Chruchill does not say such a response is "appropriate", just that it can be expected, if we also do the same thing. He is quite clear it is wrong in both cases.

DWB: I really don't want to see him fired due to his bloodline. I think that would be underhanded because that's not really the issue and everyone would know it. I'm not sure about "firing" him at all, because I really am kind of confused internally about where a person should/would/could draw the line here. All I really know is that I want to speak out against him and I sure wish my Party would do something really good like JOIN ME LOL.

nor I.......I was just explaining the fracture of AIM.....
That would be discriminatory in any event.

Yes, he does say that it is appropriate, if not overtly than by this statement:

I.E. WE DESERVED IT:

To all appearances, the idea is now to give the tonic a little time to take effect, jolting Americans into the realization that the sort of pain they're now experiencing first-hand is no different from – or the least bit more excruciating than – that which they've been so cavalier in causing others, and thus to respond appropriately.

BECAUSE WE NEED REALITY THERAPY:

Either way, it's a kind of "reality therapy" approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally "do the right thing" on their own, without further coaxing.

THIS IS WHAT OUR "APPROPRIATE" RESPONSE SHOULD BE IN HIS EYES:

Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion – a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America's abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) – there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended.

He is obviously describing what he feels is the logic used by our enemies, but he certainly does not endorse it. He clearly states that we have, by our actions, set ground rules that are wrong, and we should not be surprised when others use those same ground rules against us. That he identifies these actions as criminal, when we do it, means they are criminal when they do it.

Once again, he Describes for you what the foreign perpetrator believe we should do, not what he thinks is the "APPROPRIATE" RESPONSE.

In both cases above, Churchill is providing you what he feels is on the minds of the attackers, not what he thinks.

You can continue to interpret his words in a way that furthers your agenda, or you can read what he says in plain english.

Apparently, it's YOUR agenda you are pushing as I am not reading anything but his own words. How can you argue that when he writes "were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion" that he is NOT saying that would be the "just" thing to do, since he refers to them all as war criminals anyway?

In his mind, it seems perfectly acceptable to hang our own in the town square to assuage the sore feelings in the Arab world. Yet, now that his goose is being cooked, and people want to harm him in some way, he is hiding behind the same protective laws that he encouraged Americans to break.

He is fine with this contradiction, but why are you?

He says this war did not start with 911, but really started with the crusades...what kind of logic follows from that...that we are now responsible for the crusades too? Sure, that's bin Laden's argument, but of course then he goes on to say that the terrorists were not religious, but just seeking justice for...WHAT...the crusades! Yes, that's true, about the only thing he says that is true. So we are supposed to be responsible for that? And hang our officials, and then they will not come here "domestically" to harm us again? No, because that's not really what THEY want, they want the territory back that they lost after the crusades. So...he's totally nuts!!! Uses circular logic and is obviously so far from reality that he needs to go spend some time in Saudi Arabia and Egypt for awhile so he can see just what doom he is trying to foist on most of the world. And believe me, whatever ills our own government may be guilty of it's NOTHING compared to what he will experience there. I even wish he would dress up like a women and try to spend some time there...boy would he be glad he lived in AMERICA with all of our warts and mistakes.

I stick by what I said, he is clearly not advocating this. It is very obvious that he is stating what he feels is the mindset of the attackers.

This Churchill guy, who claims to be a "Native American Rights" spokesperson, is actually 3/18ths Cherokee Indian - which is not enough to actually be considered Native American. He apparently does not show up on any of the tribal censuses (censi?). He claims that he was at Wounded Knee in '72, but none of the activists that WERE there saw him. In other words, he's a member of the "Wannabe" tribe. He's a fraud. His B.S. about people in the WTC being "little Eichmanns" is just plain sick, not to mention insulting to the people that died there, especially the cops and firemen.

Unfortunately, the First Amendment gives him the right to say what he wants. It doesn't guarantee that anyone will agree with him, though. Unfortunately, this is a no-win situation for the UC-Boulder administration. If they kick his sorry butt out, they'll hear cries of "political correctness". If they keep him on, they'll be accused of being "liberal elitists". Sheesh. Personally, I think they should kick him out because he's a fraud.

Haven't really found it worthwhile spending any time here recently, but just dropped in to see what, if anything, interesting might be going on - and up pops Eugeenie with her predictably didactic garbage.

Most of the people in the WTC were, in one way or another, partial beneficiaries of the U.S. actions *abroad* (not some mythical disgust at what we do *here*) which aroused 19 individuals to such wrath that they not only were willing to die to satisfy it but to dedicate significant portions of their lives to the effort leading up to that moment.

Aside from being such beneficiaries, the people in the WTC who were American citizens also shared some direct *responsibility* for the U.S.'s actions: this is a democracy, and we are responsible for the actions of those we elect - if not each and every action immediately (since our leaders do have freedom of action in the short term), then certainly the aggregate of such actions over time periods spanning multiple election cycles.

Just as the voters of the U.S. are now, after 99% of them voted for a presidential candidate who supported our recent incursion into Iraq, quite directly responsible for that illegal act and legitimate targets for any response to it which may transpire, so most (though probably not all) of the people at the WTC shared at least *some* small responsibility for the policies which resulted in their deaths. The main difference, and the main reason I feel much more sympathy for them than I would for any victims of an attack now, is that prior to 9/11 it was far easier to sustain ignorance of just how responsible one was for our predations abroad, and hence to ignore one's responsibility for changing them without really *active* effort to that end (Churchill seems to take two different positions on this within the space of two consecutive sentences, and in thus to be less than clear in his own mind about the degree to which such 'ignorance' was negligent vs. deliberate).

Did those who died on 9/11 bear any more responsibility than the average American? In many cases, probably not; in many others, as Churchill explains, quite possibly yes. Would it have been far more just for the 3000 Americans *most* directly responsible for the situation to have been targeted? Of course it would, but the hijackers did not have that luxury and just did what they could to highlight the magnitude of the problem in the most visible manner possible (given that we had refused to take any number of not-all-that-subtle hints over the course of the last few decades).

The longer we take to recognize the fundamental nature of this problem, the longer it will continue to be one. Unfortunately, we seem to be taking our cues much more from hard-line Israelis in this area than, say, from the British and what they have learned dealing with the IRA - but given the nature of the opposition it's really only a matter of how long it takes us to see the light, because they're not going to go away until we do.

Should the professor face action from his employer for his remarks? Rather clearly not if they were made outside the scope of his employment (e.g., in a speech he was invited to give somewhere rather than in the classroom); otherwise, it's a judgement call, I suppose - not that I expect it would be 'judged' in anything resembling an objective manner, given the responses so far.

I happen to remember an interesting statistic from our friends just North of the border from about August, 2002 - after feelings about 9/11 had had some reasonable time to stabilize and before invading Iraq became a real front-burner issue. Canadians were about evenly split between 15% who felt we shared no responsibility for the events of 9/11 and another 15% who felt we were mostly responsible for it - but the significant majority (about 70%) felt that we shared *some* responsibility for it, and my impression is that their opinion was somewhat more charitable toward us than most of the rest of the world's. For a while, awareness of this actually seemed finally to be surfacing here, but that was prior to the spurt of jingoism which accompanied the Iraq debacle - and the reactions here today aren't exactly encouraging.

- bill

Where have you been Billl? Haven't seen you around anywhere for sometime.

and you never disappoint withtyhe odious retchings of your own twisted psyche, Bill.

What I suggest for all the terrorist supporters such as yourself is that we instigate a national registry where you can all list your addresses. Any time a terrorist wants to off somebody they will find a willing participant who will certainly avoid any charges that they are a blathering hypocrite of the highest order by standing for the beliefs they espouse and allowing themselves to be killed in addition to their justifying the murder of others.

It is certainly a win win situation for all concerned.

Bill, Fine pile of sophistry but no deal. If the upshot of your argument is that the 19 hijackers were out to kill Americans and there happened to be collateral damage that's probably true, and it probably is true that through the eyes of Wahabeeism all this makes sense.

Everyone loves to see the giant reel this is also true. It explains the word "envy", and little else. What you're really saying is that we must provide for the world's population or we can expect to get creamed. That is analogous to saying that if I have a house, and others do not, they are justified in burning my house down. This way no one has a house Bill.

If they were so concerned with power hungry madmen they should have targeted those in their own backyard...because there is no place in Africa or the Middle East in short supply of them. Many more have died, or been forced to live in squalor because their despots stole the few riches they had, than any American ever did. I can guarantee you that if you landed in Wazeristan today, their primary beef is not with the US, but with the tribe a few mountains over that they have been waring with the hard way for centuries. Your argument suggests there is some collective A number one fault that falls at our feet, but it fails to capture the minds of all of those who persist in battling each other in heinous fashion, ever SINCE the crusades.

You also neglect to say how hard the UN organizations, the peace corp, the World Bank and every humanitarian organization under the sun have put into development in that part of the world, only to have their work go unappreciated and/or be squashed by the rulers of these countries who prefer to keep peasants who are too concerned about their daily food than they are about overthrowing their govenrments.

But where you're really failing to see reality is you are making the assumption that if only we.......fill in the blank, they would not hate us, they would forgive and forget and all would be well. This means you obviously not know the enemy, and yes Bill, they are our enemies. They do not seek to be left in peace like the IRA, or like the Basques who want their own country. The don't want Saudi Arabia pure. They want all territory that any muslim has ever spilled blood to conqueor. This is in every bin Laden transcript...I might suggest you read their demands before you justify their cause. I do not think you want to give them what they desire, and if you do then please join them because I can't think of a worse fate than to live under the Caliphate they want to create...and it's simply will to power in the name of religion. They want to bring down the US because we offend them. They are reacting to modernity, as if one could not be a good Muslim and view the face of a women on their television. In short, they want to take the world back to the stone ages, where tribes rule with an iron fist. Take a look at what they do when they gain power and you will see what they would like to do to us. This is not a "nationalist" struggle...this is a war of two competing idealogies, one that chooses to grant freedoms to be who you want to be, and one that wishes to impose a harsh form of Islamic order and all dissenters will be shot.

Those hints you think we should have taken? Yeah...throwing a man in a wheelchair off of the Achille Lauro, that's a hint as to what they value and what they have in store for all of us. Blowing up ancient Bhuddist Stone carvings...yeah that would be all your churches and Mother Theresa herself. Enslaving Sudanese young women as young as 9 (which is the age of female maturity to them) and forcing them to leave their tribe and bear Arab children by whomever happens to want to have sex with them as they are concubines. This is not a cry for freedom from oppression Bill...this is a cry for conquest, a cry for convert or die, this is a crusade and this time it's a radical muslim crusade NOT OUR DOING this time.

It's so easy to leave out the one billion people that these same people have managed to kill over the last century...mostly in their own wars among various factions. You can't blame the US for everything and I'm sure that upsets you all to know end...but be that as it may. I am clear that the enemy has committed an act of war against us, and I am also clear that letting them win means condemning every thing good in the world to utter and complete brutality. I am an American. They attacked my country. They are the enemy, not the people in the world trade center, and not the people who do not like centralized command economies where prices are controlled, innovation is nil, and the religious police wander around to make sure no one owns a bible, or reads a forbidden western book, and no women are allowed to laugh or uncover their face. That's what they want for you us Bill and it's not very "progressive" of you to fail to see this as a repugnant outcome for the sins of the US what ever they might be, nor the people the enemy wishes to control, should be subjected to their malicious brand of Islam because of our cowardice and fear that they might strike us again.

Your argument always leads back to full blame, just like the Nazi arguement that if it wasnt' for the treaty of Versailles they would not have been forced to ravage the entirety of Europe until the (gasp) United States Military joined the fight to eradicate a theology/ideology of hate that scourged the earth of so many countries that were not prepared to defend themselves. We saved the world from their ilk and we will save the earth from this same brand of fascism that in point of fact is an unbroken chain from the Nazi Party.

You may say DLC delede est. Which shows exactly how the Democrats endlessly seek to eat their own...but I say delede est Wahabism because I will not go quietly into my hijab and I'm have no illusions or angst about the wonderful things my country does...since I do not spend so much time listening to the pedantics of Ivory Tower professors who really ought to be sent to live in the places they defend!

The little time I've been devoting to political discourse hasn't been being wasted on people of the calibre one finds too often here: it's become quite clear that they're not reachable via rational means, and the only hope is that over time something else may find a way through their carapaces.

I am at least slightly encouraged to see Howard prevailing over the establishment recently, especially given the dedication said establishment had been demonstrating to returning to business as usual. A nation 99% of whose voters supported a pro-Iraq-War presidential candidate has a very long way to go before I'll have any real hope for it, but Howard is one of the few people I feel has any chance at all of actually making a difference.

- bill

Dean is not saying the same things you are Bill...and if this is representative of his base, then it's no wonder that all of the Deaniacs who got on buses and went to Iowa must have turned off a lot of Iowa voters. This might explain why he lost Iowa more than anything else. I also do not think that Dean is a Left as you think. I most certainly do not think his slogan would be "the DLC must be destroyed" hidden in a latin phrase so no one would ask you to edit your signature since this is not supposed to be a place where Democrats attack other Democrats by allusions to the Roman expression "Carthage must be destroyed".

Edie,

This is a thoroughly confusing situation...there are so many elements involved in this man's history.... while I do defend a person's rights according to the first amendment...some of his statements seem to be contradictory and wildly inflammatory.....then again I can at least agree with him that our government has promoted more than one ill-conceived foreign policy action in the world.....

But, I feel that Mr. Churchill may be his own worst enemy....he has incurred the wrath of 911 victims for his coarse statements and the American Indian Movement repudiates his claim that he is Native American.....he has stepped down from his position and no doubt he may have been asked to do so....and most importantly he has been subjected to public ridicule and scorn. I think that could be enough to give one pause, and question one's motivation...

I guess I am looking at this from a broader perspective. I worry about the chilling effect this may have on other professors in our universities. Will they feel that writing or lecturing in a manner that is critical of the Bush administration is now verboten? If so, what effect will that have on our country as a whole? Will it give license to those who want to do away with tenure for professors at UC and other universities in the US? I believe that would be terrible.

Yes, Churchill has said things that are odious, or at a minimum, were poorly phrased. Though the essay in question made some valid points about the effects of our foreign policy in the Middle East over the last decade plus, we can probably all agree that Churchill's "little Eichmann" comment was over the top and extremely hurtful.

But I do think we have to look at this in a broader context. What UC does about this professor may have ripples far beyond this controversy.

quite understandable to have that concern Edie! Especially in light of the Patriot Act and the climate we now live in!!

Churchill's "little Eichmann" remark was inflammatory and over the top. For the families of those who parished on 9/11, his remark was insensitive and cruel. It was a classic example of blaming the victim. He could have made his point about "collateral damage" and a deepening spiral of violence that it causes in a thousand more convincing ways.

What caught my eye in the quote above was the very wise idea, "know the enemy." But what follows in the quote is as inflammatory and demonizing as what Churchill wrote about the people working in the offices of the WTC on 9/11. While I agree that bin Laden and others involved in the planning of 9/11 are much more deserving of this language, I don't think this sort of language will help us win the peace.

There are very legitimate issues of social justice and human rights that Arab Muslims have with American foreign policy. If we continue to demonize bin Laden and Al Qaeda w/o addressing these issues, we are in for a very long slog.

slog? According to Rumsfeld that means " a quick, hard blow".

I agree with the point, just had to comment on the mentality of our decisionmakers.

A quick, hard couple of decades. What was the new estimate that came out today as to the size of the insurgency in Iraq? How many munitions dumps were left unguarded and then looted. How many unemployed young men are there now in Iraq? How many American troops can speak Arabic fluently enough to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians. Iraqis who speak English are doing a better explaining their point of view to Americans. An insurgency doesn't win battles, it just wears down the resolve of its enemy.

Churchill was shown on the news. He gave his speech yesterday, and from what I saw of it, he is a hero.
One we need to fight for, and to not let them silence him.

This is the type of person that led us in the Vietnam era protests

If we keep letting them silence us, we lose.

Here is someone who is speaking up. Some of you on this thread have asked others to speak up more, well, this Professor is doing it.

The republicans pick a word out of place and slant the whole meaning.
Then the message and messanger get lost.

Prof. Churchill has a constitutional right to speak. Let him.

He is the WORST POSSIBLE SPOKESMAN for the message we want to spread! IE..BushCo's CORRUPTION!

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this guy is a GOP PLANT!

I have not heard him say one word that wasn't true.
We are the cause of problems in the world. If we would stay out, they would not hate us.

If they don't hate us, then it was an inside job.

Either way, he is correct

I'm surprised at you Graham! You usually have more political sense than this!

keep siding with nuts like this and we will continue to lose! Lets see - he hates America, thinks Al Qaeda is justified in murdering us, thinks there was no structure in place in the 30s to kill Jews in Europe, suggests we need more 9/11s, thinks anyone who works for a coproration is a Nazi, thinks Amercia is responsible for all the evil in the world and we deserve what we get, think Isreal is responsible for all the death in the Middle east...

He should have a nice big cup of "shut the hell up", - he is helping NO ONE, especially liberals, Dems, etc. He is NO hero - he is a misguided fool.

This guy has nothing on Donald Pipes, but I don't remember anyone objecting to his fond recollection fo Japanese internment camps to bolster his argument we need to target Muslims in all sorts of ways just short of internment. Its a text book example of fear-mongering on the most idiotic level.

First he relates the story of a Mr Kahn, who was unjustly arrested and treated poorly, then goes on to make excuses for do more of it....


Not to worry they will even like it...


Im sure that Mr Pipes suggested we step up surveillance of Jewish Americans and infiltrate their organizations, back when the JDL was blowing up buildings and killing people. Maybe he also wrote how we need to keep an eye on Irish Catholics back when a few of them suppported the IRA. Come to think of it, since we have a war on drugs, we should keep special tabs on anyone with a spanish accent. If anyone can find these articles which Mr Pipes, paragon of morality that he is, surely wrote, please share.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2309
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1009

Did this government not slaughter the Native Americans as well to take their land? Did this government not take part in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people since that time all the way through Central America, Vietnam, East Timor, Haiti, and other places around the globe? Are they not still doing it, while we rant and rave our outrage, but yet with it still going on?

The point of Professor Churchill's words whether you find them shocking or not, is that in essence he is right. All of us everyday, get up, go to our modems, rant and rave on lists, blogs, message boards, and the like, and then what? We go back to sleep with the same slaughter taking place all over the globe, just so we can get up and do it all over again the next day. When you look at it in that context, does it not make us look complacent and complicit in the crimes perpetrated by govt leaders in this country and even elsewhere? Should not people who love their country do more than just rant and rave about such atrocities?

Look at 9.11. We have now received a typical whitewashed report from a government appointed commisssion, that was put in book form and sold to the masses to brainwash them into thinking no one is truly culpable. No one in the higher eschelons of this government has taken responsibility, nor has accountability been pushed upon him/her. Matter of fact, we the people now condone Condoleezza Rice being Secretary of State! It is OUR fault that this has happened. No one was fired. No action was taken. Bush was not questioned properly, and the soft questions asked him were not done under oath. And now, the people forget, move on, and this crime against the American people is only used to justify another war of empire, and the beat goes on. Churchill is simply saying ( or so I believe) that Americans have been insulated against the pain of feeling what it is like to see your own policies come back to haunt you. He isn't wrong about that, and the reralization of that, angers me towards those in this govt. who have perpetrated these policies and put us in harms way, not against the man who has the guts to tell us the truth. Do I agree with everything he has said? Not in wording, no, but in substance, yes.

You may not like what this man has to say, and that is your right. He may, yes, be very angry in his words, and he may harbor hatred for the way this government is run. He may also be arrogant, but those attributes should not be the focal point of this discussion, ( and just for your emlightenment, people on the right are calling for him to be put on trial for treason, because they want him dead) because that is exactly what has prevented the American people from seeing the truth about their own govt, and themselves. There are two different perceptions in my mind regarding his comments: One group will see it as treason ( and I believe simply out of fear or political expediency), because they believe he wants us to be attacked. I don't believe that at this point (and I can post his reply explaining how his words in his 9.11 essay were deliberately taken out of context by the media), but then what do I know? Second, the other group will simply see this as his way of jarring people out of their stupor to get them to realize just how far the policies of genocide and geo-political hegemony upon other people in this world have come back to haunt us, and that we better do something quick to change it. Making us outraged and angry seems to be the only way to do that, BTW.

However, whatever side you fall on regarding him, it doesn't change the facts as they are seen. We were attacked, and I do believe the primary reason for that was because those who did it wanted to hurt the people who they believe have hurt them...Those in the government of this country. They (meaning the attackers) are not right, they should not be exonerated ( which is why I wonder why the Right is so outraged at Churchill, and not at Bush for letting Bin Laden go free), and it was a heinous act against all of our people that I am outraged has not been given justice. But is that not how those in Iraq who want us out of their occupied country now feel? Does it not even go back to the Patriots who fought the American Revolution? Humans experience the same feelings no matter what continent they live on, or what century they live in, and if you push them, sooner or later they will push back. It is human nature, and I believe that is exactly what Ward Churchill is telling us.

Once we are willing to admit that by our actions or inactions we too have perpetrated what is happening in this world, will we be able to face it head on, challenge it, and win. There is no other way, and Professor Churchill though he may harbor a hatred in his heart which is yes, no different in context than a right wing hate, at least focuses his feelings on trying to tell the American people that unless we do wake up to the Great Deception that is upon us, this will never end, and we then ARE complicit in the crimes against humanity. A tough pill to swallow no doubt, but one we need to take to save us. And of course, the crux of this is, he has just as much right to say this, as Jerry Falwell has to tell us that we deserved 9.11 because we are Godless gaylovers. The targeting of him just to make him a scapegoat for the Right who hates their fellow Americans is wrong and against all we believe in as Americans. It is much bigger than Ward Churchill, for it concerns all of us and our rights as well. Perhaps we should be looking at it from that angle in order to see that we need to nip this in the bud, or we will be next.

There is a reason why their a Academic Freedom. If PNAC-lite people continue drink the neo-con kool-aid, we as a country will be going backwards even to a time a McCarthism. If that is what people want, then fine, but people better watch their backs just like they did back them. I, personally, do not perfer questioning my friends or foes undering if I was turned in because I said something of offend them. We would be walking on egg shells every day.

History of Academic Freedom

Free speech on has been a hot topic for a number of years. Remember the political correctness (PC) debate? In fact, (F.I.R.E.) Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the organization defending Kenneth Hearlson, was praised by William F. Buckley, Jr. for combating PC tendencies on campus. In the NATIONAL REVIEW Buckley praised F.I.R.E. for fighting the "Orwellian (a necessary word here) appetite in many colleges to instill an altogether unnatural race consciousness to encourage guilt." (NATIONAL REVIEW, April 10, 2001)
In a climate where political dissent is viewed at unpatriotic, it is good to take a brief look back at the history of academic free speech, in law and practice, in the United States.

Noted historian Richard Hofstadter traced tradition of academic freedom in America all the way back to colonial days, and the founding of colleges by religious dissenters (ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN THE AGE OF THE COLLEGE). However, it was a case at the University of Wisconsin in 1894 which really solidified the concept. Richard T. Ely, a proponent of the Social Gospel movement, was accused of "teaching socialist ideas, promoting unions, fomenting boycotts" and dismissed from his position. He was later vindicated when the University stated: "Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone truth can be found." Ely's ordeal led to the founding of the American Association of University Professors and its statement of academic principles.



Soon after the American Association of University Professors issued its first statements in 1915 the Supreme Court began to acknowledge, though not codify, the rights of academics to freedom of speech. But eventually the Court did see fit to award the concept protection on Constitutional grounds. A selection of Supreme Court cases bearing on academic freedom follows:



Neither Supreme Court rulings nor official statements by professional groups have had the final word on academic freedom. Some notable academic freedom controversies are listed below. No doubt those following September 11 will be studied and adjudicated in the future.