Full Version: Ward Churchill advocates "fragging"...
Speaking at an anti-military forum this week in Oregon, University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill make some eye-opening comments regarding activism and consciencious objectors.
These partial transcripts were from last night's O'Reilly Factor and can be seen here.
This is what he said:
Now one of the constitutional lawyers on the show with O'reilly argued that, as dispicable a message, that it would be protected under the First Amendment and that the Supreme Court has ruled on similar instances in which violence was implied in speech, citing that one could "engage in hyperbole" to make a point.
That being said...
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Should his remarks be covered?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
These partial transcripts were from last night's O'Reilly Factor and can be seen here.
This is what he said:
QUOTE
For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted and in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit? Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect.
Now one of the constitutional lawyers on the show with O'reilly argued that, as dispicable a message, that it would be protected under the First Amendment and that the Supreme Court has ruled on similar instances in which violence was implied in speech, citing that one could "engage in hyperbole" to make a point.
That being said...
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Should his remarks be covered?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
No link to the actual speech transcription? That'd be nice to do some fact checking about O'Reilly's crew. Guess I'll just have to trust that O'Reilly isn't exaggerating things, which is a pretty big leap of faith.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Yep, and so did the experts on O'Reilly.
Should his remarks be covered?
I don't see why not. Nobody is going to frag anybody else because Churchill thinks it's more effective than simply doing a conscientious objection against war. Since there is no draft, and since all the soldiers in Iraq are volunteers, conscientious objection isn't an issue.
This is why I'd like to see the full and accurate trascription of Churchill's talk. It doesn't make much sense without context.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
No publicity is bad publicity; however, I am still suspicious about the accuracy of O'Reilly's quote. No source, no way to verify. Trust but verify, eh? I don't trust O'Reilly to get things straight.
Sure would like some links to what actually transpired . . .
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Yep, and so did the experts on O'Reilly.
Should his remarks be covered?
I don't see why not. Nobody is going to frag anybody else because Churchill thinks it's more effective than simply doing a conscientious objection against war. Since there is no draft, and since all the soldiers in Iraq are volunteers, conscientious objection isn't an issue.
This is why I'd like to see the full and accurate trascription of Churchill's talk. It doesn't make much sense without context.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
No publicity is bad publicity; however, I am still suspicious about the accuracy of O'Reilly's quote. No source, no way to verify. Trust but verify, eh? I don't trust O'Reilly to get things straight.
Sure would like some links to what actually transpired . . .
From the quote, I don't get how his statements could be interpreted as advocating fragging. He poses a rhetorical question comparing support for conscientious objectors who remain in combat to support for fragging. I think the answer to the rhetorical question is no (however I don't see how they are connected either). He then says that fragging has "a much more impactful effect" which is undeniably true. Blowing up a comrade in arms is certainly "impactful".
After re-reading the quote several times, I conclude that he is saying that you should support conscientious objectors who don't fight, that is, are not in Iraq, rather than those who do object but fight anyway but possibly doing so poorly placing their fellow soldiers at risk. He uses fragging as an example (but a really, really poor example). Of course, my reading may be completely off. Bleh.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Yes.
Should his remarks be covered?
Yes.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
His remarks will be countered with other remarks.
After re-reading the quote several times, I conclude that he is saying that you should support conscientious objectors who don't fight, that is, are not in Iraq, rather than those who do object but fight anyway but possibly doing so poorly placing their fellow soldiers at risk. He uses fragging as an example (but a really, really poor example). Of course, my reading may be completely off. Bleh.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Yes.
Should his remarks be covered?
Yes.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
His remarks will be countered with other remarks.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
All speech is covered by the first amendment.
Should his remarks be covered?
Limiting free speech in any way would be dangerous.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
Well, Churchill is probably going to ruin his career as a Professor, but I'm sure he'll be a hero for those that believe his rhetoric.
All speech is covered by the first amendment.
Should his remarks be covered?
Limiting free speech in any way would be dangerous.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
Well, Churchill is probably going to ruin his career as a Professor, but I'm sure he'll be a hero for those that believe his rhetoric.
Hard right wing nuts like O'Reilly sure did have to dig awfully far to come up with a tired straw horse like Churchill. Churchill has no influence. Churchill has no followers. Churchill has no peers. Churchill has no respect. I have no idea why he is even mentioned. Remember, Churchill gained national attention after, not before, his life was threatened. let's be sure to consider the remarks of people like THAT guy, too, when we think about free speech.
It's just a massive double standard to pay any attention at all to a comment like Churchill's, but to ignore the comments of an actual congressman, Sam Johnson, who once said, "Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore."
Was Johnson ever mentioned in the "no spin zone?" Churchill, a bum, says somebody ought to kill somebody. but Johnson, a congressman, says millions ought to die.
so here before you, is paraded Ward Churchill. let us carefully consider his remarks. after all, like Stalin once said, a murder is a tragedy but genocide is a statistic. or something like that.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
absolutely
Should his remarks be covered?
not really. there are higher priorities, thousands of more important and consequential people to hear from.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
I hope he has no career left. There should be no reward whatsoever for idiocy. Therefore, I wish the same fate for O'Reilly.
It's just a massive double standard to pay any attention at all to a comment like Churchill's, but to ignore the comments of an actual congressman, Sam Johnson, who once said, "Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore."
Was Johnson ever mentioned in the "no spin zone?" Churchill, a bum, says somebody ought to kill somebody. but Johnson, a congressman, says millions ought to die.
so here before you, is paraded Ward Churchill. let us carefully consider his remarks. after all, like Stalin once said, a murder is a tragedy but genocide is a statistic. or something like that.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
absolutely
Should his remarks be covered?
not really. there are higher priorities, thousands of more important and consequential people to hear from.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
I hope he has no career left. There should be no reward whatsoever for idiocy. Therefore, I wish the same fate for O'Reilly.
QUOTE
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Of course it is, controversial and offensive speech is exactly why the First Amendment exists, it'd be the first speech to be censored.QUOTE
Should his remarks be covered?
Covered by who? The media? Headline: Idiot Colorado U Prof. Mouths Off. How is this even a news story? Who cares what Ward Churchill says about anything?QUOTE
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
Well, since most people already think he's a putts, nothing. The U of Colorado can't fire him, as it is a government run school, so that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.CP
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
What he said is completely covered by the first amendment. If he wanted to he could explicitly tell people to go to Iraq and kill US troops. What makes conspiracy is physically helping people go to Iraq to kill US troops. He isn't doing that so it isn't conspiracy.
Should his remarks be covered?
Definitely. If the First Amendment doesn't mean you have a right to free speech then what does it mean? You have a right to free speech unless what you say is unpopular?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
I don' think most people could hate Ward Churchill much more than they did before. Is anybody saying to themselves, "The little Eichmann comment was fine, but Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect, that just goes over the line"?
What he said is completely covered by the first amendment. If he wanted to he could explicitly tell people to go to Iraq and kill US troops. What makes conspiracy is physically helping people go to Iraq to kill US troops. He isn't doing that so it isn't conspiracy.
Should his remarks be covered?
Definitely. If the First Amendment doesn't mean you have a right to free speech then what does it mean? You have a right to free speech unless what you say is unpopular?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
I don' think most people could hate Ward Churchill much more than they did before. Is anybody saying to themselves, "The little Eichmann comment was fine, but Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect, that just goes over the line"?
QUOTE
AuthorMusician
No link to the actual speech transcription?
No link to the actual speech transcription?
I couldn't find one in print. I've found a couple links to sound files of the speech, and if you want to download one, go to IndyTorrents.org and look for the title Ward Churchill 6-23-05
I can't play the file (using my folk's pc) so I think I'll trust the section in particular.
Now as far as finding out what he "actually" said, I wouldn't go looking for the classic cop out of "context". There is none from what I've seen.
QUOTE
nemov
All speech is covered by the first amendment.
All speech is covered by the first amendment.
First off, that's not true, vis a vis the 9th Amendment. I'll defer to the old analogy of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre and starting a panic. That's not covered whatsoever.
And that's my point. Is this passing over the line of protection? I believe this isn't only saying something unpopular, as Rancid Uncle would contend. This is about advocating the murder of officers in the field, which could pose a threat to them and the stability of the units in Iraq.
I imagine it comes down to whether or not his remarks constitute a "clear and present danger" to the soldiers.
What I would like to know is if there was a murder as a result, would Churchill be held liable to some extent?
QUOTE
What I would like to know is if there was a murder as a result, would Churchill be held liable to some extent?
Of course not Titus. Personal responsibility my friend. If anyone kills an officer THEY killed the officer, not Ward Churchill. If he told people to try to stand on their head, and someone broke there kneck it would be there fault as well. Churchill said something offensive and terrible, but words alone are not responsible for murder.CP
As I am a firm believer in personal responsibility CP, speech can have an effect on people, so much that it would incite lawless bahavior.
Doing some research into the issue of free speech cases before the Supreme Court, I came upon the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio
The site listed the conclusion as follows:
QUOTE
The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.
So Churchill's speech, as dispicable as it is, very well looks to pass the SCOTUS test.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Jun 30 2005, 02:12 PM)
[
QUOTE
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
Well, since most people already think he's a putts, nothing. The U of Colorado can't fire him, as it is a government run school, so that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.Wrong, the First Amendment does not protect public employees anymore than it protects private employees from losing their job as a consequence of their speech. Even public employees can't cuss out their boss and expect the 1st Amendment to protect them. The 1st protects you from prosecution, not from being fired.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Yes, just like every bit of nonsense uttered on the O'Reilly show is covered by the first amendment. That is the bittersweet pill that is the first amendment.
Should his remarks be covered?
Why? For his remarks to be covered he would have to be important first - he isn't and never has been. Ask America who Ward Churchill is and probably 98% of the country will say - "who?"
The only reason that O'Reilly is covering his remarks is to further sell the idea that liberals hate the military and they hate this country. He finds this lunatic speaking at an anit-war rally, takes some quotes (probably out of context) and shows them to his audience. Not because anyone cares what Ward Churchill has to say, but because people will equate him with "liberals" and therefore their belief that liberals hate america and our troops will be reinforced.
And you wonder why studies have showed that people who watch Fox News are extremely disconnected from reality and have inaccurate information.
Do we cover the remarks of every right wing nutjob out there that claims we need to purge the earth of homosexuals or send all the immigrants back where they came from? I wonder why O'Reilly doesn't cover those important stories on his show.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
What career? The only consequences he should suffer is to continue to look like a complete fool. I'm sure that his position on issues endears him in some circles, but for the vast majority of people, liberal or conservative, he is just another idiot burning through his 15 minutes.
Yes, just like every bit of nonsense uttered on the O'Reilly show is covered by the first amendment. That is the bittersweet pill that is the first amendment.
Should his remarks be covered?
Why? For his remarks to be covered he would have to be important first - he isn't and never has been. Ask America who Ward Churchill is and probably 98% of the country will say - "who?"
The only reason that O'Reilly is covering his remarks is to further sell the idea that liberals hate the military and they hate this country. He finds this lunatic speaking at an anit-war rally, takes some quotes (probably out of context) and shows them to his audience. Not because anyone cares what Ward Churchill has to say, but because people will equate him with "liberals" and therefore their belief that liberals hate america and our troops will be reinforced.
And you wonder why studies have showed that people who watch Fox News are extremely disconnected from reality and have inaccurate information.
Do we cover the remarks of every right wing nutjob out there that claims we need to purge the earth of homosexuals or send all the immigrants back where they came from? I wonder why O'Reilly doesn't cover those important stories on his show.
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
What career? The only consequences he should suffer is to continue to look like a complete fool. I'm sure that his position on issues endears him in some circles, but for the vast majority of people, liberal or conservative, he is just another idiot burning through his 15 minutes.
As a quick aside, I asked "should they be covered" in respect to whether or not you believe that his remarks should fall under the cover of the 1st Amendment.
QUOTE(Titus @ Jun 30 2005, 01:55 PM)
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Should his remarks be covered?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
Should his remarks be covered?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
1. Yes. The First Amendment protects speech that is vile, disgusting and offensive. It also protects the right of a babbling idiot to babble idiotically.
2. No. If I were a newspaper editor (and I was) I'd have to wonder to what extent we would be serving as a "enabler" by giving this babbling idiot precious space to cover his idiotic babbling. I would put the same question to the producers of The O'Reilly Factor. It's easy to figure out Churchill's motives in saying these crazy things. What's the motivation of FOX News to continue giving this idiot free publicity?
3. If the University of Colorado wants to continue to be embarassed this way I guess they will have to put up with his ravings and droolings (and idiotic babbling). Otherwise, he's probably condemned to go through the rest of his academic career being the whipping boy for Bill O'Reilly's psuedo "outrage."
This is like big-time wrestling minus the steroids and the sweaty Spandex.
QUOTE
Wrong, the First Amendment does not protect public employees anymore than it protects private employees from losing their job as a consequence of their speech. Even public employees can't cuss out their boss and expect the 1st Amendment to protect them. The 1st protects you from prosecution, not from being fired.
Just curious Hugo, but how do you figure that. How did you arrive at that conclusion. I'm just curious, because I'm fairly certain that you're probably right and that you know more about Constutional Law/Theory than me, so just asking, how did you arrive at that conclusion?CP
QUOTE(Titus @ Jun 30 2005, 09:00 PM)
As a quick aside, I asked "should they be covered" in respect to whether or not you believe that his remarks should fall under the cover of the 1st Amendment.
are you kidding? question 1 is "do you believe they are covered?" and question 2 is "do you believe they should be covered?"
i noticed the subtle difference and read it that way at first, but thought it seemed too redundant. "should his remarks be covered by the media" seemed like a more likely and relevant meaning for number 2 so i went with that.
oops.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Jul 1 2005, 08:11 AM)
QUOTE
Wrong, the First Amendment does not protect public employees anymore than it protects private employees from losing their job as a consequence of their speech. Even public employees can't cuss out their boss and expect the 1st Amendment to protect them. The 1st protects you from prosecution, not from being fired.
Just curious Hugo, but how do you figure that. How did you arrive at that conclusion. I'm just curious, because I'm fairly certain that you're probably right and that you know more about Constutional Law/Theory than me, so just asking, how did you arrive at that conclusion?CP
Whoops, upon further research. it looks I was the one who was wrong. From www.npelra.org
QUOTE
Overview: "Public Concern" and the Balancing Process
Most Americans take for granted that they have a right to freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. In the public employment context, however, this right is tempered by the employer's need to maintain a harmonious and efficient workplace. Therefore, to be protected by the First Amendment, a public employee's speech must address a matter of public concern. In other words, employee speech addressing purely personal issues is not usually entitled to constitutional protection. The content, form and context of the speech determine whether it addresses public or purely private concern. Once it is determined that the speech addresses a matter of public concern, the employee's interest in his speech must be balanced against the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of the services it performs
Most Americans take for granted that they have a right to freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. In the public employment context, however, this right is tempered by the employer's need to maintain a harmonious and efficient workplace. Therefore, to be protected by the First Amendment, a public employee's speech must address a matter of public concern. In other words, employee speech addressing purely personal issues is not usually entitled to constitutional protection. The content, form and context of the speech determine whether it addresses public or purely private concern. Once it is determined that the speech addresses a matter of public concern, the employee's interest in his speech must be balanced against the employer's interest in promoting the efficiency of the services it performs
When addressing a matter of public concern, as Ward was, there are strong protections, though not absolute, for public employees who engage in political discourse.
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Should his remarks be covered?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
[/quote]
Yes, as had been said ad nauseum, speech, no matter how unpopular or idiotic or inane is covered by the first amendment.
Yes, I do not think the government should be able to say what is "OK" to say and what is not "OK". The thought police cannot be allowed to determine what one can say.
Look, I don't believe he advocated "fragging", I think he posed a rhetorical question. A stupid question, because like someone already mentioned, there is no draft so everyone in the military is a volunteer. In fact, to join the military you are specifically asked if you are a conscientious objector, and if you answer in the afirmative, you are disqualified. I do wonder about the academic legitimacy of Ward Churchill, what does he teach anyway at the U of Colorado? Should not his time be better spent being a teacher or researching or writing books, isn't that what college professors are supposed to do?
QUOTE(JeepMan @ Jul 2 2005, 07:58 PM)
Do you believe his remarks are covered under the First Amendment?
Should his remarks be covered?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
Yes, as had been said ad nauseum, speech, no matter how unpopular or idiotic or inane is covered by the first amendment.
Yes, I do not think the government should be able to say what is "OK" to say and what is not "OK". The thought police cannot be allowed to determine what one can say.
Look, I don't believe he advocated "fragging", I think he posed a rhetorical question. A stupid question, because like someone already mentioned, there is no draft so everyone in the military is a volunteer. In fact, to join the military you are specifically asked if you are a conscientious objector, and if you answer in the afirmative, you are disqualified. I do wonder about the academic legitimacy of Ward Churchill, what does he teach anyway at the U of Colorado? Should not his time be better spent being a teacher or researching or writing books, isn't that what college professors are supposed to do?
Should his remarks be covered?
What consequences do you believe Churchill should render? What will actually happen to his career as a result of these remarks?
Yes, as had been said ad nauseum, speech, no matter how unpopular or idiotic or inane is covered by the first amendment.
Yes, I do not think the government should be able to say what is "OK" to say and what is not "OK". The thought police cannot be allowed to determine what one can say.
Look, I don't believe he advocated "fragging", I think he posed a rhetorical question. A stupid question, because like someone already mentioned, there is no draft so everyone in the military is a volunteer. In fact, to join the military you are specifically asked if you are a conscientious objector, and if you answer in the afirmative, you are disqualified. I do wonder about the academic legitimacy of Ward Churchill, what does he teach anyway at the U of Colorado? Should not his time be better spent being a teacher or researching or writing books, isn't that what college professors are supposed to do?
Hey JeepMan,
I listened to one of Churchill's speeches while trying to grab the quote mentioned on O'Reilly, but it must have been a different speech. Didn't find the quote. He's an activist from way back and takes the stance that the US doesn't follow law on an international or domestic basis. He also advocates that the citizens have to make the US follow law by whatever means -- that's activism. Maybe fragging comes into this notion? If so, he didn't say that in the speech I listened to.
Found this list of published books by Chuchill:
by Ward Churchill and About WC
Churchill teaches ethnic studies at the U of C:
WC Bio
I see his point when the US goes against the Geneva Convention and uses the war on terror as an excuse to suspend civil rights. In the recording of the speech I heard, he called us "toilet paper," and we ought to beware of being treated like so much toilet paper, as we are not immune from the lawlessness.
Although I can see his point, I can't embrace it as he has -- no matter how true it might be. This is a crippling way of thinking that leads to treating others with automatic distrust. Although trust does need to be earned, I personally must start out with an assumption of trust in order to function in this world (get a job, sign a contract, make a friend, that sort of stuff).
Still, it is wise to trust with verification. There are plenty of shysters out there, and even downright nasty jerks who love to mess up your life. I would draw the line far before the alleged fragging idea, as murdering a military leader isn't the same as killing the folks who push for illegal actions by the US, and I wouldn't want to kill them either.
Somehow, honor has to be established in the US government -- that's Churchill's primary message. Great, but how?
I don't think he knows or anyone else for that matter. He has the right to speculate on this, and maybe that's where the fragging thing came in. Eh, stupid idea. Throw that one out. Maybe it's more effective to be honorable ourselves? Insist on our leadership having honor? That's a more uplifting message, and an old one, as is the problem with lawlessness in government.
My problem with activists has always been one of pragmatism. Oh sure, it's easy to harp on how things are all fowled up, but how do you fix them? Bringing a bunch of conservatives to power hasn't worked, and replacing them with liberals is an iffy proposition. The corruption of power is always there, always has been there, and will probably be a continuing characteristic of power. Shutting up Churchill won't help either -- although ignorance is bliss to some folks, wisdom a folly.
<sigh>
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.