zawahiri, Bin Laden) are no different than enemy officers in a conventional war.
But those are very different things from civilians working in a facility in what is (arguably) peacetime. In short: we take out Iran’s entire nuclear facility—OK; targeting a few key people for assassination—not OK. I realize that this means that more lives are lost in the name of moral purity, but that’s just one of life’s little ironies.
Furthermore, while I don’t have any qualms about us Bin Laden (if he’s still alive), I would certainly draw the line at someone like Ahmadinejad, leader of the civilian government.
My preference would be just to declare war and get it over with, but apparently this appeals to almost no one.
Persistent and deliberate obtusity.
Reading the comments to Glenn’s article are enlightening to say the least. Moral equivalence needs the qualities I mentioned up front. There is a certain froward denseness required to see no difference between a Janitor in the WTC and scientists working to build an Israel killing bomb.
Unfortunately the attitude is way too common, I find myself in arguments with otherwise smart people who can not find a discrete difference between (for example) my pro-life opinion and creatures that would stir their insides with a clothes hanger
Campos referenced courts that declared such acts illegal
while Instapunidt referes to a political hack legal advsor for his legal basis.
Enough said!
<threadjack alert>
Yeah, back in the early 90s. CU’s current head coach left my alma mater in Dec. 05 to clean up an awful mess. I believe he won two games in ‘06.
Any guesses on which school he left, how many games the team he left behind won, and their final national ranking?
</threadjack alert>
ahhh my point illustrated
If Campos beclowned himself, then Sam has undoubtedly beassed himself.
Here’s my dumb question of the day. I honestly mean no rancor in asking it. I’m just curious as to the answer.
Why is there a need to declare war?
Iran invaded land belonging to the US in 1979 and holds that land today. They seized US citizens and held them for well over a year. They have, in the intervening 25ish years killed hundreds of US citizens directly and through paid intermediaries.
Declaration or no, that is as accurate a description of “war” as I think I could ever provide. Why would there be a need for us to declare it? Would that be the thing that causes everyone to smack themselves on the foreheads and say “Oh, now we’re in a war”?
Declarations of War are SOOO 20th century! Seriously they don’t need to be made, and some of the most notable wars have proceeded without them.
A political hack legal advisor?
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/cchrp/Use%20of%20Force/October%202002/Parks_final.pdf
Now that is mean spirited! I mean, really, a Raiders Fan?!
nick – I hope you can a refund on the ol’ JD. Mayhaps you should reread those “citations”. Which “binding precedent” was Campos citing anyway? I guess you used to be one of those who would point at the USSR Constitution as evidence that the Sovs were enlightened and free…
Heh. Good question. There are a lot of people out there who seem to be of the opinion that because Congress didn’t adopt a resolution with the exact words “Declaration of War” contained therein, that this whole thing since 9/11 has been illegal.
Personally, I don’t see much harm in appeasing them by invoking the magic words in the future. Maybe it’ll keep them quiet next time around.
Contrary to the hysterics of “there can be no war unless Congress formally decleares it”, let me quote
Beassed.
Heh. Indeed. Read the whole thing.
Whoah, whoah, whoah. If this is true, we’re slacking off, people.
There are certain powers for the Executive and the Federal Government that can only come into play in the event of a declaration of war.
IIRC, frex, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet can only enter a stage-II or stage-III call-up in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency. The same might apply to some aspects of conscription.
Also, I suspect the NSA gets to listen to a LOT of things once a war is declared, that are open to debate under an AUMF (and probably are prohibited in peacetime).
You’re right. I’m sorry.
After all, Raiders fans have some hope that their condition can improve. I mean, a QB in a trade, maybe a couple defensive guys in the draft and who knows?
Sorry about that, Raiders folks.
Ya gotta wonder, then, what these same people thought of Clinton’s killing of janitors at the Iraqi intelligence HQ.
Fuckin’ a.
</Hopper>
“Campos referenced courts that declared such acts illegal
while Instapunidt referes to a political hack legal advsor for his legal basis.
Enough said! “
There are several indicators that expose this post as a rant.
1. The poster can’t spell Instapundit without making a hash of it.
2. The poster ignores the reference to an Executive order, and the considerations of several Democratic lawmakers, and instead falsely claims that the decision is based solely upon a “political hack legal advisor”. If this hack agreed with your position (whatever that might be)would they still be a hack?
3. Campos has a solid position in the law? What is it? If such a grounding exists, is it based upon the Executive order? You failed to cite it.
4. “Enough said!” No, not really. We’ll all continue to discuss this. And if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you’ll abandon the pathetic attempt to declare any consideration of the topic to be moot.
I must be getting up in the world. I posted in the comment thread over there at RMN, and rated an impersonator! Do I get a pony now? So few63 ponies left ya’know.
You know, when you start out your screed with a completely unsupportable and utterly laughable assertion, it doesn’t help the rest of your case very much.
You know you’re a partisan hack when you think Instapundit is not a partisan hack.
Your post was proto-typical wingnut trash talk. I read the entire thread, and until you posted your garbage, not a single profanity was used. To the left, the use of profanity shows how “cool†you are and how far above the common herd you are. As is typical of the left, you are unable to debate in an informed and polite manner. You resort to intellectual dishonesty, lies, and ad hominen attacks to refute those who you disagree with. Thinking occassionally works, you should try it! Haha, pretty sure there were no fcc violations in my post. Then you go on to shoot yourself in the foot by making ad hom attacks, e.g. I’m a lefty, I am trying to distance myself from the herd. Then you tell me I’m impolite and politely inform me that I’m an ignortant liar…This is Instapundit 101 consider yourself prepared to move to the next level of conversational refractology.
This is weaksauce.
Sam Riley
Necessary or not, I suspect that the true answer as to why we are not currently formally “at war” with anyone may be found in the pusillanimity of more recent crops of congress-critters.
Personally, I think they should grow a pair, get strapped, and get rid of all those ugly-ass concrete barriers ruining the view in DC.
Sam, you’re taking up an awful lot of space not saying a goddamned thing. Put up or shut up, won’t you?
You know I read Glenn religiously and am not familiar with his use of those techniques, can you cite some examples? I have, for example, never seen him call someone “ignortant.”
Sam,
I don’t think that I called you an “ignortant” liar. However, I believe it was Mark Twain who said “Better to remain silent and have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”.
I’m off to the aviary for a snifter as I review the latest in digital cameras and French cookware.
Cholmondely will show you all out.
On, and Sam, you beclowned yourself.
Just ignort Sam.
Sweet Jesus, and here I thought grade school was in full session today.
Doooood,
I love it when you go all Machiavellian on a brutha.
“You know, when you start out your screed with a completely unsupportable and utterly laughable assertion, it doesn’t help the rest of your case very much.”
It doesn’t help his case much, but it does allow me to jump more quickly to material that might include actual intellectual content.
By all means, continue to lead with your stupid. It saves loads of readers loads of time.
Sammy
Why is describing you as a ‘lefty’ an ad hom attack? Either you are left of center or not.
It’s a description of political position.
Of course, since most Leftist emotive policies (not much ‘thought’ involved) are, at best, laughable I can understand why you would wish to avoid the label even as you wallow in the Reality-based Community(tm).
While I’d love to join the discussion of the beclowning of Campos, instead might I suggest this Strategypage post about why we don’t have formal, white-glove-and-face-slapping declarations of war anymore: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20060216.aspx
Authorizations to use force are good enough for government work these days.
Don’t worry about Sam. Schoolkids are out on vacation here in Mass. He’ll be out of our hair next week.
Ah yes, the pseudointellectual equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”
Seriously sam, we are still waiting for examples of Reynolds’ being a partisan hack. I’ve seen him criticize Bush more than support him. And moralizing? Do you understand the definition of “libertarian”?
Why is describing you as a ‘lefty’ an ad hom attack? Either you are left of center or not.
You’re right, it was a compliment I’m sure!
Then the weird creepy typo focus. Once again, pretty weak and very much in keeping with the all slime no substance nature of your copy and paste hero.
Sam, you’re taking up an awful lot of space not saying a goddamned thing. Put up or shut up, won’t you? Huh? My original post had some thoughts, none of which have been addressed with anything nearing the vigor of my typo.
Bill Hedrick, if you want to counter my charge of Instapundit being a partisan hack please find one link were he implies a Republican is a traitor as he does with gusto for Democrats with whom he disagrees. Now Instapundit is a diligent practitioner of cya (which is why his accidental posting of a raw actual thought got him in so much hot water), so don’t waste your time looking for things that are too explicit.
Sam Riley
I found this statement rather humorous when you went on to declare ad hominem on your opponents.
If you are going to get in a war of pointing out others’ logical fallacies, please try not to commit any yourself.
That being said, this is nothing more than a nonsense tiff between two law professors with too much time on their hands. Anybody who has read Campos’ articles over the years can plainly see that his editorials tend to reflect what he believes to be popular opinion; rarely have I seen anything of his represent original thinking rather than media polls. So for him to launch into analogically fallacious hyperbole is hardly surprising.
Reynolds, on the other hand, is notable for offering little more than superfical analyses of anything related to politics on his blog–this is a man known more for turning “Heh” into a blog catchphrase than the breadth of his political analyses and insight.
What’s remarkable is that Campos didn’t compare Reynolds to Pat Robertson, not that he wrote such a reactionary article.
Well, Bush DOES suck.
It’s funny–looks like most of Insta’s examples in the printed response assume a State of War. And he based his original virtual defense on the contention that the US and Iran have been at war since ‘79.
Why didn’t he have the confidence to bring the lynchpin of his case from pixel to press?
Could it be that his 28 year state of war is true in this sense but not the more narrow legal one?
Anyway, there’s a line in War and Peace that’s completely on point and illustrates my meaning perfectly. Read the whole thing.
Heh.
I found this statement rather humorous when you went on to declare ad hominem on your opponents.
If you are going to get in a war of pointing out others’ logical fallacies, please try not to commit any yourself.
A small point to make but, I like to use ad hom attacks. I was pointing out that this individual said they were negative and then proceeded to use one.
Sam Riley
“Bill Hedrick, if you want to counter my charge of Instapundit being a partisan hack please find one link were he implies a Republican is a traitor as he does with gusto for Democrats with whom he disagrees.”
Why does anyone else have to do your work? You made the assertion. Support it. We were quite happily discussing the demolition of Campos. Then you show up, talk trash about Glenn Reynolds, and then stand there (virtually speaking).
If you can’t/ won’t provide any examples to support your assertions, then they are what most people refer to as opinions or guesses. Or you’re the D.A. In Durham NC.
You know, Sammy, when my grandsons get as cranky as you are I know it’s time to put ‘em down for a nap.
I understand their crankiness…they’re 4 1/2.
Wassup with you?
How do you know?
Can I have Riley’s pie?
Agreed. I read Glenn just about every day and I find his tone and content rather even-handedly disdainful towards all stupid politicians. God knows there’s enough of them to go around. He rarely posts more than a few sentences and basically acts more as a blog traffic director than anything. Which makes Sam’s dripping vitriol toward him all the more curious to me.
Indicates Sammy has a mad man-crush on Glenn and is crying out for attention.
Man, this is entertaining:
Wow, Sam, care to give an example of Reynolds making such an implication? I do believe you have Prof. Reynolds mixed up with Misha. Although come to think of it, I don’t think Misha has much use for anti-war Republicans, either. So I guess I’m unclear as to who you’re talking about here—it certainly isn’t Instapundit.
Oh wait, now I see:
And thus Mr. Riley absolves himself from any obligation to back up his accusations with facts. Reynolds is a “partisan hack” who labels Democrats “traitors”—but you won’t find any examples because he is so skilled at “cya” that only eagle-eyed gumshoes like Riley can detect what a biased “partisan hack” he is. Damn you, Instapundit, for the way you “cya” but not actually saying what Riley knows you’re thinking! Reynolds’ cunning truly knows no bounds.
Funny you use the term phantasmagorical in this post. When I had Paul Campos for Property I as a 1L many years ago, he used this term on exam. So perplexed was most of the class that, halfway through the exam, the proctor had to inform everyone that Campos had posted a definition of the term on a bulletin board outside the classroom. I am ashamed to report that fully 90% of the class rushed out to discover the meaning of this word. I was not among them. Vignette aside, Campos is a smarmy, holier-than-thou professor who never tied of stoking his ego with the mistakes of his students. Although the RMN article may represent his beclowning moment to most, those os us who know him more personally can attest that he has been beclowing himself for a considerable period of time.
What?
You mind telling me where he even calls a Democrat a “traitor”? Are you even reading the same Instapundit everybody else is reading?
and where did I say Campos specified “binding”
so until you all stop fabricating ,
I need not reply.
instapundit does not deserv34rfdsw the time to type or cut and paste correctly.
I do not misspell.
If there is any relevance to “courts” declaring Reynolds’ proposed course of action “illegal,” their supposed proclamation would have to set a binding precedent.
Otherwise, Campos’ “references” are little more than trivia—something a legal scholar like Campos presumably knows.
That’s just it, RG. Sammy doesn’t say Reynolds actually calls a Dem a “traitor”, he says Glenn implies it. If you possessed great intuitive powers like Sammy’s, it would be plain enough.
With that in mind let’s see what Sammy can infer from this cryptic bit that Darleen writes: he acts like a child who needs a nap.
Nick you are teh funny! May I “refere” to your first post to disprove your assertion to spelling accuracy?
No fabrications here, but I should think you’d want to read Col. Parks’s Memorandum, what with it getting all nuancey and stuff with the definition of “assassination.” Isn’t that what you guys are into?
“Political Hack” …. heh.
“so until you all stop fabricating ,
I need not reply.
instapundit does not deserv34rfdsw the time to type or cut and paste correctly.”
And thus Nick, channeling stevexxx, DECLARES VICTORY!
If this hack agreed with your position (whatever that might be)would they still be a hack?
YES
A legal advisor was referenced by Instapundit not an EO. and it was a political appointee not a civil servant, thus HACK.
3. Campos -> …government-sponsored assassinations of the sort Reynolds is advocating are expressly and unambiguously prohibited by the laws of the United States.
4. “Enough said!†on my part. you all can discuss if Japan should attack us as defense agsint Global Warming till your beach washes away. (Japan has as much a moral imperative.)
That is a very revealing comment. An ad hominen attack is made when one personally attacks the individual he is debating rather than address the issues. Admitting that you like them is essentially admitting that you are unable to debate the issues. You have made several unsubstantiated charges and then demanded that others on this post refute them. The “have you stopped beating your wife” debating tactic.
Emerson – “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”
>> 3. Campos -> …government-sponsored assassinations of the sort Reynolds is advocating are expressly and unambiguously prohibited by the laws of the United States.
Erm, no, they’re prohibited by an executive order in which the term “assassination” itself is subject to, shall we say, the nuances of situational interpretation.
Enough said, indeed. You’ve barely said anything worth replying to.
it you were observant you would notice the
‘e’ key is surroudned by keys 34rfdsw
which is what I typed for I knew you would gleam onto spelling rather than content.
Careful, next you’ll say an EO is a political appointee disguised as a civil servant, and that’s incoherent enough as it is.
Silly, that’s Andrew.
I’m beginning to think you don’t know how to read properly, nick – Prof. Reynolds referenced both, although he didn’t specify which EO forbade assassinations. I would think he didn’t have to if you knew how to Google facts as well as you feel able to disprove them.
I dearly want to make a comment on this, but I’ll refrain…
Nick, I don’t think the word “hack” means what you think it means.
Demonstrate that the political appointee does not sincerely believe his/her own stated positions … then you can assert “hackdom”
ditto calling Reynolds a “hack”
ditto calling US military “mercenaries”
Don’t feel you have to reply promptly … I realize that sulk and pout is especially satisfying for you.
I’m happy to repeat Campos’ bald assertion yet again; it still proves nothing. If you intend to claim a solid position in the “laws of the United States,” you should cite the statute or binding precedent.
EO = exec order = DUFUS!
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew68.php
Thanks for proving our point. Sheesh, you could’ve tried a little harder.
I think most people here know what an executive order is, nick. Don’t blame others for your inability to communicate clearly.
For example, in your previous post, you seem to say that an Executive Order is a “DUFUS.” I get what you’re saying, but it’s untrue and not very interesting, and hardly worth everyone’s trouble to decipher. Maybe you could get someone to proofread what you post.
Likewise, I’m unclear whether the link you post is meant as a cite that I asked for. If not, and you’re merely proving that an executive order exists prohibiting assassinations, thank you for proving what Reynolds stipulated from the start. On the other hand, if that is its purpose, then you’ve failed again: it cites no U.S. law, and continues to reference presidential executive orders.
I just blew clam chowder out my nose.
OMG!!! NICK IS TEH TRIXXORZ!!!1!1111!!!!