But but Gita Sahgal says Meredith Tax is a feminist. If you disagree with her, you must be a reactionary purple-faced misogynist and probably support page 3, genital mutilation, and foot-binding. Ergo, you are a cad, and you lose.

Evan Harris made this point at last year’s “Convention on Modern Liberty”. It isn’t how we treat our friends that is the measure of society, but how we treat our enemies: prisoners, terrorists, those we disagree with. They’re not called “friends’ rights”, but human rights: they have to apply to everybody, or else they aren’t worth anything at all.

Thanks for posting!

Agreed. This is UAF’s “we believe in freedom of speech for everyone except people who disagree with UAF” all over again. The idea that human rights extend only to people you like is fucking pathetic, to be honest. Good post.

Cute bunny.

Of course, the US position is not that Awlaki is a bastard, it’s that he’s waging war on them. How does your argument stand when defending someone who’d probably have your head cut off on YouTube given half a chance?

@ 4

The same, I hope. That’s kinda the point of this article.

As Larry Flynt pointed out (although it may well have been sexed up for the movie), the whole point of this law thing, courts and all, is that if they’ll protect scum like me then you know they’ll protect you.

Which is why Abu Hookhand doesn’t get thrown out of the country: he’s a Brit and you can’t throw Brits out of Britain. Why the Belmarsh lot had to be either tried or released: why control orders are an abomination…..and, well, it’s quite a long list really. For another time perhaps.

Thanks, Chaise.

Cherub -

Of course, the US position is not that Awlaki is a bastard, it’s that he’s waging war on them.

Which is an accusation, yet to be proved. Thus, splattering his brain across half of Yemen doesn’t seem wise.

How does your argument stand when defending someone who’d probably have your head cut off on YouTube given half a chance?

Dandily.

Saddam Hussein was treated “unjustly” because people didn’t like him?! He was a mass-murdering sadist who was hung like the criminal he was, albeit about 20 years too late.

BW – He was, indeed, a mass murdering sadist. Even mass murdering sadists are entitled to a fair trial, though, and his was manifestly not. I’d suggest that this was scarcely noted as people would think, “Well, never mind, the man’s a shit.”

Good post Ben! Completely agree.

BenSix

But you’re not I guess suggesting that a fair trail of Sadam Hussein would have had a different outcome?

earwicga – Danke.

Just Visiting – I’ve no doubt he deserved to be prosecuted, no. (Though, with earnest predictability, I must add that I wouldn’t have endorsed capital punishment.)

It’s interesting that so many people who were quite happy to defend Guantanamo and all that it involved still don’t get it. Not only was it a huge mistake in terms of how it “played” in a PR sense, it was morally indefensible too.

It would have cost us nothing to have treated all the “enemy combatants” according to the Geneva convention, given them fair trials etc. Only neo-con crazies and their hopeless apologists could really have held otherwise. Sadly many people who ought to have known better were prepared to sit back and let it happen.

. How does your argument stand when defending someone who’d probably have your head cut off on YouTube given half a chance?

How does the argument not stand if you offer someone a fair trial? Why are neo-cons so afraid of the legal system?

Agree with #3 re UAF. For an anti-fascist group I’ve always found thier intolerance a tiny bit ironic.

As somebody smarter than I am pointed out to me yesteray, you do have to wonder why so many zealous proponents of democracy and human rights are so hostile to due process and judicial review.

In criticising Gita Saghal et al I notice you’ve left out the original complainant, <Karima Bennoune. Is it your view that when she says “We have to oppose death lists of the US government but we also have to oppose calls for assassination by the likes of Awlaki. We have to find a way to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis” she is saying that you shouldn’t respect human rights for people you don’t like?

@ 15

“For an anti-fascist group I’ve always found thier intolerance a tiny bit ironic.”

My thoughts exactly. I keep waiting for them to publish a list of views that people are allowed to express. And then to repeat the name of their organisation with a straight face.

On top of that, there’s the sheer aggressiveness of slogans like “Smash the BNP”. I’m willing to accept that it’s not meant literally, but why adopt language more commonly associated with violent thugs?

Neither Saghal or Tax are saying that islamists shouldn’t have their human rights protected. Their argument is that defending their human rights, left-liberal activists should not involve glossing over, or distorting their blatant opposition to human rights or any principles that left-liberals should defend.

To quote Tax from the link you provided: ‘By what means will the CCR distance itself from al-Awlaki’s opinions while defending his right not to be assassinated?’

To quote Saghal for the link you provided: ‘By deliberately sanitising al-Awlaki’s reputation, the CCR is acting as criminal defence lawyers rather than human rights lawyers.’ It is clear that Saghal’s beef is with the sanitation of al-Awlaki’s record, not that his human rights are defended.

If the Left can’t understand the difference between defending the rights of murdering theocrats on the one hand, and sanitising or denying their obvious record of violent opposition to every decent principle the Left has ever held, then it’s abandoned all its critical faculties and intellectual honesty.

At no point does either tax or Saghal declare that al-Awlaki should have their human rights evoked. Your attempt to represent them as such is dishonest and contemptible.

If I understand Steffan@19, the Saghal/Tax view is that we can condemn assassinations, but only if we simultaneously condemn the views of the people who are targeted for assassination.

The notion that to condemn human rights abuses without qualification somehow implies agreement with those whose rights are being denied is manifestly absurd. It is offensive to suggest that we can’t condemn an atrocity against someone unless we find out what disreputable opinions the targeted person might have and condemn those at the same time.

It is the purpose of human rights organisations primarily to protest against abuses of state power. Should they really have to add, whenever condemning the death penalty or torture, that they also condemn the crimes for which the prisoners were convicted? Doesn’t this just detract from the central message? And if I want to condemn such things universally, regardless of what the targets are guilty of, should I, according to Saghal etc, be forced to prefix every criticism of the government with the words “while I condemn whatever crimes this person may have committed, and while I condemn whatever illiberal views he or she may have expressed”?

It is the purpose of human rights organisations primarily to protest against abuses of state power.

Not it isn’t. It isn’t their job to look at some abuse, and work out whether or not it had some direct or indirect connection to money that was at some point paid in tax.

Privatise the CIA, produce receipts showing it is 100% funded by voluntary donations by wealthy individuals, and Amnesty wouldn’t (or at least shouldn’t) be saying ‘fair enough, go ahead with the assassinations, none of our business’.

Rebrand it with an Arabic name, and have the wealthy individuals funding it be a slightly different set of oil billionaires, that should also make no difference. there is no organisation of that type that AMNESTY SHOULD GTE

But you’re not I guess suggesting that a fair trail of Sadam Hussein would have had a different outcome

Not for an instant, therefore there was nothing to be lost by giving him one. Now, wasn’t that easy?

(Insert caveat about absolute opposition to the death penalty.)

(keyboard went blooch, above should end…)

There is no organisation of that type that Amnesty should be treating more or less leniently than any other. If they are lending one credibility, then that is a bad thing. Independently of any hypothetical future human rights violation they may think of themselves as acting to prevent.

OK, I agree. It’s just that I find Irving, Awlaki and their like pretty disturbing.

I was also considering the absolutist position on free speech as akin to the slippery slope fallacy. Are we simply privileged and cossetted to allow ourselves such a luxury? I’d like to know how those vehemently posting in defence of free speech have come to their conclusions, is it some glib shiboleth or does it have a deeper foundation?

@20 – If the notion that to condemn human rights abuses without qualification somehow implies agreement with those whose rights are being denied is manifestly absurd then so it the notion that calling for condemnation of the actions of those whose human rights may be abused somehow implies agreement with human rights abuses against those people.

Where you say, ‘Should they really have to add, whenever condemning the death penalty or torture, that they also condemn the crimes for which the prisoners were convicted? Doesn’t this just detract from the central message?’ I’d argue that it doesn’t detract from the central message if the central message is that human rights are universal; on the contrary, it’s when you start thinking in terms of defending a central message you may end up compromising your arguments.

A shorterised Tax, Sahgal and Bennoune would be why oh why must human rights groups big up terrorists in a non-specific manner that we won’t bother to quote, link to or in any way back up, preferring instead to rattle on at length about “anti-Imperialism” for no damn reason at all, and to assert that this unspecified behaviour is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims.

I’ve said this a number of times else here, but why, exactly, is it outrageous that a group of Americans might bring a case against the United States Government in an American court to defend the rights of all Americans under the laws of the United States of America, without simultaneously issuing a number of press releases reassuring the world that they aren’t in favour of blowing up women and kids with nail bombs?

The conclusion, of course, is that it isn’t outrageous at all, which poses the question “what the hell are these people talking about”? At which point, we return to the start of this comment.

@ 24

“I’d like to know how those vehemently posting in defence of free speech have come to their conclusions, is it some glib shiboleth or does it have a deeper foundation?”

Because without it we’re screwed, basically. It’s a prerequisite for political freedom. And if you set a precedent saying there are certain situations or types of people for which free speech doesn’t apply, you’re doing something dangerous, because what criteria do you use to justify it?

I should add that when I say “free speech”, I’m using it as shorthand for “freedom of political expression”. So it doesn’t cover slander, threats, shouting fire in theatres or people talking when they should be working.

CS Clark -

No, but I can’t really criticise Bennoune’s position as I’m not entirely sure what she’s complaining about. The C4CR hasn’t challenged the accusations made against Awlaki; they’ve not whitewashed his character and they’ve recommended that he be arrested and tried. What’s the beef?

Steffan -

They’re not sanitising him (see above). Moreover, Saghal asserts they’ve been ignorant – without saying why – claims they’ve said there’s no evidence against Awlaki – they haven’t – and proclaimed that opposing his assassination means they’re “failing…victims” – how?

Over at Harry’s Place, habibi claims that this piece’s first sentence is “nasty, stupid and dishonest“. Here’s Tax -

The “war against terror” will present many opportunities to defend the Constitution. It would be wise to concentrate on cases that can unite all of us around clear principles, rather than cases that involve trading one group’s human rights for another’s, which run the risk of splitting whatever movement we have.

And here’s Saghal…

CCR claims that litigation “is what it does”. But CCR is an organisation that should conduct litigation to advance a general human rights cause. By deliberately sanitising al-Awlaki’s reputation, the CCR is acting as criminal defence lawyers rather than human rights lawyers.

If habibi would like to note what’s “nasty”, “stupid” or “dishonest” about my summary I’d be grateful to hear it. Otherwise I’ll be forced to assume that his description is, er, malicious and disingenuous.

(Or, indeed, her description.)

I was also considering the absolutist position on free speech as akin to the slippery slope fallacy. Are we simply privileged and cossetted to allow ourselves such a luxury? I’d like to know how those vehemently posting in defence of free speech have come to their conclusions, is it some glib shiboleth or does it have a deeper foundation?

It’s called “precedent”.

And we’ve got at least two thousand years of it.

I don’t find this concern-trolling nonsense on CCR all that surprising, since a small number of people have spent much of the decade attacking Amnesty, Human Rights watch et al. for coddling terrorists. More or less every time, what sounded at first like serious charges turned out on closer examination to amount to complaints that various rights groups don’t spend enough time saying things like “Terrorism is horrible” and “Osama Bin Laden is not very nice” to avoid suspicion.

what is surprising is that, after all these years of fake controversies* and bullshit outrages, people are still willing to grant credence to those that pimp them. I would’ve thought that an automatic presumption of bad faith would be a more logical stance, but that’s just me.

*My favourite one was that internet-only one about how the International red Cross conspired with Hezbollah to attack one of its own ambulances, just to make the Israelis look bad. That was a peach, that one.

There is also the idea put about by some out on the right in the US (like Liz Cheney) that “anyone who defends a terrorist is a terrorist”. The thrust of this appears to be to try and frighten lawyers off taking cases involving alleged terrorists.

Fortunately, many in the GOP have dissented, but the idea keeps being pitched.

BenSix – the mistake you make is taking ‘habibi’ or ‘lucy lips’ or any of the other pseudonyms David T uses seriously.

There is also the idea put about by some out on the right in the US (like Liz Cheney) that “anyone who defends a terrorist is a terrorist”.

Yes, but then on that basis the Pentagon is the biggest supporter of terroism in the world. There is a whole bunch of right wing terrorsits that have carried out their evil ways in South America, backed by the US govt now living in the US.

There is also the idea put about by some out on the right in the US (like Liz Cheney) that “anyone who defends a terrorist is a terrorist”. The thrust of this appears to be to try and frighten lawyers off taking cases involving alleged terrorists.

Fortunately, many in the GOP have dissented, but the idea keeps being pitched.

Yes, they are effing stupid.

I’d like to link to a comment on a recent New York Times article but I can’t, so I’ll quote verbatim:

1.
Ira
Providence, RI
November 19th, 2010 5:80 am
Whether it was the right decision to prosecute this case in federal court should not turn on what the outcome was. None of the commentators criticizing that decision are in a position to evaluate the evidence, which is what trials are all about. That task was properly given to a jury and they rendered a verdict that, as it happens, will result in empowering a judge to impose a very long sentence, perhaps even life imprisonment, for the defendant.[Ahmed Ghailani]

Those who oppose enforcing the Constitution should be asked how they can square such opposition with the oath they took to uphold the Constitution.

I look forward to a comment along the lines of this is war so anything is permissible.

@ 35

Also, Bush’s “If you fund a terrorist, you’re a terrorist” reflected badly on many ordinary Americans who funded the IRA.

The honest version of both quotes is: “Look! We’ve found an excuse to villify you!”

37 Never mind those Americans who gave money to the IRA. Any American who pays taxes is supporting, and has supported terrorism under Cheneys idiot views.

Sunny – I’m not saying anything about a man who, time and time and again, has been proven to be a lawyer.

[user banned]

@Newmania – And guess whos PAYING for it!??!!?!?!?

If our enfeebled, victim-ignoring justice system loves Saddam Hussein so much, why doesn’t it go live there?!!!

In the OP it is suggested, “people might decide that you, your friends and all you stand for flaunt the hallmarks of dislikeability and therefore are quite deserving of censorship, jail or even a rocket to the head” – but isn’t it Gita Saghal who has been censored for asking questions about Moazzem Begg?

According to her Guardian piece “the three founders of Amnesty International in Algeria were allegedly expelled from the organisation for raising an internal complaint about Amnesty’s failure, in their view, to criticise atrocities committed by Islamist rebels, as opposed to government repression”.

By all means ensure that an assorted crew of extremists (allegedly) are entitled to espouse their deranged world view – but when did pointing the finger at them become such a no-no in certain circles?

Neither Gita Sahgal nor I have ever maintained that morally or politically
repugnant people should be denied human rights. Everyone is
entitled to a legal defense against abuses of state power, including
targeted assassination.

The problem is that, in the US, bringing a legal case of this kind
means you cannot speak truthfully about the person you are
defending without risking being disbarred for working against the
interests of your client. That is why the case risks sanitizing
al-Awlaki–because the lawyers working for his father are not
allowed to speak as if he were anything but innocent. So
one of the issues in taking on a political case in the US, as opposed
to the UK or Spain, is the limited room for maneuver given lawyers.

There are, however, other ways of making disclaimers which the
CCR has not pursued consistently, such as stating in their press
releases that they oppose attacks on civilians, or organizing forums
in which they can speak against targeted assassination while
others not from the CCR can speak about the dangers posed by
al-Awaki’s politics.

The other problem is that the rights of people suffering from
abuses of state power are not the only rights that need to be
defended. Gita, Karima, I, and others–many others, though not
mostly in the UK–are against setting up a hierarchy that puts the
rights of those attacked by the state above the those attacked
by armed groups. Some of these armed groups are on the right–
Islamist networks, Christian militias, settlers in the West Bank.
Others are on the left–Sendero Luminoso comes to mind. We
believe the human rights movement must stand up for the rights
of those attacked by such groups as well as the rights of those
attacked by the US or British state.

Meredith -

Thanks for commenting. I’m aware you don’t endorse Awlaki’s assassination; my problem is with your proposal – excerpted in comment 29 – that his undeniably nauseating character groups should “concentrate on [other] cases“. This is problematic, a) as not opposing the state’s self-proclaimed right to assassinate its enemies is particularly dangerous and b) because all people, regardless of what gits they are, should be treated justly. I don’t see the pressing danger in the C4CR not “stating…that they oppose attacks on civilians” – I’d presume that’s taken as a given – or not condemning the rot Awlaki propagates – it’s public knowledge and there doesn’t seem to be a great deal loss by not joining the pile-on. It’s worth noting, too, that they haven’t “sp[oken] as if he were anything but innocent” – Bill Quigley, on HuffPo, acknowledged the charges against him but contested that they should be hammered out inside a courtroom. (That, incidentally, seems to answer your question as to whether there is “some reason not to pursue a legal or political strategy explicitly calling for him to be captured and brought to the US to stand trial“. They’re cool with that.)

Effendi, at Harry’s stomping ground, repeats the charge that I’ve made “vicious and unprincipled smear[s]” against Saghal without, like his comrade, detailing what they are. If I were a sensitive bastard I’d proclaim that I’m being viciously smeared (without principles!). He goes on to claim that I’m part of Sunny’s “stable“. I’d pull up the many times I’ve argued with our host about life, the universe and Obama but, frankly, that would be Goddamn tedious and he/she just isn’t worth the effort.

Meredith,

There are, however, other ways of making disclaimers which the CCR has not pursued consistently, such as stating in their press
releases that they oppose attacks on civilians,

Why should they?

We believe the human rights movement must stand up for the rights of those attacked by such groups as well as the rights of those attacked by the US or British state.

Oh for god’s sake, this is pathetic.

You say on your blog,

The CCR and ACLU are defending al-Awlaki from being assassinated by the US, but who will defend the people on al-Awlaki’s hit list from being assassinated by his followers? We can hardly depend on the CIA. Who in this circle of terror and counter-terror is representing the interests of civil society—of civilians in the war on terror—of us?

Um, it’s the government’s job to defend civilians. It’s the CCR and ACLU’s job to defend their rights.

Easy innit?

I understand that protecting the constitutional and human rights of Islamic terrorists is the only way to protect all of our rights,

Er no, not the only way.

but believe we also need to find a way to continually bring up the rights of their victims—otherwise we privilege the rights of al-Awlaki over the rights of those in whose deaths he is implicated….

Um, we all know the victims have rights. Everyone has rights. That’s the whole bloody point.

Um, it’s the government’s job to defend civilians. It’s the CCR and ACLU’s job to defend their rights.

Well, the government should protect our rights too – sometimes the government attacks our rights and that’s why we have the CCR and ACLU.

Charge Nurse: …isn’t it Gita Saghal who has been censored for asking questions about Moazzem Begg?

For the seven hundredth time, no. If you told the papers that your employer was basically collaborating with the Taliban, on a basis that I’ll charitably call “debatable”, your boss would shitcan you in seconds. The idea that this is censorship is loopy, and it’s ridiculous that this is still being touted after all this time.

Meredith: There are, however, other ways of making disclaimers which the
CCR has not pursued consistently, such as stating in their press
releases that they oppose attacks on civilians, or organizing forums
in which they can speak against targeted assassination while
others not from the CCR can speak about the dangers posed by
al-Awaki’s politics.

This is weak, weak beer as a criticism, particularly if used to support accusations of betraying the victims of terrorism, as Gita Sahgal has done.

I tend to automatically assume that people are opposed to suicide bombing and such, just as a common courtesy. . The fact that you think CCR have been insufficiently critical of terrorism generally and of al-Awlaki in particular is fine and good, but I think that’s very obviously insufficient to draw negative conclusions about them.

Also, I tend to find that as a rule, when you’re reduced to generalisations about the blah of the left and the instinctive wah of anti-imperialism etc., it’s pretty clear that there’s no case to answer.

The other problem is that the rights of people suffering from
abuses of state power are not the only rights that need to be
defended. Gita, Karima, I, and others–many others, though not
mostly in the UK–are against setting up a hierarchy that puts the
rights of those attacked by the state above the those attacked
by armed groups. Some of these armed groups are on the right–
Islamist networks, Christian militias, settlers in the West Bank.
Others are on the left–Sendero Luminoso comes to mind. We
believe the human rights movement must stand up for the rights
of those attacked by such groups as well as the rights of those
attacked by the US or British state.

I can see that people in various societies are in more danger of having their rights contravened, not to mention of being murdered, by armed groups rather than by the state. However I can’t see how organisations like CCS and Amnesty International can act against such groups. Isn’t that stretching their remit, not to mention their capabilities? Such groups would normally be put down by military force, or the police.

[47] I was thinking beyond a single case (see additional comments about Amnesty’s alleged activites in Algeria) – but fear of employer is hardly the best principle for deciding matters of conscience?

I am not touting anything – all I’m saying is that freedom from censorship should cut both ways – YOU are the one that is saying GS should be afraid to ask questions?

habibi – after sniffing at nasty and dishonest smears – has now taken to appears to be implying that Sunny is anti-semitic. The irony wouldn’t escape Alanis Morissette.

[51] I do not know Sunny’s view on semites but he does have form when it comes to censorship – or does the meaning of censorship differ depending on context?
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/11/12/gay-porn-an-apology/

sorry, I meant [50]

Oh for fucks sake.

Look, this whole “civil liberties” shit is about the fact that the the state is not your friend.

Those who have the power of the state will quite happily send you down, hang you, deport you because you’re inconvinient, annoying, attempt to disclose what they’re doing or just plain dangerous to their interests.

Which is why we have this whole shit about trials, evidence, the rule of law and all the rest. Yes, everyone, from some child rapist through to Flying Rodent’s (v. good BTW) satirical postings gets treated the same way.

Have they committed a crime? Can you prove that in a court of law? In front of a jury? Acording to the rules of evidence?

No? Then you, be you Barons, Baronets, union barons, the CIA, MI5 or even just the mob pissed off about things, you can fuck off.

Our forefathers spent many centuries arguing and fighting for these things. The bosses don’t get to fuck us over on their say so. This is what civil liberties means.

Of all of the crap that’s gone down in recent years the one that’s actually bolstered my pride in being an Englishman (expat thought I am) was the Belmarsh decision. No, you cannot keep peeps you think are bad uns in jail forever. Not even foreigners. Try ‘em or release ‘em.

Damn right.

Why does Saghal think it’s okay to drop bombs on people she disagrees with?

Let me see…

Neither Gita Sahgal nor I have ever maintained that morally or politically
repugnant people should be denied human rights.

Absolutely. You’ve simply maintained that anyone who stands up for said rights will be assumed to lurve terrorism, unless they specifically and regularly deny it.

“The problem is that, in the US, bringing a legal case of this kind
means you cannot speak truthfully about the person you are
defending without risking being disbarred for working against the
interests of your client. That is why the case risks sanitizing
al-Awlaki–because the lawyers working for his father are not
allowed to speak as if he were anything but innocent. ”

The logic (and I use the term advisedly) of this position is that it is incumbent upon every person working within the legal profession to publish prominent disclaimers saying that they believe murder, rape and child abuse are on balance bad ideas and in the absence of such can legitimately be accused of support for such activities.

I think that is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever heard.

That is why the case risks sanitizing al-Awlaki–because the lawyers working for his father are not allowed to speak as if he were anything but innocent.

I’m sorry but WHAT???

They’re not saying he’s innocent of inciting people to violence neither are they saying he’s innocent of hate speech. They’re saying he should be allowed a proper trial as a US citizen. How does something so simple not occur to you?

Thanks Ben, but I don’t need a running commentary on what those nutjobs are saying. Smearing is about the only thing they’re capable of these days.

Meredith Tax,

Neither Gita Sahgal nor I have ever maintained that morally or politically
repugnant people should be denied human rights. Everyone is
entitled to a legal defense against abuses of state power, including
targeted assassination.

I agree with Tim Worstall @ 53. If there is an issue with the way in which you can defend someone, which seems to me to be the remaining substantive content of your post here, then you should be looking at ways to fix that.

I agree that non state actors that call down death and destruction are as guilty as state actors who do so. But we already, it seems to me, have judicial ways of dealing with the non state actors. Short of assassination.

What you appear to be saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that we do not have ways of dealing with state actors who are calling for exactly the same thing.

Sunny @ 58,

Amen.

Flying Rodent –

that we won’t bother to quote, link to or in any way back up,

But they do! They constantly reference each other’s stuff that in turn is not backed up in any way other than another reference to a friend.

Jimmy –

I think that is one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever heard.

You’ve gotta read more of these people’s stuff – your head will spin.

earwicga @ 61,

They constantly reference each other’s stuff that in turn is not backed up in any way other than another reference to a friend.

Yup.

It is a self serving little intellectual clique: of the self righteous, for the self righteous and made up exclusively of,

well, you’ve got the point….

53

Amen to that.

Oh look, more people with views ‘we’ don’t like who might need their ‘right’ to promote a medieval world view defended?

Todays Gruniard claims to have found “5,000 Muslim schoolchildren being taught that some Jews are transformed into pigs and apes and that the penalty for gay sex is execution. Some textbooks are said to teach the correct way to chop off the hands and feet of thieves. A spokesman for the programme said the pupils, aged six to 18, attend a network of more than 40 weekend schools across the country which teach the Saudi national curriculum to Muslim children”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/22/bbc-panorama-islamic-schools-antisemitism

I suspect we might be in for another bout of liberal self loathing – the only thing ‘we’ hate more than homophobia or racism is the denial of some crackpots ‘right’ to espouse their deranged views, even when it borders on a form of child abuse?

A&E,

Oh look, more people with views ‘we’ don’t like who might need their ‘right’ to promote a medieval world view defended?

Um, no-one’s defending al-Whacko’s “right to promote a medieval world view”. Way to miss the point.

If it needs spelling out, it’s this: does the Constitution really give the Executive branch the power to designate someone a terrorist and have him murdered without legal oversight?

That’s what the CCR and ACLU are trying to have the courts look at. By implication, if you’re against them doing so, you are either for or ambivalent about bureaucrats / politicians having people murdered with impunity.

I suspect we might be in for another bout of liberal self loathing – the only thing ‘we’ hate more than homophobia or racism is the denial of some crackpots ‘right’ to espouse their deranged views, even when it borders on a form of child abuse?

I’m not sure anyone ’round here supports that form of expression. As has already been mentioned in this very thread, “free speech” isn’t absolute.

Why do people insist on misrepresenting the views of other people involved in discussion? Surely there is enough to argue about without arguing with imaginary things?

@ 66

“I suspect we might be in for another bout of liberal self loathing – the only thing ‘we’ hate more than homophobia or racism is the denial of some crackpots ‘right’ to espouse their deranged views, even when it borders on a form of child abuse?”

Um, freedom of expression doesn’t apply in the classroom. In fact, if a teacher tells children that one political party is better than the other, I think they can lose their job. I can’t imagine many liberals feel the way that you think they do; but then if you’re desperate to smear a reasonable position as “self loathing” perhaps you’re more interested in childish point-scoring than a sensible debate. Is that so?

For the record, I consider myself a liberal and think that teaching any religious belief or political position as a matter of fact or as what is “right” should be illegal. Children go to school to learn, not to be brainwashed.

[65] “If it needs spelling out, it’s this: does the Constitution really give the Executive branch the power to designate someone a terrorist and have him murdered without legal oversight” – is that a legal or moral question?

If you are asking how the close proximity to violence should be before we can legitimately dispense with legal arguments – the answer is I don’t know.
I do know it is easy to take the moral high ground when it is not your life (or the life of a comrade) that is being put in danger by the difficult task of securing evidence that will stand scrutiny in a democratic court (beyond all reasonable doubt).

Needless to say terrorist leaders tend to insulate themselves behind several strata of minion and the chance of catching one of these characters with a map of the London underground and a suitcase full of high grade explosives is rather small – although we MIGHT catch a low level operatives who has been sufficiently indoctrinated into carrying out enigmatic leader’s dastardly master plan?

Or put another way the boundaries and geography of modern conflicts do not necessarily conform with traditional patterns of engagement, when both sides lined up against each other and slugged it out until the last man was standing – nowadays we have the perverse system where liberal democracies have to both try and prevent terrorism while at the same time defending the rights of those who would not hesitate to wipe out a few thousand more New Yorkers or Londoners (allegedly).

Ultimately I agree with TW [53] but as I say at what point state sponsored violence becomes acceptable is harder to call – in short I think there is a world of difference between banter on the internet and the reality of dealing with nutjobs on both sides of the divide whose raison d’etre is violence.

[66] “I can’t imagine many liberals feel the way that you think they do” – well you might be right but the bind for many liberals is the inherent contradiction in promoting respect for diversity or cultural differences then discovering that some groups espouse deeply unsettling opinions about ‘jews’, ‘homosexuals’ and of course women;
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IiWf8u5z6NI/SkAw_VjkI8I/AAAAAAAACRM/DP0Jt-S4jyQ/s400/burqa-1.JPG

Not only that, but these views are so deeply ingrained that they are woven into the values of the education system – so on what basis should ‘WE’ liberals impose our views if the medievalists genuinely believe their views to be more correct?

Effendi, at Harry’s stomping ground, repeats the charge that I’ve made “vicious and unprincipled smear[s]” against Saghal without, like his comrade, detailing what they are.

Try this:

Blogger Meredith Tax and activist Gita Saghal appear to believe that one shouldn’t defend a person’s rights if they’re a bastard.

A flat-out lie. You can’t produce one line from either which supports this contention.

Despicable, even by LibCon standards.

Yes, I have to say with Ted that that does look like a pretty plain lie.

Ted, Torquil – Er, yes I can. See comment 29.

@64 (a&echargenurse)

By bringing this other story into the debate, you seem to be assuming that defending Awlaki and this latest Islamic schools controversy are part of the same thing, as if the horror of the story about Islamic schools should bring shame on those defending Awlaki’s right not to be executed without trial.

But the liberal worry about presidential assassinations is not because Obama is proposing to assassinate a Muslim, but that he’s saying he has the power to order dangerous civilian ideologues – not soldiers/insurgents or military/terrorist commanders – summarily killed on his say-so. That he is proposing to assassinate this particular man isn’t the point, and people here aren’t opposing it because they support Islam over secular democracy.

@ 68

“the bind for many liberals is the inherent contradiction in promoting respect for diversity or cultural differences then discovering that some groups espouse deeply unsettling opinions about ‘jews’, ‘homosexuals’ and of course women”

I don’t actually see that as a bind, mainly because I don’t hold that every view should be automatically respected. I have no respect for the defining views of the BNP, for example, but I do think that those who hold them have a right to express their opinions.

Using the rule of law to prevent people for espousing bigoted opinions in not in any way liberal, and I am against it (free speech again).

“Not only that, but these views are so deeply ingrained that they are woven into the values of the education system – so on what basis should ‘WE’ liberals impose our views if the medievalists genuinely believe their views to be more correct?”

Good question, and you could argue that even teaching children that bullying is wrong or that they shouldn’t take up smoking is inherently political and has no place in the classroom (although this doesn’t mean that bullying and smoking should be ok under school rules). I’m happy to sacrifice these lessons if it means children’s educational time not being used to fill their heads with unsupported religious or political ideas.

“Ted, Torquil – Er, yes I can. See comment 29.”

I don’t think you can. It is clear, because they both say so repeatedly, that both these human rights campaigners support the rights of all. What they are disputing is a strategy that they think is wrong headed for good reasons. You can disagree on the strategy but it isn’t necessary to malign Saghal and Tax and all the others. When Irving was imprisoned for his opinions, none of us went to march in his defence as we would if he had held different opinions. That does not mean that we agreed with the abuse of his rights, but none of us would let ourselves be co-opted by the fascist movement buy organising behind it. The argument Saghal and other are making is essentially the same: there are other, better ways or campaigning against these wrongs that will not give political credibility to thugs like Awlaki. Disagree with the strategic argument by all means, but don’t smear those you disagree with.

A&E,

[65] “If it needs spelling out, it’s this: does the Constitution really give the Executive branch the power to designate someone a terrorist and have him murdered without legal oversight” – is that a legal or moral question?

If you are asking how the close proximity to violence should be before we can legitimately dispense with legal arguments – the answer is I don’t know.

Er no, I’m asking if a politician or bureaucrat is or should be allowed to have someone killed without any form of inquiry or review, any accountability, any legal recourse or remedy.

I do know it is easy to take the moral high ground when it is not your life (or the life of a comrade) that is being put in danger by the difficult task of securing evidence that will stand scrutiny in a democratic court (beyond all reasonable doubt).

Yeah, sure, “You should shut up because you’re not a soldier / firearms officer / President”. You’re avoiding the question.

Look, no-one is saying that the executive shouldn’t be allowed to kill people, ever. The present argument is about whether they can kill whoever they like with impunity.

68 – a&echargenurse – “the bind for many liberals is the inherent contradiction in promoting respect for diversity or cultural differences then discovering that some groups espouse deeply unsettling opinions about ‘jews’, ‘homosexuals’ and of course women”

No, it isn’t a bind. I don’t like fundamentalist Islam and I don’t want Islamic theocracy here. There is no contradiction between that and opposing people – even if they’re Muslims – being executed without any trial.

Torquil – One more time for good luck, then. I’m not alleging they support the assassinations; I’m claiming that they needlessly oppose attempts to stop it. Here’s a vague comparison (which I’m not suggesting is entirely equivalent): I’m walking down the street today and I see a particularly unpleasant drunk having his head kicked in. Noting this I tell a friend, “Don’t get involved, he’s not worth it.” I might abhor the beating but I’m still opposing an attempt to intervene and end it.

Ben, when you write: ‘Gita Saghal appear to believe that one shouldn’t defend a person’s rights if they’re a bastard’ you misrepresent them, that was my point and I think it is pretty much unanswerable since they have repeatedly, clearly explained that they are not selective in this way.

You go on to say m claiming that ‘they needlessly oppose attempts to stop [extra judicial execution]‘. which is an opinion but at best, in my view, a highly ungenerous interpretation of their actual position which is that a particular strategy to oppose it is poorly considered and lends credibility to political thugs and fascists who are able to co-opt it. You can see that that is not the same thing as claiming that the human rights of ‘bastards’ shouldn’t be defended?

You offer an analogy which I think is too removed to be of interest. Here is a closer one. Imagine a senior member of the EDL who was known to have beaten up a number of Asian youths and perhaps others was arrested because he published a pamphlet describing his hostile views on immigration. We all agree that his views fall within the legitimate domain of free speech. Would you march with the EDL in protest? I doubt it. I think you would protest the legal wrong without acting in any way that could legitimise the EDL. That is what Saghal and others are urging. You may disagree that the action of the CCR does what Saghal and others claim but that is a proper argument to be had. Claiming what you claim is just a smear.

[72] “By bringing this other story into the debate, you seem to be assuming that defending Awlaki and this latest Islamic schools controversy are part of the same thing, as if the horror of the story about Islamic schools should bring shame on those defending Awlaki’s right not to be executed without trial” – is Awlaki a jew, gay, hating chauvenist – I’m not really sure, but according to the Guardian report it is alleged certain schools in the UK are now espousing such views.

Characters like Awlaki do not emerge from a vacuum and exposure to certain ideas that are prevalent in the culture, or in the education system, provide succour to those who get off on extreme points of view.

Now I agree entirely that this alone is insufficient authority to sanction a hit on somebody although it seems some believe Anwar al-Awlaki already has blood on his hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Now to some this (alleged) form is irrelevant until proven in a court of law and I think we have to reluctantly accept that this is the correct position, at least until someone is brave enough to obtain evidence that will bear scrutiny from the best defense lawyers (given that AAA is a cause celebre).

AAA may not have personally chopped off Daniel Pearlman’s head (and then posted the execution on the internet) but he sounds like the sort of guy who is doing his level best to ensure that acolytes remain true to their jew/gay/women hating teachings and are sufficiently stirred up by the main man to carry out his evil bidding (if we accept certain accusations/reports)?

On the other hand AAA could just be a a gentle and misunderstood cleric who would not wish to sully his good name with serial acts of horrendous violence?

When Irving was imprisoned for his opinions, none of us went to march in his defence as we would if he had held different opinions.

Irving was imprisoned by accountable public servants in the public eye, with the right to receive visitors, to good treatment and to appeal his sentence, if he could find good grounds to do so. This is a terrible comparison to draw – eliding “criminal trials” with “extrajudicial killing” is like equating Tuesday with sombreros.

don’t smear those you disagree with.

Given that the only valid parts of Sahgal and Tax’s argument is that CCR haven’t issued enough Condemnations! of terrorism to suit them, and that they use this ludicrously weak case as a springboard to insinuate great betrayals of the suffering peoples of the Earth… Well, you’ll forgive me if I don’t weep buckets for either. They’re the ones making the poor arguments and silly insinuations.

…when you write: ‘Gita Saghal appear to believe that one shouldn’t defend a person’s rights if they’re a bastard’ you misrepresent them…

I fail to see how. Tax, for example, suggests that “it would be wise to concentrate on cases that can unite all of us around clear principles“. My interpretation of those words is that she’s suggesting Awlaki is such a bastard – the use of the term is clearly polemical – that defending his right not to be assassinated risks “sanitising” him, would be “divisive” and is thus unwise. How is that unfair?

Would you march with the EDL in protest?

No. If, however, I was a lawyer and wanted to represent his case I wouldn’t feel the need to condemn the EDL.

Besides, the analogy isn’t apt. The C4CR has acknowledged there are allegations made against Awlaki and suggested that, instead of being killed, he be arrested so these claims can be squabbled out in court. That’s hardly “legitimis[ing]” him.

Irving was imprisoned by accountable public servants in the public eye, with the right to receive visitors, to good treatment and to appeal his sentence, if he could find good grounds to do so. This is a terrible comparison to draw – eliding “criminal trials” with “extrajudicial killing” is like equating Tuesday with sombreros.

Way to miss the point (and imply that there can’t ever be a human rights dynamic to a case tried in a democractic court). The fact that Irving enjoyed due process is irrelvant to the analogy. If you believe that Irving had his free speech rights infringed – and one assumes most here believe that is the case (whatever one might thing of his imbecilic provocation of Austrian legal authorities) – then the comparison stands. You can argue for the principle without emptying into the streets.

The accusation against Tax and Sahgal is that they don’t think the rights of Awlaki and similar shoud be defended. This was a lie in the op ed, and 80 comments in it is still a lie.

You can argue for the principle without emptying into the streets.

The accusation against Tax and Sahgal is that they don’t think the rights of Awlaki and similar shoud be defended. This was a lie in the op ed, and 80 comments in it is still a lie.

So, it’s a lie because they wouldn’t oppose attempts to defend Awlaki’s right not to be splattered a drone, just the legal one that is – y’know – the only one with a sniff of a chance. Well, aren’t I the silly one.

“I fail to see how. Tax, for example, suggests that “it would be wise to concentrate on cases that can unite all of us around clear principles“. My interpretation of those words is that she’s suggesting Awlaki is such a bastard – the use of the term is clearly polemical – that defending his right not to be assassinated risks “sanitising” him, would be “divisive” and is thus unwise. How is that unfair?”

Because it is clear in the context of the article you link to that that is not the point she was making. She is claiming that representing Awlaki in the way the CCR is is a strategic error. They should, in her view, choose better cases (they do choose after all, they don’t work on a taxi rank principle). That is not to say that Awlaki’s right not to be assassinated should not be defended (she explicitly rejects that idea) but that opposing extra-judicial execution can be achieved without being co-opted by thugs and fascists. By representing your disagreement with he as one of principle rather than strategy you misrepresent the case.

No. If, however, I was a lawyer and wanted to represent his case I wouldn’t feel the need to condemn the EDL.

Once again, the CCR is not a state’s attorney served up the Awlaki case whether he likes it or not. It is a human rights campaigning organisation.

My interpretation of those words is that she’s suggesting Awlaki is such a bastard – the use of the term is clearly polemical – that defending his right not to be assassinated risks “sanitising” him, would be “divisive” and is thus unwise.

It’s not the defence of his rights that risks this; it’s the decision by a human rights campaigning organisation to champion this specific cause in manner they are. As Torquil says, this is a disagreement about strategy and not about the right of Awlaki to have his human rights protected.

For Awlaki read Begg. Again, his rights should not be diluted, but it’s a long way from there to AI touting him around Europe on a poetry readinig tour. It really is.

That’s hardly “legitimis[ing]” him.

You’ll notice that the sum total of the evidence provided for this “legitimis[ing]” of al-Awlaki by CCR, the central argument being made, is that… That one of their employees called him a “Muslim cleric”.

That’s it, by the way. No other quotes or links. Strip away the unrelated material – the statements of others on the same issue, the allusions to other cases and such – and Sahgal, Tax and Bennoune are complaining because somebody said “Muslim cleric” rather than “Jihadoterrorist swine”.

I’ve kept an eye on concern trolling attacks on HR orgs for years, and I can confirm that this is – without doubt – the most ridiculously overblown and silly of the lot. It’s a measure of the childishness of our discussions on civil liberties that this idiotic bullshit has attracted any press attention at all.

“So, it’s a lie because they wouldn’t oppose attempts to defend Awlaki’s right not to be splattered a drone”

Its a lie because they explicitly oppose extra-judicial execution tout court and this includes Awlaki and you appear to know that. They just don’t want the CCR to be co-opted by organisations that are explicitly opposed to human rights. You may disagree that that is happening or likely to happen, but that is a very different thing.

Way to miss the point… The fact that Irving enjoyed due process is irrelvant to the analogy.

This is wrong. The fact that Irving enjoyed due process is fatal to the analogy.

You’ll notice that the sum total of the evidence provided for this “legitimis[ing]” of al-Awlaki by CCR, the central argument being made, is that… That one of their employees called him a “Muslim cleric”

Is that the time already? Is it really the end of history?

Does the mean Loose Women is cancelled?

“You’ll notice that the sum total of the evidence provided for this “legitimis[ing]” of al-Awlaki by CCR, the central argument being made, is that…”

You seem to think this is a case being held in court with aall its rules of evidentiary proceedure. It isn’t, it is a difference in opinion about strategy. You clearly strongly support the CCR’s approach, Saghal and others (many of whom have long and highly respected careers in human rights activism) take a different view and they make a plausible case in the opinion of a number of others. All that is just fine. What isn’t fine is to misrepresent Saghal as saying something she doesn’t. That is mean.

“This is wrong. The fact that Irving enjoyed due process is fatal to the analogy”

No, it really isn’t unless you believe that Irving suffered no abuse of his rights (which you may but the analogy is aimed at those who think he did).

This is wrong. The fact that Irving enjoyed due process is fatal to the analogy.

There you have it. Human rights orgs and other NGOs should have nothing whasoever to do with cases tried in open court following due process. Nothing wrong can possibly happen there.

Ted, Torquil -

So, his right not be killed can be defended but the “specific strategy” – which is solely concerned with, er…defending his right not to be killed – is off-limits.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree because I can’t take the irony of being accused of misrepresentation while NGOs are accused, quite baselessly, of being “co-opted by thugs and fascists“.

Its a lie because they explicitly oppose extra-judicial execution tout court and this includes Awlaki and you appear to know that.

Indeed, and that’s just one of the splendid reasons why I didn’t claim otherwise.

Once again, the CCR is not a state’s attorney served up the Awlaki case whether he likes it or not. It is a human rights campaigning organisation.

It’s a human rights organisation that “uses litigation proactively to advance the law in a positive direction“. In other words, they’re not concerned with rhetorical advocacy – in which case they might note that Awlaki’s a theocratic git – but with legal representation.

Peace y’all.

If the complaint – which I’m still trying to grasp – is that they don’t oppose defending bastards per se then I’m quite willing to admit it was polemical; an expansion of what I saw to be the logic of their pieces. Then again, I’d have thought that would be clear to anyone reading. The term “bastards” hardly flaunts the hallmarks of, say, an academic paper or philosophical thesis.

“So, his right not be killed can be defended but the “specific strategy” – which is solely concerned with, er…defending his right not to be killed – is off-limits.”

The argument, and it is not a hugely sophisticated one so I am sure it is graspable even in the comments on a blob, is that there may be more than one way to defend his right in this instance and that the CCR has chosen the wrong one.

“I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree because I can’t take the irony of being accused of misrepresentation while NGOs are accused, quite baselessly, of being “co-opted by thugs and fascists“.”

You may think it is baseless, and reject it, but at least you seem now to acknowledge that this is the root of the argument and not, as you claimed earlier, the view that human rights should only apply to people we like. That means your earlier comments misrepresented Saghal and others.

And I think you should look up ‘irony’ it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

” the complaint – which I’m still trying to grasp – is that they don’t oppose defending bastards per se then I’m quite willing to admit it was polemical;”

Why is this so hard to grasp? Human rights are universal but that does not mean that each case should be treated with equal weight. All HR organisations understand this and pick and choose their cases.

Well credit BenSix for retracting. Sort of.

…is that there may be more than one way to defend his right in this instance and that the CCR has chosen the wrong one.

They’ve taken the only one – via the courts – that has the faintest chance of achieving a positive result. The only reason I’ve seen not to pursue that strategy is that Awlaki is a theocratic git (or, in other words, a bastard).

Human rights are universal but that does not mean that each case should be treated with equal weight. All HR organisations understand this and pick and choose their cases.

And latching onto a case where a U.S. citizen is likely to be killed in an act of extrajudicial assassination seems eminently reasonable. Claiming otherwise, because one, justly or unjustly, feels it’s subject is a wrongdoer, seems to fit the mould of what you claim to be my “misrepresentation“.

BenSix strikes me as generally fair minded but Gita Saghal seems to have become designated as a fair target for any sort of smear and I think he got drawn into that. It is very strange this demonisation of Saghal from the left since she has spent a career working energetically and effectively for human rights and especially the rights of women.

“They’ve taken the only one – via the courts – that has the faintest chance of achieving a positive result.”

That’s a view and you may be right, but you can imagine, surely, that fair minded people might disagree with you that this is the only possible court case that could have been mounted?

“The only reason I’ve seen not to pursue that strategy is that Awlaki is a theocratic git (or, in other words, a bastard).”

The reasons given are pretty clear and none of them have to do with gittishness. Awlaki, to his victims, is something more than a git.

That’s a view and you may be right, but you can imagine, surely, that fair minded people might disagree with you that this is the only possible court case that could have been mounted?

No. I mean, sorry guys, perhaps I’m dense, perhaps I’ve been driven mad by ideology, perhaps I’m tripping out on acid but I don’t see what other “possible court case[s]…could have been mounted” to oppose the prescient threat of the state instituting a policy of extrajudicial assassination. Awlaki is, at present, the only target of that policy.

The reasons given are pretty clear and none of them have to do with gittishness. Awlaki, to his victims, is something more than a git.

He appears to have incited murder and has been alleged to play a role in terrorism. That, I assume, is why the C4CR has suggested that he be tried instead of killed.

BenSix strikes me as generally fair minded but Gita Saghal seems to have become designated as a fair target for any sort of smear and I think he got drawn into that. It is very strange this demonisation of Saghal from the left since she has spent a career working energetically and effectively for human rights and especially the rights of women.

Well this is it, isn’t it? It’s not difficult to oppose Sahgal’s view on the AI-CP partnership, for example, without jumping the shark into “she’s a fully paid-up neocon!!??!?!?!?” territory, but that hasn’t stopepd some. You’d have thought that the likes of Tax and Sahgal might enjoy a slightly more sympathetic reading on a blog with the principles that LibCon purports to defend. They certainly deserve better than the misrepresentation we’ve seen here.

“No. I mean, sorry guys, perhaps I’m dense, perhaps I’ve been driven mad by ideology, perhaps I’m tripping out on acid but I don’t see what other “possible court case[s]…could have been mounted” to oppose the prescient threat of the state instituting a policy of extrajudicial assassination. ”

Well, it is possible to challenge extra judicial killing as unconstitutional, for example.

Well, it is possible to challenge extra judicial killing as unconstitutional, for example.

Can you do that without a person to ‘defend’ or intervene on behalf of, though? In other words can you defend a principle in itself in court?

“Can you do that without a person to ‘defend’ or intervene on behalf of, though? In other words can you defend a principle in itself in court?”

Yes, I think so. I am no expert, though. I believe there was a constitutional challenge against phone tapping, for example.

All incidents of judicial review that I’ve heard of stemmed from a case on behalf of a another. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, for example.

Even if I’m wrong, one couldn’t pursue such actions without heavy reference to the only citizen that has, thus far, been claimed to be a target of the state’s policy. Any way you look at it you’re going to find yourself defending Awlaki’s – and specifically Awlaki’s – right to live. (Well — not to be killed at any rate.)

A quick google shows that the CCR has some form in constutional challenges in fact:

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-files-constitutional-challenge-patriot-act

The EFF did, yes, but if I remember correctly that was a case against AT&T. Still – I ? expert.

“Even if I’m wrong, one couldn’t pursue such actions without heavy reference to the only citizen that has, thus far, been claimed to be a target of the state’s policy. ”

But everyone is agreed that even Awlaki should be defended against this policy, everyone should be. The question is whether CCR is in danger of allowing itself to be represented as ‘Al Qaeda’s defence team’ by taking the approach it has. Again, you can reasonably disagree with the interpretation of the seasoned and internationally respected human rights specialists who think this is happening but since we are all supposed to be on the same side, it would be better not to misrepresent them.

Yes, but that was a motion to support a case brought by some Tamil organisations that the laws had designated terroristic. Besides, the PATRIOT act had been signed in. As far as I know the government is merely asserting that it has the right to kill Awlaki.

Torquil,

“Can you do that without a person to ‘defend’ or intervene on behalf of, though? In other words can you defend a principle in itself in court?”

Yes, I think so. I am no expert, though. I believe there was a constitutional challenge against phone tapping, for example.

There was a challenge, but the plaintiffs (civil liberties orgs etc) had no “standing”, therefore the case was eventually dismissed.

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law. Wikipedia on standing (law)

I like the bunny. And – for once! – agree entirely with Tim W @53.

Good piece BenSix.

112

It is a bit worrying when you find yourself in the position of agreeing with him isn’t it?

I had this vision when I read his post of the RAF pilots from the Armstrong & Millar sketch show……

Again, you can reasonably disagree with the interpretation of the seasoned and internationally respected human rights specialists who think this is happening but since we are all supposed to be on the same side, it would be better not to misrepresent them.

I know very little of Ms Tax or Ms Sahgal and outside of these pieces they might be splendid folk who do tremendous work. Criticising someone doesn’t mean that I’m packing their bags, buying a ticket and waving ‘em off with a cheery cry of, “Have fun in Coventry!” On the other hand, I still think they’re a) opposing the only chance there is of obstructing the policy of extrajudicial killing (while accepting that they’re repulsed by the act itself) and b) doing so on the terms of its target’s character. That doesn’t mean I think they’re NEOCON SCUMBAGS DRINKING THE BLOOD OF INNOCENT CHILDREN AND CUTE PUPPY DOGS or whatever Ted would have one think. Heck, I don’t even care this much – if I wasn’t unemployed and faintly masochistic I’d have never endured this thread.

[115] – if the OP was entitled ‘defending the rights of people who doing their best to kill you, or kill anybody really, it hardly matters who gets hurt” do you think the responses might have been different?

Extra-judicial killings are not uncommon – I mean haven’t several suspected terrorists been killed in various parts of Iraq and Afghanistan, and indeed Pakistan without benefit of the finest western lawyers?
http://current.com/news/89556446_a-british-terror-suspect-rashid-rauf-was-killed-by-us-forces-in-pakistan.htm

In other words the principle, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ that exist in the civilian world would make conflict both time consuming and very expensive (thinking about all of the legal fees) if applied in so called war conditions.

At what point is the line crossed?

Dammit, meant [114]

“and b) doing so on the terms of its target’s character. ”

That is entirely wrong. They have expressed no interest in his character at all, what they object to are his politics which they characterise (correctly in my view) as murderous and ultra-reactionary. But even then the objection is not to defending him, but to allowing the organisation to be co-opted by organisations that are themselves extremely antithetical to human rights: Mr Awlaki is a noisy SUPPORTER of extra judicial killing.

My point is that while you may disagree with all that, your disagreement is only strategic or tactical, not pone of principle. You have to misrepresent Saghal and others to make it seem like a matter of principle.

I don’t see how arguing that it would be unconstitutional to assassinate X is remotely equivalent to being “co-opted” by X.

According to the torygraph “more than 3,500 insurgents have been “taken off the streets of Baghdad” by the elite British force in a series of audacious “Black Ops” over the past two years. The SAS had played a key part in defeating a network of car bombers in Baghdad that had brought devastation to the capital. It is understood that while the majority of the terrorists were captured, several hundred, who were mainly members of the organisation known as “al-Qa’eda in Iraq” have been killed by the SAS”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2652496/SAS-kill-hundreds-of-terrorists-in-secret-war-against-al-Qaeda-in-Iraq.html

But whatever we do we mustn’t label these deaths as extra-judicial killings even though no lawyer was ever present to protect the human rights of the terrorists not to be killed.

A&E,

In other words the principle, ‘innocent until proven guilty’ that exist in the civilian world would make conflict both time consuming and very expensive (thinking about all of the legal fees) if applied in so called war conditions. …

…. [re SAS operations in Baghdad] But whatever we do we mustn’t label these deaths as extra-judicial killings even though no lawyer was ever present to protect the human rights of the terrorists not to be killed.

Ah yes, the ever tired yet ever present conflation of the laws of war with the laws of peace-time.

Now tell the class how a man sitting in Yemen, who doesn’t present an imminent threat, who hasn’t been indicted, can be killed (along with several bystanders who may or may not be innocent, we don’t know) by a missile on the word of a bureaucrat or politician with no judicial review or accountability (this is the question you keep avoiding).

Particularly as the authorities would need a warrant to listen to his telephone calls…

“I don’t see how arguing that it would be unconstitutional to assassinate X is remotely equivalent to being “co-opted” by X.”

Perhaps not, but representing X in a case against the US government might be. Arguably.

Oh, A&E, please don’t use the obvious and tired counterpoint that the whole world has been designated a warzone; I’m sure you’re not arguing that the US has the right to blow up the house next door to yours just because al-Awalki lives there.

Torquil,

Perhaps not, but representing X in a case against the US government might be. Arguably.

There is a very clear principle that everyone is entitled to legal representation, and representing someone does not mean the lawyer has any agreement with their views or beliefs or favourite football team.

And since the US appeal courts are staffed by ex-lawyers well aware of their professions role, I doubt that an argument that representing a client accused of say treason makes the lawyer themselves treasonous will ever be considered as valid.

“And since the US appeal courts are staffed by ex-lawyers well aware of their professions role, I doubt that an argument that representing a client accused of say treason makes the lawyer themselves treasonous will ever be considered as valid.”

But CCR have a reputation outside of the courts which is crucial to their effectiveness. If their enemies can plausibly represent them as the Al Qaeda legal team (and do you think they won’t try?) this will damage them.

[120] “Ah yes, the ever tired yet ever present conflation of the laws of war with the laws of peace-time” – but we are not at peace, at least not in the mind of AAA who says “I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding for every other Muslim” – by this he meant holy war, rather than other aspects of the struggle associated with Islam.
http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7085/american-muslims-al-awlaki-jihad

A different form of conflict has emerged (as much as well might resent it) and I am curious as to why you think somebody in Jordan poses no threat – unless you only associate threat with the person who actually pulls the trigger – because if you do this exonerates the likes of Blair & Bush?

Having said that I abhor our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the threat from the likes of AAA, which is probably very real, would have been of a different order had we not followed the Americans in the first place – but given the strategic importance of oil and the tensions around Israel I do not anticipate that relationships between extremists on both sides will improve in the near future?

Torquil

In this context “character” and “opinions” would serve the same purpose. You seem to have moved from attributing this “co-option” idea to Sahgal and Tax (in comments such as 84 to merely speculating that the C4CR’s “enemies” could “plausibly” argue thus – is this an admission that the argument is desperately weak?

If their enemies can plausibly represent them as the Al Qaeda legal team (and do you think they won’t try?) this will damage them.

Why, they are trying! Low-level examples can be seen in comment boxes across teh interwebs.

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/17/how-not-to-build-a-culture-of-human-rights/

There is, however, no rationale for seeing them as “the Al Qaeda legal team” so if people draw such an interpretation it can’t be helped.

[122] “Oh, A&E, please don’t use the obvious and tired counterpoint that the whole world has been designated a warzone; I’m sure you’re not arguing that the US has the right to blow up the house next door to yours just because al-Awalki lives there”.

I do not fear the American’s blowing up next door – but I do (in a vague sort of way) fear more bombs on the tube, or some other form of attack in London.

I am ashamed to admit that when the French banned the burqa my first thought was that retaliation (in the forms of explosives) was more likely in Paris than here;
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/841510-woman-threatens-france-with-suicide-bomb-attack-after-burka-ban

A&E,

I am curious as to why you think somebody in Jordan poses no threat

That’s odd, considering I didn’t say so.

Torquil,

But CCR have a reputation outside of the courts which is crucial to their effectiveness. If their enemies can plausibly represent them as the Al Qaeda legal team (and do you think they won’t try?) this will damage them.

Why? Lawyers are open that they represent everyone – even the worst serial killers have had lawyers, often high-profile ones, for example. And there is a key point here – although CCR have enemies, do you think their slurs are going to play well with a people like the American public, who are fully aware of what lawyers do? Like most internet slurring this will be preaching to the converted. After all, the Americans have a quasi-religious relationship with their constitution, so are likely to side with the group defending it – and they are taught at school that this means siding with those you may not like (first amendment and all that).

Forgive me if I’m missing something here, but if the US authorities think they can target and assissinate one person (and one person only) then why the hell can’t they arrest and try them? It is surely not beyond the intelligence services involved to send a few of their chaps in with a swift “You’re knicked, guv”.
Once we (the errr democratic west, for want of a better phrase) start riding roughshod over the rule of law and shooting people we disagree with [without trial and without them being an immediate, existential, threat] we’re on a very slippery slope indeed. We should have more faith in our justice systems – after all we’re constantly telling theocrats and autocrats the world over they should emulate our oh-so-civilised ways, it’s hardly sending out the right message.

[129] Oh, Yemen then, how the hell am I suppose to remember which country is north and which is south of Saudi Arabia?

The justification for execution is the exactly same justification applied to all those other SUSPECTS deemed to pose a sufficient threat – this principle, whether we like it or not, seems to well established?

The semantics of what is or isn’t a war has muddied the water somewhat?

[129] Oh, Yemen then, how the hell am I suppose to remember which country is north and which is south of Saudi Arabia?

I wasn’t being picky about the country; I didn’t say there was “no” threat.

(Ooh, could this piece be edited to say “Sahgal” instead of “Saghal”. There was a CiF typo that I must have internalised.)

A&E,

I do not fear the American’s blowing up next door

If they seemed likely to, though, would you oppose it?

Because at the moment you appear to be suggesting it’s fine.

130

Surgical extractions of individuals aren’t as easy people think, whatever the Bourne Conspiracy type of movie suggests. Even with the approval of the country concerned it isn’t easy, and without it you’d need a fairly robust network to target someone and get them out (although the Israelis have managed it in the past with people like Mordechai Vanunu I seem to recall, who was picked up in Italy).

I agree with your sentiment though, which is why I was always against the whole guantanamo thing….it was always going to be a disaster, quite apart from tarring us with the same brush as the types we were supposed to be fighting against.

If their enemies can plausibly represent them as the Al Qaeda legal team this will damage them.

You do have to love the irony in people who are spreading ridiculous bullshit misrepresentations about CCR, worrying that CCR’s actions will cause unnamed people to spread ridiculous bullshit misrepresentations about them.

They don’t even sound embarrassed about it, is the amazing thing.

[134] “I do not fear the American’s blowing up next door – If they seemed likely to, though, would you oppose it, because at the moment you appear to be suggesting it’s fine”.

No, I haven’t said that [67] I think TW puts it well – but the precedent for preemptive killing IS a reality and while I am not advocating the same treatment for AAA I think those who play with fire cannot be entirely surprised if they get burnt?

But CCR have a reputation outside of the courts which is crucial to their effectiveness. If their enemies can plausibly represent them as the Al Qaeda legal team (and do you think they won’t try?) this will damage them.

Might I suggest that the correct response to know-nothing enemies of freedom is to point out why their arguments are hopelessly wrong-headed, rather than, say, investing time in advancing those arguments on their behalf?

@135

Well yeah, the Israelis did for Mordechai and the Russians did for Litvenko (sp), I assume if you are on the hitlist then it’s not exactly easy but not impossible to be bumped off/arrested. And going back to the bonuses-of-arrest-and-trial, if this chap was to be bumped off by a CIA death squad aside from any moral qualms it would definitely provide a martyr for the Islamist cause. It’s wrong on so many levels basically I’m amazed that otherwise intelligent people are discussing it as if it’s a reasonable/not-terribly-incomprehensible idea.

139

Quite so.

Hence my surprise that so many people were (and indeed are) quite happy to support detaining people in Guantanamo; if you rewind to the immediate aftermath of the war and substitute a different approach (which was hardly rocket science) of treating those detained according to the Geneva convention, and then giving those accused of particular crimes trials in an appropariate forum.