In general I agree with your take on free speech. On the other hand, just because someone has the "right" to say something doesn't mean they should. While the families of 9/11 victims will, as you say, "survive," I'm not sure it's helpful for them to hear from Ward Churchill. Measured words may sometimes be more constructive and perhaps powerful than unrestrained free speech.

Churchill may have gotten more mileage if he had tempered his words just a tad. What is the point of exercising free speech, if someone makes a large percentage of listeners so mad he loses them in the process?

Ummmm....NeoCon, I never, ever, said that he should lose his job for what he said, in fact, this is what I did say:

CP

The number of the Iraqi victims of the US is much bigger than the number of the 9-11 victims. How much helpful do you think for those people when some president of a country who had their houses bombed says that they have been "freed". Ward Churchill's comments are much lighter on the victims of the 9-11 then the US actions and the comments on Iraq are on the Iraqi people.

Exactly ConserPat! Moreover, it would be nice if more people paid more attention to what other people actually say. Not what someone says they said, or what someone "thinks" what someone was "trying to say" is.... (the way Antny tried to spin Churchills own words in a previous post).



If everyone would care to review this entire thread, they will find that the vast majority of those of us who find fault (to one degree or another) with Ward Churchill's opinion of 9/11 victims, also stated the belief that he is entitled to express his opinion.

I think that this debate highlights what I often feel is an epidemic misunderstanding of the concept of "free speech".

First, it only applies to a relationship between individuals and their government. Not in the private realm. You can't march onto my lawn and "express" yourself without my sanction. You have no "right" to barge into a restaurant and denounce the chef without fear of being tossed out on the street forthwith. And nevermind the old "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" exception, you don't even have a "right" (at the movie theatre) to stand up in the middle of the picture and launch into a loud diatribe against the "evils" of capitalism, and not expect the crowd to vociferously "urge" you to shut your pie-hole, right before the ushers come and haul you to the nearest exit.

And even when the forum is public in nature (and the first ammendment applies) a depressingly large number of people mistakenly believe that the first ammendment grants them "the right to say whatever I want to say, and if you don't agree with what I say, you had better not disagree with me out loud, because you have no corresponding free speech right to respond to my speech. If you don't like what I say, you have the right to say "hmmmm, well, that's interesting" and nothing more. Anything beyond that would be "oppressive" and "stifling".

To these folks, if someone publicly expresses the opinion "America is an Imperial baby-killing juggernaut", well, that's free speech. If someone else publicly responds "Wow, that could be construed as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists",well, that's not free speech, why, that's an "oppressive", "stifling" "infringement" of my free speech.

I for one am glad that Wardy boy chose to share his thoughts publicly. It's usually safer for the rest of us when rabid critters wander out into the open in full view where we can deal with them, as opposed to remaining silent and hidden in the tall grass.

[QUOTE]An "excellent letter" you say? I wonder what that means. Does it mean you agree with it? For example, let's look at a few passages in that letter.....[/QUOTE]

It's a broad letter. I'm sure that I'm probably with everyone in that I agree with certain parts and disagree with others. Strongly in both cases. When I first read the letter I was astounded by how articulate it was, which is primarily what I'm referring to when I say "excellent". I had been lead to believe that Bin Laden was driven by pure hatred of liberty when (surprise!) it turns out that people in foreign countries don't actually like it when we bomb and starve them. I think the fact that his letters arn't widely printed accounts for the a widely held misunderstanding of his goals.

Still it's clear that envy is not a primary factor in the September 11th Attacks and Ward Churchills assertion that Al-Qaeda is "pushing back" is valid. How they push, should they be pushing? Probably subjects for another thread....

Also for the record there is little chance that I will stop drinking or fornicating. ;-)

[QUOTE][quote](a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
[/quote]

Do you agree with this?
[/QUOTE]

I honestly find the "call on you" part ambiguous, does this mean ask us politely or demand it? What if guys like me don't want to quit drinking martini's? The 9/11 bombers did a lot of their planning in strip clubs while tossed so I'm not really sure. Since they wern't exactly strict muslims it also seems clear that religous fundamentalism plays a more secondary role in the org (or that it gathers people with a myriad of agendas united under a single banner)

I will roll through the list in order to answer your question clearly.

Acts of Fornication: Enthusiastic Thumbs up!
Immoral Acts of Fornication: Need specifics here. Chances are that personally I'm not into it but that I'm not opposed to others doing it in the privacy of their homes.
Homosexuality: ditto previous
Intoxicants: Another Enthusiastic Thumbs up here.
Gambling: Tax on people who are bad at math, but hey people should be able to spend their money within the confines of the law.
Trading with interest: Good stuff, heartily in favor of it.

[quote] It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
[/quote]
Do you agree with this?

That's...over the top at best. I probably didn't even have say that though.


[QUOTE][quote]Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.
(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
[/quote]

Do you agree with this?[/QUOTE]

Clinton: par for the course if you are president (except bush II it appears). People did try to bring him "to account" but I think it was for political reasons more than zipper ones.
v: Yeah there are some corporate criminals I wish could be brought to justice. Like some of the people at monsanto and pfizer.
vi: bin laden has a point here but I think he is saying we are hippocrites when there are actually just two groups of people with opposing agendas. I wish women wern't treated as such objects in our culture.

[QUOTE]
[quote](xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.
(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.

[/quote]

Do you agree with this?[/QUOTE]

(xi): I think the US could afford to sign the Kyoto protocol. We probably have done more damage to nature than any other single country in history. Hopefully we can get our act together before we kill ourselves.
(x): it is kind of lame that our politics are so dominated by money and I wish the poor had a stronger voice. I heard once that for the last 50 years or so the presidential candidate who spend the most on their campaign has always won. To me that seems like an auction and not an election. I don't think there is a jewish "cabal" or anything like that.

[QUOTE]Perhaps you are right in one aspect, it's not envy, but rather, it is pure hatred that drives fanatics like bin Laden.[/QUOTE]

But it's not pure hate that drives bin laden! He actually has well thought out and legimate reasons for disliking the US. That is Churchills thesis, hence the whole push back thing. Virtually no one endorses the methodologies that Al-Qaeda has taken to redress those legitimate issues (especially churchill). I hope you're not insinuating that I do.


[QUOTE] I don't know what drives charlatans like Ward Churchill. Greed perhaps? From the Denver Post[/QUOTE]

That seems like an ad hominem to me, appologies if I'm off base. Since Churchill wouldn't have forseen buyout as mentioned in the article it's doubtful greed is his motivator. More accurately his push back statement was intended to highlight that there is a direct cause and effect relationship in international terrorism. It's clear that he is attempting to prevent future attacks by altering the policy that led to 9/11 (the efficiency of his actions leave more than a little to be desired)


[QUOTE]
[quote]David Lane, Churchill's attorney, said he has not been contacted about a buyout offer.

But, he said, while his primary focus is on protecting Churchill's constitutional right to speak out, he would be willing to listen to a university proposal.

"If they offer $10 million, I would think about it. If they offer him $10, I wouldn't," Lane said.

[/quote]
So, it's really about the money afterall isn't it? This is your champion?[/QUOTE]

It's NOT about the money[see above].

I think a buyout is a stupid waste of money(hello scholarships!). There are much cheaper ways to relegate people to obscurity.

[QUOTE]
[quote]For five consecutive generations, from roughly 1880–1980, Native American children in the United States and Canada were forcibly taken from their families and relocated to residential schools. The stated goal of this government program was to “kill the Indian to save the man.” Half of the children did not survive the experience, and those who did were left permanently scarred. The resulting alcoholism, suicide, and the transmission of trauma to successive generations has led to a social disintegration with results that can only be described as genocidal.
[/quote]

"Kill the Indian to save the man". This was the stated goal? Anyone have any background on this?
[/QUOTE]

See Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States as well as the sequel Voices from Peoples History of the United States. Here's the amazon link, used copies are only $3.50!

Peoples History of the US on amazon.com

-Hugo

oooops, since the baathists slaughtered hundreds of communists when they came in to power, mayble labeling them as communists isn't the most accurate thing. The US also put the baathists into power.

more info


Historically (and arguably in a contemporary sense as well) the US has little desire for a popular democracy in the middle east that may lead to a heavily fundamentalist government hostile to our needs for energy security.


Well since the sanctions failed to accomplish any of their officially stated goals, buttressed Hussiens power and killed more than a million innocent civilians perhaps criticism of them as a foreign policy tool is not too far out of line.

Also, if the United States wouldn't have funded and then withdrawn support for the 1996 kurdish rebellion at the last second we wouldn't have had to deal with any of this nastiness. When you take time to read the policy behind those decisions you see once again that the US is opposed to democracy in the middle east. See funding of the Egyptian Government and cozy relationship with Saudi Arabian government for further details.

Since it has always been clear that there were no weapons of mass distruction in Iraq (those who disagree see office of special plans for further details) letting the weak regime collapse on itself is the most effective course of action(it was even advocated by members of the white house like Colon Powell and Condoleeza Rice early in the administration) Also bringing criminal charges against US groups attempting to stem the massive flood of easily preventable deaths wasn't such a good idea either.

No, take time to reread it. The condition for peace is that we stop bombing them. First note the very first quote from the Quran. Jihad is only defensive.

-CarlitosWhey

You must have skipped the first half of the letter from OBL I posted. Here it is again.

Letter from Osama Bin Laden concerning reasons for 9/11 attacks

It outlines it an extremely clear fashion the methodologies the US military industrial complex has used to oppress the arab world and why OBL is unhappy with those actions. Hence, it has everything to do with our "military industrial complex."

Trying to call Churchill an apologist and anti-american is an ad hominem attack. He outlines the "push back" thesis in order to prevent it from happening again. He also condemns the attacks and terrorism in general but calls them "inevitable" in the face of ongoing US based military hostility in the middle east, especially under the rules of war the US government has established. You may be reading his work selectively because of your bias against him, appologies if I'm off base here.

H.L. Mencken said:

Pat Buchanan:



Sorry, if I keep bringing Pat into this. However, him and Ward have a great deal in common when it comes to the effects of our foriegn policy decisions. I have heard Pat called a lot of things. Un-American is not one of them. Pat is a bit brighter than Ward, he does not attack common Americans killed as a result of our engagements in other nations affairs.

Those on the left who deride the Bush Administration's lack of diplomacy ought to condemn this speech by Ward. No one in the WTC towers deserved to die that day. Whether our foreign policy ventures made the attack inevitable, as Ward and Pat both contend, is certainly subject to debate. Sadly, Ward has poisoned the waters of the debate. He put a knife through the back of the anti-war movement. I mean why do you think O'Reilly and Hannitty bring up this speech?

Ward seems to have problem with the concept of honesty. Ignore the Indian controversy, any man who derides capitalism and then profits from the sale of plagiarized art has a credibility problem.

You are forgiven. And you are off base. I'll read his work as selectively as I like, and if this pseudo-intellectual moron doesn't want the label "anti-american" he can try not being, well, anti-american. It's just so transparent.

For instance, calling the US a 'fascist state' and wishing us "off the planet." Don't you see the sheer stupidity in this statement? Seriously, for this to be true, he couldn't even have said it! Waltz on into 1940 Austria and proclaim "I wish the Reich were off the planet" and let me know how it goes. Hop over to Cuba and say "Fidel is like Hitler, I wish this country were off the planet." Here is a hint - you won't be guest lecturing in front of cheering crowds, because you would 'disappear' in a real fascist or totalitarian state. He denies the existence of the very freedom that he exploits for profit ($96K / year plus fake art sales).

He has advocated:
- violence against the meat industry(again using his simplistic Nazi comparison)
- overthrow of the US government
- petulant vandalism in response to speeding tickets
- insulting the innocent victims of terrorism on 9/11 as little eichmans

Additionally, he seemed jealous of the terrorists, wishing in a radio interview that Americans would have "thought of this first," flying planes into the WTC.


I think that George Orwell said it best in regards to believing idiots like this Churchill.
"One would have to be an intellectual to believe something like that; no ordinary man could be such a fool."

Link
Apparently Ward Churchill will NOT be fired by U. Colorado. Finally, free speech prevails.

CP

It would seem we have another "ooops" happening here.....

I'm beginning to wonder if this Churchill dude has ever had an original thought in his life. From MSNBC we hear our neighbors in the great white north chime in......



1997.... What tribe was he a member of at that point I wonder......

It seems to me that there is sufficient cause to dismiss this guy without any consideration whatsoever of his stupid comments on 911. Heck, this guy has been playing stupid his entire adult life near as I can tell.

UC is considering "buying off" Churchill. My mom, who lives in Denver, says dumping Churchill will cost $500,000.

But another "scandal" has come to light. It seems Churchill is now being accused of not giving credit where credit is due.

Horrors! Didn't credit her! Yikes, every college student writing an essay should quake in their shoes! It looks as if all the buzzards and hyenas are circling to take a chunk out of Churchill's hide. For all those screaming for Churchill's head, doesn't it concern you even a little bit that our rights to free speech are being quietly eroded away? Never mind all the other garbage about Churchill; he's only the first act in this three-ring circus.

How is Churchill's right to free speech infringed here? Is Churchill going to jail for what he said... Or, are you referring to some non-existent right to be free from all repercussions of one's speech?

It is too bad that the only way they can get rid of him is by buying him off. He should be booted out on his but with no compensation and shown for the fraud that he is. Instead, he gets a hefty little sum of money to live off of without working.

As far as his plagiarism goes-- it is a very serious matter in academia. Presumably his publications got him his "tenure". I think that is grounds for revoking the tenure as it seems to have been achieved fraudently.

A college student caught plagerizing normally gets expelled...What problem do you have when the same thing happens to a teacher?

CP

The article read said he had failed to cite the article. If all of us here at AD were subject to arrest for failing to cite a source, several would no longer be here. The variety of accounts about what Churchill did or did not do is legion. Sure, he's loathsome, and all that, but fercryinoutloud, why go back 20+ years? How many of us don't have a skeleton or two in our personal closets?

One footnote? Give me a mother-lovin' break.

The point is we aren't subject to those laws, we aren't making a publications. In adition, I believe, if it isn't in Da Rules, we are highly encouraged to cite our sources. He, as a teacher, has an obligation to cite his, or he is guilty of plagerism. Whether or not you like how this looks or not [and I don't either], it is technically a rule.

CP