The Liddy analogy

Tue Oct 14 09:21:27 PDT 2008

    Well, if the argument is that somehow Ayers isn't a terrorist any
more because his bombings (not just plans for possible bombings, or
acceptance of the use of bombings, or seeming eagerness for bombings)
were in the past, and now he doesn't bomb any more (though, as I said,
it seems that he has never repented for those bombings), I'm
unpersuaded.  Killers are killers even if they killed some decades ago;
rapists are rapists even if they raped some decades ago; terrorist
bombers are terrorist bombers even if they bombed some decades ago.  (Of
course I would say the same about the anti-abortion terrorist in the
hypothetical, which strikes me as quite a strong analogy, despite the
conclusory claims to the contrary.)  That strikes me as an eminently
fair use of the term of "terrorist."
 
    Likewise, as I said, for the other examples.  I'm pretty sure that
if Obama put out an ad condemning McCain for palling around with a
bootlegger, or palling around with someone who had planned bombings that
never happened, or -- in the hypothetical -- palling around with someone
who had engaged in terrorist bombings of abortion clinics, most people
on the list wouldn't claim that this is some sort of misconduct of
constitutional proportions, or even much misconduct at all.  Michael
might well object for the reasons he mentioned.  I suppose some people
might fault this for being a distraction.  But I doubt that virtually
anyone, except perhaps Michael, would condemn this as some sort of
radical transgression of normal political norms, or a violation of our
unwritten constitution, or anything like that.  (I certainly wouldn't.)
So that's why I'm quite unpersuaded by the condemnations of the McCain
campaign's statements about Obama.
 
    Eugene


________________________________

	From: Curtis, Michael K. [mailto:curtismk at wfu.edu] 
	Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:14 AM
	To: Volokh, Eugene; CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: RE: The Liddy analogy
	
	
	It would be guilt by association which is dangerous, but the
analogy is flawed.   Liddy accepted the use of unlawful violence for
domestic political purposes and was ready and seemingly eager to bomb
bldgs, kill, etc.  Is this not the definition of a terrorist?  So would
palling around with terrorists be fair to McCain because of his
substantial association with this guy who embraced terror tactics in the
1960s-no.  The comparable for Eugene's analogy would be to charge Obama
with palling around with someone who in the 60s accepted & used violence
for anti war political purposes.  But that is not what was said.  Not at
all.  

	 
	Michael Kent Curtis

	 
________________________________


	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
	Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:59 PM
	To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: The Liddy analogy

	 
	    I'm not sure, but if he didn't, wouldn't an ad complaining
about "McCain's palling around with Watergate conspirators" be perfectly
fair?

	 
	    Eugene

	 
	Sandy Levinson writes:

	 
	Has Liddy ever shown the slightest remorse for attempting to
subvert the Constitution and aiding and abetting a would-be dictatorial
President?

	 
	sandy

	 
________________________________


	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Volokh,
Eugene
	Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 4:10 PM
	To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
	Subject: RE: RE: Liddy and terror; paling around with
terrorists;etc. two constitutions

	    Certainly if Liddy was actually widely known to have been
involved in bombings, that would have made him quite tantamount to
Ayers, and if he hadn't repented, then association with him should be
condemned.  That he planned such things, and did repent, and I take it
that his plans were not as widely known as Ayers' activity, makes
matters rather different.

	 
	    As to the Ayers-Obama link, it doesn't show "sympathy with
terror."  But it does show a willingness to ignore a person's unrepented
terrorist past in deciding to have one's debut fundraiser at his home.
That strikes me as quite rightly condemned.

	 
	    Eugene

		 
________________________________


		From: curtism at bellsouth.net
[mailto:curtism at bellsouth.net] 
		Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 6:41 PM
		To: Paul Finkelman; isomin at gmu.edu; Volokh, Eugene
		Cc: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
		Subject: Re: RE: Liddy and terror; paling around with
terrorists; etc. two constitutions

		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/20081014/84aeea12/attachment.htm