Liddy and terror; paling around with terrorists; etc. two constitutions

[curtism at bellsouth.net]

On Liddy and terrorism a useful source, judging by direct quotations from it with page cites on "blue blog," seems to be his autobiography Will.  The autobiography discusses plots to firebomb the Brookings institution, plans to kill journalist Jack Anderson, to kill Howard Hunt if ordered to do so to protect the cover up, willingness to kill if necessary during the burglary of Ellberg's psychiatrist, etc.  These plans were not carried out--though the burglaries were & the lack of a murder during one seems to have been good luck.   The book shows a remarkable willingness to embrace the techniques of terror.  I think Liddy has officially repented.  McCain's embrace of Liddy--but not of his various plots and crimes--has been far more fulsome than Obama's connection with Ayres whose 60s acts Obama  has repudiated.  Liddy has made substantial contributions to McCain according to these reports.  And Ayers has, as far as we can see, been a law abiding citizens for many years and done good works and worked with Republicans as well as Democrats on education reform.  Neither Liddy or Ayres is charged with any recent criminal or terrorist activity as far as I know.  Both of these things go back to the 60s.  Liddy has made  wild and violent statements on his radio show in the 90s apparently--where to shoot an ATF agent if he comes for your guns or something of the sort & using pictures of Hillary and Bill for target practice with his gun.   So if Obama is a pal with terrorists, where does that leave McCain?  

All of which leaves me where I began, the tenuous and baseless attribution of sympathy with terror to Obama--implicit in the pals around with terrorists (plural) charge --is subversive of the presumption of loyalty--and the idea of loyal opposition--that is basic to democracy.  I would have a similar reaction to claims that McCain pals around with terrorists.  The failure of Palin to discountenance cries of kill him, traitor, off with his head etc. during her speeches--but to go right on with no comment and no comment even after she must have later read about them in the Post's report and elsewhere is distressing and subversive of constitutional government.  When a member of the audience suggests that the opposing candidate should be killed and is a traitor we have a right to expect a response.  I don't recall cries of kill him before in presidential campaigns--now or in the past-but it is true that charges that are inconsistent with the presumption of loyal opposition have been made before.  They were disreputable then, and they are now.

Michael Kent Curtis       
-------------- Original message from "Paul Finkelman" <pfink at albanylaw.edu>: -------------- 

And that is what this is all about, I think. If you opposed American policy but personally apologized to McCain, then you are good guy; but if you did not you are a "terrorist." Whatever Ayers did nearly 40 years ago hardly makes him a terrorist today, except in the eyes of someone trapped in time who cannot get out of the place he is in. IN the same way, McCain has made Obama "the enemy" 
> --he will not look him in the eye; refers to him as "that one." 
> As for what Ifshin did, at the time his acts were considered far worse than people like the Weathermen; Ifshin was branded a traitor for his actions; McCain 
> could forgive him only because he recanted. 
> So, McCain used to hang out with a former "traitor" at least in the eyes of 
> McCain at the time; and Obama hangs out with a former "terrorist." 
> 
> Paul Finkelman 
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law 
> and Public Policy 
> Albany Law School 
> 80 New Scotland Avenue 
> Albany, New York 12208-3494 
> 
> 518-445-3386 
> pfink at albanylaw.edu 
> >>> Ilya Somin 10/12/08 7:03 PM >>> 
> This 1988 column by Bill Buckley discusses how Ifshin changed his mind over 
> time, and repented of his conduct in 1970: 
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v40/ai_6790822 
> 
> And here are some statements by McCain himself about how Ifshin apologized to 
> McCain himself for his earlier conduct: 
> 
> http://www.nysun.com/editorials/mccain-and-ifshin/32880/ 
> 
> Essentially, Ifshin became a mainstream liberal Democrat with a hawkish streak 
> on defense. Even when he was a far left student radical, he didn't resort to 
> violence or terrorism. 
> 
> For this and the reasons indicated by Eugene, I don't think Ifshin is comparable 
> to Ayers. Maybe McCain was wrong to forgive him for what he did in Hanoi. People 
> can reasonably disagree over that. But it's not the same kind of issue as 
> association with an unrepentant former terrorist. 
> 
> Ilya Somin 
> Assistant Professor of Law 
> George Mason University School of Law 
> 3301 Fairfax Dr. 
> Arlington, VA 22201 
> ph: 703-993-8069 
> fax: 703-993-8202 
> e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu 
> Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/ 
> SSRN Page: http://ssrn.com/author=333339 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. 
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
> read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
> messages to others. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20081013/a192ab85/attachment.htm