History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I'll trade you two Walter Benjamins for one Derrida. Nathanael Robinson at Rhine River calls attention to the trade in theory cards. Get yours early, before Adam Kotsko corners the market. That, by the way, is a link to AK's endorsements for president and vice president, but do not follow his advice. Votes for"John" Stewart and Belle Waring will not elect the comedian you want as president, though it would elect one of the smartest people west of Singapore as vice president. We hope AK used spell check on his graduate school applications. [AK has corrected his post. He recommends Jon Stewart and Belle Waring.]
Meanwhile, one of the smartest people east of Singapore, the Cliopatriarch of Wales, is still giggling about our"twiddle diddles." I'm thinking of bringing her up on charges of having impure and uncliopatriarchal thoughts.
Do not even consider the possibility that the Red Sox could take a 3-0 lead in the World Series and then lose it in seven. Just thinking about the histrionic thrashing and moaning over at Rebunk is more than I can bear.
More seriously, Eugene Volokh is absolutely clear-headed about free speech rights. Your free speech rights include the right to say whatever vile, disgusting, and idiotic thing you choose to say; and my free speech rights include the right to say that it is vile, disgusting, and idiotic. Free speech rights are protections from restraint by governing authority. They do not exempt you or me from criticism for what we have said.
My friend, Richard Morgan, objected to my fellow Methodists charging our denominational kinsmen, George Bush and Dick Cheney, with" crime, immorality, disobedience" to the order and discipline of the church here. I assume that he will have similar objection to Andrew Sullivan's charge of" criminal negligence" here.
Maybe you should be sending him legal advice. His e-mail address is readily available.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/26/2004
Yeah, I read the Marshall piece, and I now know why Sullivan has opted for the "murkier" fallback position. I don't think much of the "search" (which supposedly establishes there were no high quality explosives), certainly, but missing is any real evidence that the explosives were there when the US arrived. There's speculation about how satellites should have picked any transport out, etc., but no real evidence. In fact, there was evidence, from a previous visit, of explosives there -- but interestingly, Marshall has linked to a story that doesn't describe them as the high grade explosives in question, but does describe explosives ingredients. Kinda dodgy that substitution of 'explosives' for 'high grade explosives'.
Personally, I think if you're going to make a charge of criminal negligence, you have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the high grade explosives were actually there. I notice that in his latest piece, Sullivan now mentions 'negligence', tout court, rather than 'criminal negligence'. In the legal sense, negligence as a tort requires (as criminal negligence does not) an injured party. Sullivan has yet to provide one. The more he writes on the subject, from a legal sense, the worse his case gets.
Derek Charles Catsam -
10/26/2004
Ralph --
Nathanael actually does not apparently know more than you. Not to let facts get in the way, but only a fan who steps in at playoffs time would say that the Sox have a lousy defense. Yes, in the first two games of the World Series the Sox made a record eight errors. But that is an outlier and is not reflective of the defense they played after the trade deadline when they upgraded their defense substantially, especially by getting Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mientkiewicz. In the previous ten playoff games they had made two errors total. Further, the Cards' errors have hurt them in this series more than the Sox errors have hurt the Sox. The Sox defensive upgrade post-August 1st is demonstrable. Even with Ortiz having to play first the nxt three games, it is highly unlikely that the Sox D will hurt as much as the cardinals' smoke and mirrors pitching staff. This isn't the NL Central anymore. It's big boy ball now.
dc
Ralph E. Luker -
10/26/2004
So have you read Marshall?
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/26/2004
The point is that your original question to me was off-target. The point is I did read Sully before posting to here, and his reference to Marshall wasn't up -- his time stamp is ahead one hour. The point is you didn't read the time stamps. The point is further that Sully seems to feel that the evidence is a lot murkier now, and that it points predominantly in the direction of his thesis (the predominance of evidence being a standard for civil negligence, not criminal negligence -- even with the self-love for his own thesis that might make him prone to inflate the evidence in his favor, he has just undermined his case as falling short of the criminal standard). And yet he hasn't retracted his prior claim that the charge of criminal negligence is not hyperbole. That's the point.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/26/2004
What's the point, Richard? You didn't read Marshall.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/26/2004
Actually, Ralph, I did read Sullivan before reporting to you. I must now ask you to read Sullivan more closely -- perhaps then your predispositions won't shape your reading of the past. Imagine that!
If you look closely, you'll notice that Sullivan's post is time stamped "2:22:39". I'm writing this at about 1:55 pm. The best guess is that Sullivan hasn't adjusted his time stamp from another season -- how else can he have posted at 1:55pm what he labels as posted at 2:22:39 pm? Your post is from 1:30. How indeed did you access his post purportedly from 2:22:39 when you responded at 1:30? Tachyons? You will notice my post was time stamped 12:17 -- it preceeded Sullivan's.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/26/2004
If you _bothered_ to read Sully before dutifully reporting this to us, Richard, you'd see his reference to Josh Marshall's summary of the evidence. I'd say that you're letting your predispositions shape your reading of the past. Imagine that!
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/26/2004
Drudge is reporting that CBS News was repackaging (from 2003) what is apparently a phoney story on US negligence, for broadcast on the eve of the election. The NY Times, though, beat them to it. Seems it hadn't occurred to eithr the Times or CBS to ask journalists who had actually accompanied troops in to the dump at liberation. Imagine how much worse this could be if there was political bias at the Times or CBS News -- come to think of it, I can't imagine how the story would have looked any different. BTW, Andrew Sullivan, who reiterated yeaterday that the charge of "criminal negligence" is not hyperbole, still hasn't woken up and smelled the coffee.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/26/2004
NBC News is reporting that its imbedded journalists were with US troops when they first arrived during the invasion at the ammunition site (one day after liberation), and it was already empty. Imagine my surprise. Or should I say, another news media generated faux October Surprise?
Ralph E. Luker -
10/25/2004
Nathanael, You know more about than I do and I hope you are correct. If the Red Sox win the first three and lose the last four, I fully expect Kerry to win the electoral college by 1 and loose the popular vote by a million or so.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/25/2004
Right, Mary. I'd seen homolar efforts on the lesbiosphere.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/25/2004
Actually, where there is common law, there is a common law of criminal negligence. The interesting fact about criminal negligence is that mere exposure to risk, by gross omission from a standard of duty or care, established beyond a reasonable doubt, suffices. The risk itself is, in a sense, the injury that triggers the law, be it statutory or common. Of course, this raises the question of what is the standard of duty or care for a President (the VP doesn't have legal exposure, as it isn't among his duties defined by law) regarding securing of individual munitions during an invasion. Tough road, but it could be done, I guess. I wonder if there are any precedents directly on point. I doubt it. And which system of law applies? But Andrew is on to something inasmuch as the mere risk (even if unrealized) is sufficient, in a sense, which distinguishes it from ordinary negligence.
You assume correctly. It's my understanding that heterosexuals have similar experiences. BTW, I hope you caught Saturday Night Live. They did a nice sendup of Kerry spokeswoman Mary Beth Cahill, as she tried to work 'Mary Cheney' and 'lesbian' into every sentence, no matter how tangential.
Nathanael D. Robinson -
10/25/2004
Ralph,
The Red Sox have the potential to blow the World Series on their own without the Cardinals and without the "Curse." The Red Sox have great bats, but they have lousy gloves. It's that second team--the one that misjudges fly balls--that could lose the series for Boston.
On the other hand, we have another series in which the two teams are uniquely good in their own ballparks. I expect another repeat of 1987 in which the home team wins all its games. Advantage: Red Sox.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/25/2004
Volokh and I always appreciate having your corrections -- or, at least, I do.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/25/2004
I assume that last bit was not a homophobic jibe at Sully.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/25/2004
I don't think I actually objected to Methodists charging Bush and Cheney. I objected to their false representations in the charges. I objected to their selectively deriving moral claims from international law, and making them the basis for church discipline. I objected to the selectivity of applying international law based moral claims only against Bush and Cheney. And I objected to the timing. All of which makes it impossible for me to take it as a morally serious attempt to bring church members under the discipline of their church.
On another front, you don't indeed have a right to say whatever vile, disgusting and idiotic thing that comes into your head -- the strictures of slander, assault, issuing a terroristic threat, etc., still apply. Volokh was a little loose in his language. You were a little looser still.
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/25/2004
Better yet, let's not call it a charge at all (in the legal sense -- as though there were any other), since a charge of criminal negligence has to cite a provision of criminal statute law. Let's rather call it a verbal bomb, or an ejaculation.
Ralph E. Luker -
10/25/2004
Yes. And so ...
Ralph E. Luker -
10/25/2004
Let's call his charge against Bush/Cheney; not against "the US".
Richard Henry Morgan -
10/25/2004
'Negligence' is a failure to take reasonable care, resulting in a tort or injury to others. 'Criminal negligence' is negligence that entails criminal culpability -- there must be an actual statute to cite.
In other words, for the US to be guilty of 'criminal negligence', it is usually not sufficient that a potential of harm occurs (as in this case), but a real injury must occur. This is not always true. But what is always true is that the negligence be criminally defined (we're not talking about tort law anymore) by criminal statute law.
I'm not sure there is a provision in international law for criminal negligence. Nor am I sure that international law applies, since the US may be operating under a SOFA with the Iraqi government authority. What I'm rather more confident about is that Andrew doesn't have a firm grasp of the issues entailed by use of the expression 'criminal negligence' -- he doesn't cite the supposed law that makes the behaviour criminal. Let's call his use of the expression "poetic".
Sharon Howard -
10/25/2004
... most of the giggling is because it's just such a silly name for them.
