Hanging offenses


An amusing debate on the Alan Colmes radio show (where he is apparently not the doormat he is on television) between Glenn Greenwald and one Frank Gaffney, who recently wrote a column in the Moonie Times suggesting that people who dissent on the war should be hung. You can listen to the entire debate at Crooks and Liars. Gaffney's column should be at this link, but you'll find nothing there, since it has been pulled.

It began with the following "quote" from Abraham Lincoln:

Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

A powerful quote, except that it was wholly made up by someone from the same right wing institute for which Gaffney works and had been previously exposed as a lie. As Greenwald pointed out in the debate, Gaffney knew or should have known it wasn't accurate. But why let the truth get in the way of a good talking point? (The quote, by the way, was trotted out by Congressman Don Young during the recent debate on the anti-escalation resolution).

Gaffney insisted that, despite the fact that he used language that quite clearly called for dissenters (particularly Carl Levin) to be hung, he was only speaking metaphorically.

You might ask, why was Carl Levin singled out? Well, it seems that Levin had the temerity to criticize Douglas Feith, Tommy Frank's nominee for the stupidest person on earth. Feith is a friend of Gaffney's, and Gaffney doesn't like the fact that Feith's role in cooking pre-war intelligence is becoming more widely known.

So, if you listen carefully to the debate, you will hear that Gaffney retreated to the position that our country was endangered if we criticized government officials for daring to question the conclusions reached by the intelligence community. Such questioning, according to Gaffney could in theory lead to better policy decisions, and therefore should not be criticized, even if in this particular case it led to disaster.

Let's consider this, shall we?

It is Carl Levin's job to, among other things, conduct oversight of the workings of the federal government, including instances in which government officials decide to circumvent established channels, such as Feith and his cronies sought to do. Still, according to Gaffney, Levin should be hung for criticizing Feith because his criticism of Feith will deter future Feiths from criticizing future CIAs. We can't have that because we need such criticism to protect us from all kinds of dirty, nasty people even if, as with Feith, the intrepid fellow that takes on the CIA manages to manufacture an unnecessary war, because in some alternate reality, or some future time, the manufactured war might turn out to have been necessary, or at least turned out not to be such a mess that every sane person on earth realized it was a disaster. To preserve that future Feith's freedom to criticize, Feith himself (and by extension all future Feiths) must himself be immune from criticism. (Here insert obligatory baseless claim that it demoralizes our troops and emboldens our enemies, who would otherwise be quite enmeekened.) So, it follows as the night the day, that Levin's criticism of Feith's actions was treasonous while Feith's criticism of the CIA was patriotism of the highest order.

Now, in truth, or at least in theory, bureaucratic channels are set up in order to maximize the chances that the correct decisions will be made by the correct people. When you do a Feith-like end run around those channels you are taking a chance. All is forgiven, and you will not be criticized (or at least your transgression will be overlooked), if you turn out to be right. But Feith turned out to be so wrong that the term "100% wrong" doesn't do him justice. The idea that it is treasonous to complain about a grossly incompetent person analyzing "intelligence" in lieu of the experts who know what they're doing, because there is a possibility that someday, some future renegade in the same position might turn out to be right, is ludicrous beyond belief.

But I must admit that Gaffney's ideas acquired a bit of a hold over me. After giving the matter almost no thought (see, I told you he's gaining influence on me) I propose that we hang Gaffney. By criticizing Levin, he is making it less likely that future Levins will feel free to criticize future Feiths. After all, the next time around future-Levin might criticize future-Feith before the start of the future war, thereby stopping said war and avoiding another disaster. Also, as Abraham Lincoln would have maybe said:

Columnists from right wing think tanks who willfully take actions during wartime that turn logic on its head and undermine our constitutional system of checks and balances are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

Next time Gaffney writes a column, he might keep in mind something that Lincoln actually did say:

If there ever could be a proper time for mere catch arguments, that time surely is not now. In times like the present, men should utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsible through time and in eternity.
Posted: Sunday - February 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM          

©